how-to block ads
|
|
Uniqs:
148 |
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
| Read the damn report, Karl In the Summary on page 3, D & T says: "Opponents, however, argue that their business models are undermined by bandwidth-hungry applications particularly those with
significant video content. Future growth will likely require considerable investment in new infrastructure. But infrastructure owners may believe that they are able to recover too little of the cost to justify investment."
What do you think that means, if not exactly what Kerpen says it means? Net neutrality is an attack on the business model the telcos intend to use to pay for new infrastructure; if it becomes law, telcos fear they won't be able to recover their investments, so they're going slow as long as this issue is on the table. And it has been since the 1996 Telecom Act passed with open access provision.
Do the math, dude, it's all right there in plain English. | |
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
4 edits | Read the damn story, Richard Bennett. quote:
"Opponents, however, argue that their business models are undermined by bandwidth-hungry applications particularly those with
significant video content. Future growth will likely require considerable investment in new infrastructure. But infrastructure owners may believe that they are able to recover too little of the cost to justify investment."
Note it's prefaced with "opponents argue" and qualified with "may believe". D&T is simply framing the telco position for readers. That's a pretty far cry from boldly suggesting network neutrality advocates are to blame for a looming bandwidth shortage, which is what the "Americans for Prosperity" piece gleaned.
That, for the eight-hundredth time, is fear mongering telco and cable lobbyist prattle.
These companies have always used deployment as a carrot on a stick with politicians. And it always works. Meanwhile, in the real world, capacity upgrades are ruled by demand and competition (where there is some).
Back in reality, everybody (assuming they can afford it) is busy increasing capacity to prepare for video by the billions (VDSL & line bonding at AT&T, FiOS at Verizon DOCSIS 3.0, SDV, channel bonding at Comcast).
Verizon and Comcast aren't going to improve their infrastructure, in a high-stakes game of cable vs. telco, because network neutrality laws just might be passed? Give me a break. Verizon is spending $23 billion on FTTH. That alone deflates the original "Americans For Prosperity" piece.
If there's infrastructure hesitation, it's thanks to investors wanting immediate returns in a project that will take a decade. Telco investors are wisely terrified of the slow trek to profitability upon enterting the TV market.
But Network Neutrality as a principle driver of capacity? A primary reason for infrastructure lag? Just isn't factual. It's a political talking point.
The incumbents know they can derail network neutrality laws with lawyers and PR campaigns (and hey, look at that, think tanks spouting simplistic fear-driven rhetoric, regurgitated by loyal partisans seems to be working pretty well). That's before you consider the legions of people (like myself) who don't want such laws created because we're unsure our politicians have the intellectual capacity to draft them.
Network neutrality laws have a virtually impossible climb ahead. Even if passed, it's possible it might only be worded to make it illegal to outright BLOCK competing content traffic -- not restrict QOS or prioritization.
If some CEO or CTO wants to stop upgrading his network because he's afraid of Nancy Pelosi, he's an idiot.
Partisan deregulatory lobbyist rantings on both sides ('the world ends if we pass network neutrality laws!' or "AT&T will shut down your VOnage account!") are aimed at generating fear and are only loosely based on reality.
I see you're only tasked with wandering the Internet correcting inaccuracies when it comes to half of that equation....and godspeed with that... | |
|
