| |
Rivand
Anon
2009-Sep-24 3:10 pm
You got some right, some wrongYou're correct: Mr. Jenkins' article shows he both does not fully understand the "net neutrality" debate and is probably being paid to whip up (what's apparently becoming right wing) supporters against rational debate on the topic.
But here's where you're wrong: Wireless carriers that provide wireless broadband service have no choice but to implement some version of "per-byte" billing. "Unlimited" wireless bandwidth for a fixed monthly fee is 100% out of the question, with or without "net neutrality" legislation, or the threat thereof. You guys are smart enough to know that spectrum is limited and wireless carriers cannot build fiber-served cell towers every 500 meters.
You opine that (US) telecom carriers have a tendency to "overcharge" customers. I happen to agree. But, again, "unlimited" bandwidth for a fixed monthly fee is impossible. Think AT&T is hurting because of iPhone traffic? Just wait, wireless broadband hasn't even begun yet.
Since wireless carriers cannot "shape," "block," or otherwise "manage" Internet traffic (and I don't think for a second they should be able to!), they're left with but one option: metered billing (of some sort). And keep in mind, this can be implemented much more elegantly than it is today, to the point where a customer can easily manage how much money they're spending.
I know because I'm working on it. |
|
| |
But here's where you're wrong: Wireless carriers that provide wireless broadband service have no choice but to implement some version of "per-byte" billing. "Unlimited" wireless bandwidth for a fixed monthly fee is 100% out of the question, with or without "net neutrality" legislation, or the threat thereof. You guys are smart enough to know that spectrum is limited and wireless carriers cannot build fiber-served cell towers every 500 meters. Yes, I agree to some degree about wireless networks. Most of this was written with terrestrial networks in mind. Per-byte billing is already fairly established with 3G service. Keep in mind I'm not wholly against network management or even caps in some instances (wireless being a particularly good one). I do oppose metered billing and overages on terrestrial connections, though, and any and all limits need to be made perfectly clear to the consumer. |
|
|
1 edit |
to Rivand
said by Rivand :
But here's where you're wrong: Wireless carriers that provide wireless broadband service have no choice but to implement some version of "per-byte" billing. "Unlimited" wireless bandwidth for a fixed monthly fee is 100% out of the question, with or without "net neutrality" legislation, or the threat thereof. You guys are smart enough to know that spectrum is limited and wireless carriers cannot build fiber-served cell towers every 500 meters.
Maybe they should, as part of FTTH and retiring copper. The only difference between a base station and a Linksys router is the Intellectual Property licensing fees and the price the market (cell carriers) will tolerate. |
|
 funchordsHello
MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA |
to Rivand
said by Rivand :
But here's where you're wrong: Wireless carriers that provide wireless broadband service have no choice but to implement some version of "per-byte" billing. "Unlimited" wireless bandwidth for a fixed monthly fee is 100% out of the question, with or without "net neutrality" legislation, or the threat thereof. You guys are smart enough to know that spectrum is limited and wireless carriers cannot build fiber-served cell towers every 500 meters. How is wireline any different? It likewise has a capacity and that capacity can be reached. Wireless carriers absolutely can build more and provision it better. It's terribly, terribly sad that so few of our towers are fiber-fed. said by Rivand :
Think AT&T is hurting because of iPhone traffic? Just wait, wireless broadband hasn't even begun yet.
Since wireless carriers cannot "shape," "block," or otherwise "manage" Internet traffic (and I don't think for a second they should be able to!), they're left with but one option: metered billing (of some sort). And keep in mind, this can be implemented much more elegantly than it is today, to the point where a customer can easily manage how much money they're spending.
I know because I'm working on it. I don't disagree with you in the short term, and as long as it is incentive to the service provider to build more capacity INSTEAD of overcharging for it by creating false scarcity of it, I'm cool with that. But we're standing still right now. How long are we going to be stuck with 5 GB limits and draconian terms-of-service provisions? A network neutrality framework helps to keep the level playing field level. With NN, the wireless ISPs work for all of their customers instead of working for the few content companies that can or will make deals with them. |
|
| |
Rivand to patcat88
Anon
2009-Sep-24 4:24 pm
to patcat88
Actually, they are! Except they're called femtocells -- and they have licensing fees and high prices! |
|
| |
to funchords
First: I'm not arguing against net neutrailty -- I'm 100% in favor of it!
Second: "How is wireline any different? It likewise has a capacity and that capacity can be reached."
There's no natural or physical law that says Verizon can't put another line of fiber optics into my home. And another. And another. And another. It's different with wireless technologies.
Setting aside the economics of the matter, even if wireless carriers wanted to build cell towers every 500 meters, townships, municipalities, local governments, "safety" advocates, and "you and I" (NIMBY) won't let them. Wireless carriers are capacity-constrained by both natural and manmade laws.
But yeah, fiber-fed sites are critical, and there's currently too few of them. This will change over time. |
|
| |
to Rivand
Then what's Clear doing? |
|
 FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
1 edit |
to Karl Bode
said by Karl Bode:But here's where you're wrong: Wireless carriers that provide wireless broadband service have no choice but to implement some version of "per-byte" billing. "Unlimited" wireless bandwidth for a fixed monthly fee is 100% out of the question, with or without "net neutrality" legislation, or the threat thereof. You guys are smart enough to know that spectrum is limited and wireless carriers cannot build fiber-served cell towers every 500 meters. Yes, I agree to some degree about wireless networks. Most of this was written with terrestrial networks in mind. Per-byte billing is already fairly established with 3G service. Keep in mind I'm not wholly against network management or even caps in some instances (wireless being a particularly good one). I do oppose metered billing and overages on terrestrial connections, though, and any and all limits need to be made perfectly clear to the consumer. But it looks like Genachowski and the FCC plan on forcing net neutrality on wireless as well. Though they do say MAYBE some adjustments would be needed for wireless. The CTIA sees some real problems coming out of those new rules: » news.yahoo.com/s/nf/2009 ··· nf/69172What was once the battleground for wired service providers has been expanded to the flourishing wireless industry, and that spells bad news for large telecom and cable operators
As of now, these companies can restrict any device, application, service or content on their networks that competes with their own products, Zacks Investment Research explained in a research note. "The FCC recommendation will disallow this discriminatory practice on the part of wireless, wireline or cable operators from either blocking or slowing access to any video or phone services.
"As we have said before, we are concerned about the unintended consequences Internet regulation would have on consumers, considering that competition within the industry has spurred innovation, investment and growth for the U.S. economy," said Chris Guttman-McCabe, vice president of regulatory affairs for CTIA.
"From the carrier perspective, the FCC is reopening a discussion that had been closed as of the last spectrum action. Some of the spectrum was auctioned off with explicit Net-neutrality rules, and some was not. There were different prices for those different blocks of spectrum," Greengart said. "To now go back and say that government would potentially like the entire wireless industry to operate by different rules than the ones that were just implemented in the last bidding process, which wasn't that long ago, raises red flags for them." |
|
1 recommendation |
But it looks like Genachowski and the FCC plan on forcing net neutrality on wireless as well. Though thy do say MAYBE some adjustments would be needed for wireless. Keep watching. I would guarantee by the time the rules get finished, they're pretty weak and only guard against the very worst sort of offenses. Right now really, the only goal is to ensure the FCC has legal authority with those principles. |
|
funchordsHello
MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA |
said by Karl Bode:I would guarantee by the time the rules get finished, they're pretty weak and only guard against the very worst sort of offenses. Which is probably as it should be. I actually like the 2005 Internet Policy Statement plus these two new rules plus applying them to all modes of Internet Access. But they should stay high level which balances real needs with the flexibility to keep up with something that moves as fast as the net. This allow allows for compromises and experimenting. Satellite will have high latency, so the Reasonable Network Management practices needed there will be different than FTTH. |
|
| |
Yeah I need to see the process and the final product. AT&T's pretty chipper about supporting them in e-mail PR exchanges to me, which is usually a warning sign that they might not mean squat.
But I guess if the FCC simply gets empowered it's a foundation to build on. |
|
 ·Consolidated Com..
·Republic Wireless
 ·Hollis Hosting
|
said by Karl Bode:I guess if the FCC simply gets empowered it's a foundation to build on. Even if it gets watered down it still sets the precedent that ISPs have and obligation provide a common good. The on-ramp to the Internet is too important to be left totally in the hands of private companies. /tom |
|
| |
anon to Rivand
Anon
2009-Sep-24 11:42 pm
to Rivand
said by Rivand :
But here's where you're wrong: Wireless carriers that provide wireless broadband service have no choice but to implement some version of "per-byte" billing. "Unlimited" wireless bandwidth for a fixed monthly fee is 100% out of the question, with or without "net neutrality" legislation, or the threat thereof.
But, again, "unlimited" bandwidth for a fixed monthly fee is impossible.
No, here is where YOU are wrong. I pay for unlimited access TODAY! So how it that "impossible"? Create a law and it must be followed. It's no more impossible than any other law. |
|
·
·