The FCC Finally Takes Off Their Rose-Colored Broadband Glasses

said by Karl :

In the more nuanced light of the real world, regulation is neither wholly evil or wholly good. There is a balance to be struck between sound regulation and "free market" capitalism.

said by S_engineer:

The debate will be useless if people like Levin are already dismissing suggestions because they are "sloppy" in nature. I think the FCC should give a criteria for the suggestions, some sort of a RFP. This way the commisioners won't be so quick to throw away the "good" suggestions that were submitted with what they consider "bad". Unless they start taking baby steps into issues that they could be addressing now, this all just appears to be lip service!

said by Matt:

I 100% agree. We need to strike a balance to ensure reasonable profits for private enterprise, but a balance that also ensures we are the worldwide technology leader.

said by fAcEtIOUs:

Why do we have to be the worldwide technology leader? There are advantages to being just behind the leaders. The development and research costs are borne by others and the initial problems of rolling out new technology are identified and already corrected by others. It then becomes more economically efficient to trail a little behind. You don't want to be at the tail end, but being 1st isn't always beneficial.

said by jaminus:

But the American people at large do not share the same obsession with fast broadband that we DSLR contributors do..

said by S_engineer:

And as more government (federal, state, county, muni) departments push towards online services, then theres no choice but to use the web.

said by jimbo48:

yeah one can use a library, if you have one open in your town and that library has Internet that is working and not shut down because there is no money in the till to pay for it or repair/maintain it. You might even be lucky and the library is open for 4 hours while you're at work and surely they aren't going to be open on a Saturday or Sunday or in the evening. No its not always posssible to "use a library"

said by patcat88:

Then take a sick day or drive 30 miles.

said by jaminus:

The problem with trying to become the "world technology leader" in broadband via government spending is that doing so necessarily redirect resources from other more productive uses of those resources.

Take Japan. They've got much, much better broadband than we do here. There's no denying it.

Yet are they more prosperous than us Americans? No they are not. Look at any meaningful metric of wealth creation and you'll see the U.S. is markedly ahead of Japan. For example, Americans enjoy on average over 50 % higher personal disposable income than the Japanese.

Now, I love my fat (broadband) pipe and I don't know how I'd live without it. But the American people at large do not share the same obsession with fast broadband that we DSLR contributors do. The sooner policymakers understand the disconnect between the broadband fetishism of the techno-evangelists at Free Press and the actual desires of the average American consumer, the better.

Times are tough, and lots of people are struggling. Broadband is great, but it's not the only thing that we need to spend our money on here in the United States. Health care, education, entertainment, recreation, and just plain old luxuries of life are all important, too. No regulatory agency knows the best mix of spending. Only through decentralized decisionmaking--spontaneous market order--can we allocate resources in a way that matches what people actually want.

This is why very few actual trained economists who aren't on industry payrolls want the FCC to get actively involved in the broadband market. It's bad public policy designed to score political points, but it's ultimately the opposite of what's best for the American economy.

said by sonicmerlin:

So are you implying *throwing away* billions of dollars into the coffers of the incumbents is a good idea?

said by wifi4milez:

The government isnt giving billions of dollars to the incumbents now, so thats a moot point.

said by Matt:

They aren't? Did you forget about the $600 million tax write-off they approved for a single company? »Verizon Sells ME, NH, VT Networks

said by Matt:

The reversal of the Telco Act of 1996 was a damn good start. You get an awfully large slice of pie when there isn't anyone you have to share it with.

said by wifi4milez:

The government allows tax write offs for many companies for many things. You are positioning that like its a unique situation.

said by wentlanc:

They received those write-offs in EXCHANGE for them to build out to certain areas. You are positioning that like it is just a normal write-off, and not structured as an incentive for the telco to build out service.

cw

said by wentlanc:

They received those write-offs in EXCHANGE for them to build out to certain areas. You are positioning that like it is just a normal write-off, and not structured as an incentive for the telco to build out service.

cw

said by fAcEtIOUs:

Verizon merely took advantage of EXISTING tax code to get that writeoff.

said by wifi4milez:

The problem with that argument is that the pie belonged to the telcos to begin with, they should never been forced to share it. You might want to note that one of the conditions Verizon had for FIOS was that the government couldnt come in and make them share it. The government agreed, and now millions of people have FTTH. Funny how that worked out isnt it!

said by wifi4milez:

said by Matt:
The problem with that argument is that the pie belonged to the telcos to begin with, they should never been forced to share it. You might want to note that one of the conditions Verizon had for FIOS was that the government couldnt come in and make them share it. The government agreed, and now millions of people have FTTH. Funny how that worked out isnt it!

said by elray:

And it should be noted, that given the *choice*, Verizon shares its FIOS with competitors.

said by fAcEtIOUs:

Why do we have to be the worldwide technology leader? There are advantages to being just behind the leaders. The development and research costs are borne by others and the initial problems of rolling out new technology are identified and already corrected by others. It then becomes more economically efficient to trail a little behind. You don't want to be at the tail end, but being 1st isn't always beneficial.

said by Rally:

»www.newamerica.net/publications/···_pricing

look at that link, you tell me being near the top or being in the middle is no big deal?

said by fAcEtIOUs:

Japan subsidizes the ISPs & the US taxes them. Much of the difference is right there.

said by jvanbrecht:

The problem, is that from a technological standpoint, we are just way behind on deployment. Most of the equipment, while probably made in China, is based out of US companies.

Broadband data aside, and yes I know its garbage. But one of the major impedements to large scale deployment, is that the US is spaced out significantly more then many of those much smaller countries like Japan and SK, that have better broadband penetration. They are far more dense, and deployment while not necessarily easy or cheap, has a much greater return, where as wiring 300 miles of cable for 5 households (large farm areas), is just not cost effective. That is of course why we pay some of the taxes on our phone and broadband bills, to help offset those costs, and of course that money somehow ends up in someones pocket and is abused and wasted.

Why do we have to be the worldwide technology leader?

said by Desdinova:

"It is better to be like China and steal the developments and then refuse to pay patent fees. So the US has been suckers for the world in this area. I say turn the tables and let them develop it. Then we can steal their technology at extra low cost."

Whoa whoa WHOA!! Did that comment REALLY come from the guy who's always decrying piracy and applauding the efforts of those who try and defend the profits from their IP law-protected revenue streams!!!? Or is this Opposite Day?

said by fAcEtIOUs:

Why do we have to be the worldwide technology leader? There are advantages to being just behind the leaders. The development and research costs are borne by others and the initial problems of rolling out new technology are identified and already corrected by others. It then becomes more economically efficient to trail a little behind. You don't want to be at the tail end, but being 1st isn't always beneficial.

If most of the world actually honored intellectual property laws and international agreements, there are some financial benefits by being the prime developer and by being 1st. But that is rarely the case. It is better to be like China and steal the developments and then refuse to pay patent fees. So the US has been suckers for the world in this area. I say turn the tables and let them develop it. Then we can steal their technology at extra low cost.

said by tschmidt:

I did a double take on the chart showing coverage. Not only do all ZIP codes have broadband, almost all have healthy dose of competition.