FCC questions how to enforce net neutrality rules (another one)

[theironsheik]

The shill is strong with this one.

Nice ad hominem. Did net neutrality bang your sister and not call her back or something?

[Kinraka]

Im wishing they had some requirements as to broadband standards in New Zealand currently paying $90 NZ ($60 US) for 40GB best thing is the speeds 60-120kbs but manage up to 320kbs after 10:30 PM

[Sunako]

  I don't see how any one can take this article seriously. The comments below

are better then the writing that this so called correspondent showed us. Its as if

he had copied and pasted the quotes from others sources. As if the quotes were

his own over and over like a 4th grader having to write his first paper.

 

  And on the topic of raising  broadband it is already above what the OP

says its just not that broadband is a requirements to be available to all.

ISP's are still allowed to over lower tiered services then broadband. The only

increase that would happen from the OP comment would be on the upload

side.

[Bensemus]

Nobody ever talks about the downside of net neutrality. Reclassifying broadband carriers would require massive regulatory oversight and governmental approvals for any upgrades to be done whatsoever. Why would we want the internet to even more closely resemble US telephone companies before deregulation?

 

Also, different people need information at different speeds. Stock traders need information delivered much sooner than my grandma does her email, so why shouldn't etrade or similar be able to pay ISPs to prioritize their bits over hotmails? Bandwith is, in fact, a scarce resource and needs to be rationed somehow. I think price is more efficient than a bureaucrat arbitrarily deciding what should have priority.

Price as in competition I'm assuming? That would work if not for the fact that the big ISPs give each other monopolies. They have turf and they don't operate competitively or at all in each others turf. And to make it even better they use their money to keep municipalities and startups down. The FCC has done quite a bit in that area, helping out small guys so there might actually be some competition.

[Bensemus]

Also not sure how the FCC could force companies to upgrade to gigabit. The regulatory framework doesn't work like that. In similar regulations we already have (power lines, for example) the government can't force an upgrade if the company can show it doesn't make economic sense to do so. My guess is that gigabit does not make economic sense outside of big cities. And, surprise, google et al are moving in to build out gigabit network in big cities. Funny how capitalism works, sometimes.

They aren't going to force them to upgrade they are going to expose their excuses for what they are and help the little ISPs and municipalities build up their networks. Competition will do the rest. When ever Google fiber goes in people get free upgrades so the ISPs can stay competitive. The ISPs even receive tax breaks and charge customers fees to cover their non existent upgrades. They were given Billions around 2000 or maybe a bit earlier to upgrade people. The money just vanished. 

[escape093]

Oh and raise the minimum broadband speed to 16 Mb/s (download) & 8 Mb/s (Upload)

 

*Starts thinking about how crappy my 6 Mb/s down and 0.1Mb/s up truly is.*

 

Fuck you, Sky Broadband!! 

[Admire]

You can't do government in a country that refuses to do government.

[RH00D]

Perhaps he was also picked by the cable companies, decides to "gut" NN rules, then Wheeler (the head of the FCC, also a former lobbyist) . . . . . . .

 

The media calling Tom Wheeler a former lobbyist is incredibly misleading and disingenuous. This quote below sums up his history pretty well.

 

"You've been mislead by shoddy reporting. You no doubt are under the impression that he came from the telecom industry straight to the FCC, and will have to go back because he has no where else to go. That's no surprise, because almost every tech publication always describes him as "former telecom lobbyist Tom Wheeler".

Here are some facts.

(1) His stint as a cable lobbyist was 30 years ago. Note that this was at a time when there was no public internet. The cable industry was solely about television, and they were the consumer friendly underdogs trying to fight the power of the big broadcast networks.

(2) He wasn't actually a cable lobbyist. He was President of the main cable trade association. Yes, they did do some lobbying, but they also did things like develop technical standards. Just saying he was a cable lobbyist is kind of like just calling the President of the AMA a "medical lobbyist" or the President of the ABA a "lawyer lobbyist".

(3) Similar for his stint as a wireless lobbyist. It was actually a stint as President of the main wireless industry group, which although they do lobby, they also have a major role in setting standards. That ended 10 years ago.

(4) He's also founded or headed several companies in the telecom field. Some on the service provider side, some on the content provider side. Everyone focuses on the ones that were involved on the provider side, and assume that means he's somehow biased toward ISPs. Yet he's also been on the content provider side, having to deal with ISPs, so you can make an equally good argument he's biased toward companies like Netflix.

(5) He's also been involved in many ventures that have nothing to do with telecom. He's the founder and President of an aerospace component repair firm. He's been involved at the executive level or director level with several investment banks.

(6) He's also spend a lot of time on things not connected to business. He was on the board of PBS. He's on the board of trustees of the Kennedy Center. He's written couple of history books about the civil war, one about technology and the impact of the telegraph on the war, and one about management lessons of Abraham Lincoln.

(7) There is no reason whatsoever to believe that he has any desire to go back to the telecom industry. It's not like he left on bad terms and so needed to go to the FCC and impress them to open doors. In fact, he left on excellent terms--he's in both the cable and wireless hall of fames. He could have gotten a cushy, high paying, low work job with any top telecom company at any time just by asking. Instead, he's spent his time on those other things (banking, aerospace, non-profits).

(8) Nearly everything he's done as FCC chairman has annoyed the cable and the wireless industries. Yes, some net neutrality advocates did not like his first proposed rule to restore net neutrality, but the cable and wireless industries liked it even less. The man is not an idiot--if he were trying to use the FCC position as some kind of launchpad for reentry to the telecom industry, I think he'd be smart enough to propose things they like instead of things they hate."

 

Nobody ever talks about the downside of net neutrality. Reclassifying broadband carriers would require massive regulatory oversight and governmental approvals for any upgrades to be done whatsoever. Why would we want the internet to even more closely resemble US telephone companies before deregulation?

 

Also, different people need information at different speeds. Stock traders need information delivered much sooner than my grandma does her email, so why shouldn't etrade or similar be able to pay ISPs to prioritize their bits over hotmails? Bandwith is, in fact, a scarce resource and needs to be rationed somehow. I think price is more efficient than a bureaucrat arbitrarily deciding what should have priority.

 

 

The wireless industry received over $400 Billion of infrastructure investment under NN rules that were even more strict than what the FCC passed a few months back.

 

"A Case Study: Investment in the Wireless Industry

For 21 years the wireless industry has been governed by Title II-based rules that forbear from traditional phone company regulation. The wireless industry has invested over $400 billion under similar rules, proving that modernized Title II regulation can support investment and competition. Fewer provisions will apply to ISPs than were applied to wireless carriers. When Title II was first applied to mobile, voice was the predominant mobile service. During the period between 1993 and 2009, carriers invested heavily, including more than $270 billion in building out their wireless networks, an increase of nearly 2,000%."

 

Also, bandwidth doesn't determine how fast something gets somewhere, ping does. Bandwidth is capacity. I'm also assuming your grandma doesn't have thousands of emails going in and out every second of the day? It is not a problem on the Internet anyway, we are not talking emergency vehicles that are on physical roads in traffic. We are talking bits of information traveling literally at the speed of light.

 

Bandwidth is only as scarce as we allow it to be. If your 2-lane highway can't handle the number of cars traveling on it, you add more lanes.