2 edits | "Principles" this FCC will support net neutrality and will enforce any violation of net neutrality principles The Administrative Procedure Act and the Constitution do not allow the FCC, or any other regulatory body, to enforce "principles."
They can only enforce laws or rules. The former, according to the Constitution, must not be vague. And the latter have to be formally codified after due process (a notice of proposed rule making, public comment, hearings, etc.). What's more, the agency has to have statutory authority to make and enforce the rules. (Federal law states that the Internet must remain "unfettered by State or Federal regulation," so it appears that in fact the FCC does not have that authority -- a point which Comcast is surely going to bring up in court.)
In short, the FCC legally cannot do anything within the realm of "network neutrality" -- a term which, by the way, is so broad and poorly defined that it is semantically null -- unless (a) it is legally authorized to do so by statute; and (b) it makes formal rules in a rule making process that allows public comment.
This is a good thing, because the Internet doesn't need regulation. Despite the fact that three "network neutrality" bills have been introduced in Congress since 2005 and not a single one has passed, none of the dire predictions made by Free Press (AKA "Save the Internet"), Public Knowledge, the New America Foundation, or any other of Google's lobbyists have come to pass. Thus, we can see that these organizations' scare stories are just hype. |
|
| said by SuperWISP:none of the dire predictions made by Free Press (AKA "Save the Internet"), Public Knowledge, the New America Foundation, or any other of Google's lobbyists have come to pass. Thus, we can see that these organizations' scare stories are just hype. Of course the same thing could be said about the so called "Bandwidth Apocalypse" the cable/tel cos and their shills have been crying about for years. |
|
| Actually, it is happening. I'm an ISP, and I'm seeing an incredible bandwidth crunch every day at "prime time." From 5 PM to 10 PM, our pipes are saturated, and it's beginning to look as if satisfying all peak demand would force us to raise our prices to levels which consumers are unwilling to pay. Consumers need to learn that bandwidth costs money. Especially during peak hours. |
|
2 edits | Sounds like you have too many users on your network, are allocating too much bandwidth to each user, or need to expand your network. More probable a combination of all 3.
So.... just because you are not managing your ISP as you should be, does not mean you have a bandwidth crunch any more than I am having a Honey Nut Cheerio shortage just because my box is almost empty.
Raising your prices is one way to do it. That will deter some from continuing to use your service (freeing up bandwidth) and hopefully give you the ability expand and to provide more bandwidth to those that stay or possible people that join.
The network will always balance itself out given time...... |
|
| reply to SuperWISP
I believe you are speaking the truth about your situation. I also don't doubt that bandwidth costs for small providers is a significant issue.
I'm frustrated, however, by the fact that you don't clarify that you run a small wireless service provider in wyoming(although your name gives some clue to this).
The economics for an AT&T or verizon or comcast is drastically different from the economics for your business. The incumbents have drastically lower bandwidth costs than you do and they are not being eaten alive by the usage patterns of even their heavy users. Bandwidth growth has actually been slowing and costs have been plummeting for the big players, according to analysts like dave burstein.
The incumbent cable and ilec providers represent around 97% of the market. All the other players, including yourself represent the other 3%. I'm not trying to argue that government should be indifferent to your concerns but policy has to be based on the reality of the 97%, not on outliers. I would have no problem with small companies, such as yours, being exempt from rules designed to curtail abusive practices by the incumbents but we shouldn't be giving the incumbents free reign as some misguided way of trying to protect small businesses. |
|
2 edits | reply to Skippy25
said by Skippy25:Sounds like you have too many users on your network, are allocating too much bandwidth to each user, or need to expand your network. No; the problem is that users are trying to do things that require more bandwidth than they are willing to pay for. We have done (and continue to do) everything in our power to reduce our bandwidth costs, but unfortunately, unless the FCC acts to eliminate price gouging on "special access" (the "middle mile"), we're stuck. We can't get prices for bandwidth under $100 per Mbps per month. Don't blame us; we've shopped around. |
|
|
|
| asdfdfdfdfdf has made some great points right above you. I feel for your situation, but you and your small ISP are not the majority and do not have the price and or abuse ability of Verizon, at&t, Comcast, TWC, Quest, etc... You're not the problem. It's the big boys... |
|
2 edits | said by jjeffeory:you and your small ISP are not the majority Actually, we are. There are thousands of small, independent ISPs and relatively few large ones.
What's more, "network neutrality" regulation (which isn't "neutral" at all; it's designed to favor the large corporations, like Google, which are lobbying for it at the expense of ISPs) would impact us far more than it would the large carriers. Would you really like to eliminate all alternatives to the telephone and cable companies? In that case, go ahead and heavily regulate what does not need regulating. And then don't complain to me when all of your choice is gone. |
|
| reply to asdfdfdfdfdf
WISPs are not "outliers." We are the majority of ISPs in the United States. |
|
| There's no reason to take exception to my terminology. It wasn't meant as a criticism of your business. There is no shame in not being a multi-billion dollar behemoth. There is no judgemental baggage intended with my use of the term outlier. Nor is it intended to suggest that we should be indifferent to your concerns. It is simply stated as a statistical reality.
The fact remains that a small handful of non-wisp wireline providers(the big cablecos and ilecs) controls the vast majority of the broadband market. The fact that these incumbents are a numerically small number of companies compared to a larger number of small providers doesn't change their overwhelming dominance of the market and it only proves the concentration of power in this industry and why boundaries have to be set for the small number of companies that holds this power.
Your situation does not represent their situation and your situation shouldn't be the guide to policy. Net neutrality is designed to limit their ability to leverage their power into control of content and subversion of competition. It isn't intended to sabotage small companies. If policy has a detrimental effect on small companies they could be exempted from such rules. There is no reason to burden small companies with these rules because small companies don't have market dominance. |
|
2 edits | said by asdfdfdfdfdf :
your situation shouldn't be the guide to policy.
It should be. Because if competitors like us are not protected and stimulated -- and especially if we are heavily regulated -- we will not be here tomorrow. And then you'll truly be stuck with a duopoly consisting of huge corporations. |
|
