AT&T CEO Laments 'Silly' Wireless Neutrality Rules Verizoogle proposal 'a rational place for the industry to land' AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson unsurprisingly tells the Dallas Morning News he largely likes the proposed neutrality framework put forth by Verizoogle last month -- especially that bit where no substantive consumer protections are imposed on wireless networks. According to Stephenson, the wireless sector simply moves too quickly for such rules, and that rules imposed today would simply "look silly" one year from now: We're obsolescing technology in 7, 8 year curves right now in this part of the industry. And how do you come in and impose regulations on something that is moving that quick, with volumes growing at that kind pace? The business models are still in flux. Whatever regulation you put in, 12 months from now will look silly. Of course that would depend on the quality of the rules, and broad rules simply protecting consumers from carriers looking to block or profit from slowed service could be worded to be relevant for years to come. Also, given that AT&T is one of the most powerful lobbying presences in any industry, it's AT&T that has the most input on just how silly said rules could potentially be.
|
 | | Ironic He mentions advancing technology curves when ATT has refused to go fiber on their networks. I suppose copper is still the "IT" telco technology. | |
|  | bdon78I didn't do it
join:2009-05-18
Decatur, GA | Re: Ironic This article is about wireless tech, not fiber to the home...
Which is great in greenfield, but as you can see by Verizon's latest scaling back, is tough for any ISP to deploy fully unless they have a high adoption rate in the deployed areas. Verizon's capital spend on FIOS isn't seeing the initial returns they'd hoped for, which is not good for them since they are out of cash in hand. As next gen networks become "normal" just as DSL did back in the late 90's to early 2000's, they'll be ahead of the curve though.
Personally I think that a mixed deployment of VDSL2 and fiber to the home is probably the "right" mix. I think that neither AT&T or VZW got it right.. one is doing mostly fiber to the home while ignoring their legacy DSL customers, while the other puts fiber into new communities, but for older ones, they only have the opportunity for 24/3 (if they are lucky enough to be close to a VRAD).
All "techies" of course think that everyone should have fiber to the home, which is a great pie in the sky idea, but deploying new fiber is expensive... very expensive... and who do you think is gonna pay for all of that with ISPs under the gun of tight regulations? VZW... AT&T?... nope... you and I.. | |
|
 Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4 |  Broadly written rules usually struck down by courts
broad rules simply protecting consumers from carriers looking to block or profit from slowed service could be worded to be relevant for years to come Except that when rules are written broadly with little specificity they are usually struck down by the courts as being arbitrary and unenforceable. Any rules that depend on varying regulator interpretation on a case by case basis are usually overturned. A rule that in effect says "you shall be consumer friendly" just won't fly.
| |
| | zolcos
join:2010-05-19
Houghton, MI | Re: Broadly written rules usually struck down by courts Semantics, rabble rabble rabble. | |
| |  firephotoKDEPremium
join:2003-03-18
Brewster, WA
 ·Frontier Communi..
| Yet rules that in essence say "you shall be consumer unfriendly" thrive. For example, Washington state says public entities cannot provide end user networking services. The law was written and paid for by GTE at the time.
Another name change too I see. Good luck with that TK. | |
|
| | | | Re: Translation: "The business models are still in flux. said by Mr Matt:  When a company says "The business models are still in flux." it usually means that the business is trying to figure out how to squeeze every nickle they can out of the customers and then squeeze every nickle until the Buffalo Shits! While i dont agree with much of ATT/VZW's practices/fees, isn't it the single, sole objective of a business to make as much money as possible? If you were an investor, how would you feel knowing the company isnt doing everything in its power to turn as much profit as it can? I'd probably pull my money out and go elsewhere...
--
»valid.canardpc.com/cache/screens···7860.png | |
|
bdon78I didn't do it
join:2009-05-18
Decatur, GA | Agree but don't trust So... I know this will start a ruckus.. but I agree in some ways that the industry is a moving target. Look at what the introduction of the iPhone has done and the explosion of data usage and smartphones. Restrictive regulations would have ended up stifling the ability for network growth (my opinion).
I think in general I disagree with heavy regulation, as certain technologies grow, so do the number of players involved, increasing competition (look at the number of companies that offer end-to-end VOIP services to small businesses.. an area that used to be dominated by VZW/AT&T).
If the time, energy, and most importantly money, that is focused on regulating all the big players was used to subsidize deployment to rural regions and ensuring schools or public institutions had the proper network to function, that would be a success. (and you could regulate how that money was spent to ensure whoever gets that cash is deploying it wisely and not selling $70 1.5m dsl)
OK.. so now that I said I sort of agree about how the industry is a moving target... that does not mean I trust someone who stands to make or lose a few million based on the decision... | |
| | | | Re: Agree but don't trust  | |
|
| | while waiting for the smoke to clear... quote:
Do you think that wireless should be exempt?
A. "Of course. Absolutely. We're obsolescing technology in 7, 8 year curves right now in this part of the industry. And how do you come in and impose regulations on something that is moving that quick, with volumes growing at that kind pace? The business models are still in flux. Whatever regulation you put in, 12 months from now will look silly.
Technological change should, if anything, alleviate the problem of their networks being unable to handle growing data demand which should render their own justifications for subverting neutrality obsolete.
But net neutrality is technology agnostic anyway. It isn't about 3g regulation or 4g regulation, wimax or lte regulation. Technological change will no more render net neutrality rules irrelevant than technological change has rendered the right of free speech irrelevant. This is about setting principles in place, it isn't about regulating specific technologies.
quote:
Think about this. 1996 was the telecom reform act. 14 years ago. The words 'mobile broadband' were not even spoken. Really, 'Internet' was not even a known element back at that time. You look back at that act, and it was all about long distance. We went to all this pain, all this effort. Who could conceivably care less today? Just 14 years ago. This industry is changing so fast it will make [new regulations] look silly five years from now, I believe.
Those of us who understand history care a great deal because we understand that the telecom act and the regulatory games played around it played a major part in the layout of the market today. It isn't like the present market just sprang up out of nothing.
Technological change isn't going to make net neutrality rules look silly in 5 or in 20 years. If things go well then technological change may silence the demand for the subversion of neutrality in the name of dealing with data demand. If that happens, and the neutrality of the net is maintained in the meantime, then neutrality rules will have done their job. | |
| | | He's right If you want technology to stagnate, write laws forcing technology.
For instance.
Here's how the FCC has ALREADY proven they are a detriment.
The FCC pushed for and required the cable companies and CEI to come together and make Cable Card. Then just as Cable Card got rolling, the FCC changed the rules and pushed them into Tru2way.
So, I was looking at these panasonic tru2way boxes, that now panasonic isn't going to build. Or the panasonic tru2way tv, that panasonic doesn't make anymore.
Everyone else that was going to make tru2way boxes have pulled out of making them. Why's that you might ask? Because YOUR GOVERNMENT has once again decided to say, "um oh, never mind about THAT old standard. We want ANOTHER one that will include even MORE video providers".
Hmm, maybe they should have thought about that when they forced tru2way? Nahh, of course not! Let's just KILL tru2way by talking about yet ANOTHER standard we are going to FORCE on companies.
The FCC is most of the problem, not the solution. | |
|
| |
|
|
·
·
Translation: "The business models are still in flux.
