1 recommendation |
shmerl
Member
2015-Apr-13 2:26 pm
Invalid argumentquote: Reclassifying broadband Internet access as a public utility reverses decades of established legal precedent at the FCC and upheld by the Supreme Court
They were OK with reversing the legal precedent of local loop unbundling. So they can't use reversing as any argument now. Let them say it clearly, they aren't happy that ripping users off will be harder. That's about it. | |
|
| TechyDad Premium Member join:2001-07-13 USA |
TechyDad
Premium Member
2015-Apr-13 2:45 pm
Re: Invalid argument"But, your honor, that legal precedent reversal let us make more money doing whatever we wanted to do. This legal precedent reversal keeps us from abusing our monopoly to get what we want!" | |
|
| | itzalex join:2015-02-14 Osage Beach, MO
1 recommendation |
Re: Invalid argumentsaid by TechyDad:"But, your honor, that legal precedent reversal let us make more money doing whatever we wanted to do. This legal precedent reversal keeps us from abusing our monopoly to get what we want!" All the incumbents are whining but they should be worried about the two biggies: abuse of federal funds and lying to the FTC. But since these two groups only care when one person does something it will be ignored. Funny part is that nobody knows the actual numbers of billions that went to the whole "we're wiring the us with fiber but you are not allowed to verify" debacle. | |
|
| | |
Hmm to TechyDad
Anon
2015-Apr-13 5:58 pm
to TechyDad
Not their fault that nobody wants to overbuild. Nothing is stopping another company from coming in and building. Any city would be happy to accept an overbuilder. Also states that have changed to State Franchisees have seen an increase in applications for overbuilders of FTTH. | |
|
| | | JakCrow join:2001-12-06 Palo Alto, CA |
Re: Invalid argumentSources? | |
|
| | | |
to Hmm
LLU isn't overbuilding.
And there's no reason why overbuilding should be the accepted means of adding competition. It's more expensive for everyone involved, vastly reduces coverage, reduces potential viability of any competitor (building FTTH ain't cheap).
Countries that went down the route of real LLU/infrastructure sharing have seen their telecoms industries go from strength to strength. Consumers get cheap, good service. ISPs can compete on level playing fields with near national coverage, and the incumbent telco makes tons of money from their competition | |
|
| | | | JakCrow join:2001-12-06 Palo Alto, CA |
Re: Invalid argumentYes, but you see, communism! | |
|
| openbox9 Premium Member join:2004-01-26 71144
1 recommendation |
to shmerl
I doubt that making money will be any more difficult after 12 June than it is currently. | |
|
| |
1 recommendation |
NoRegBest
Anon
2015-Apr-13 4:01 pm
Re: Invalid argumentsaid by openbox9:I doubt that making money will be any more difficult after 12 June than it is currently. True. Regulated industries always find a way to manipulate the regulators and keep up profits. But it will be at the expense of higher prices and less innovation. Regulation won't help consumers at all. It never has. | |
|
| | | TechyDad Premium Member join:2001-07-13 USA
2 recommendations |
TechyDad
Premium Member
2015-Apr-13 4:08 pm
Re: Invalid argumentThe regulations that help keep food safe and medicines effective seem to work pretty well. I don't want to trust that food from RANDOM_GIANT_COMPANY_X doesn't contain anything that will make me or my kids sick. And, if they do make someone sick, I don't want that person to have to mount a legal defense with their own funds against the giant corporation, hoping to win so things change.
Are regulations always good? Of course not. But all regulations aren't bad either. | |
|
| | | | JakCrow join:2001-12-06 Palo Alto, CA |
Re: Invalid argumentsaid by TechyDad:The regulations that help keep food safe and medicines effective seem to work pretty well. I don't want to trust that food from RANDOM_GIANT_COMPANY_X doesn't contain anything that will make me or my kids sick. And, if they do make someone sick, I don't want that person to have to mount a legal defense with their own funds against the giant corporation, hoping to win so things change.
Are regulations always good? Of course not. But all regulations aren't bad either. Where have YOU been? Ironically, we are seeing the results of less regulation and more industry so-called "self regulation" when it comes to food in the U.S.: huge contamination incidents, multi-state food poisoning cases, and huge recalls of food only when people have already gotten sick or, in some cases, have died. There are few "success stories" of deregulating industries bringing positive gain to consumers. | |
|
| | | | |
Hmm to TechyDad
Anon
2015-Apr-13 6:00 pm
to TechyDad
We already have that Random Company X controling the food industry. It's called Monsanto. Also Cargill controls another good portion but not as much as Monsanto. | |
|
| | | openbox9 Premium Member join:2004-01-26 71144
1 recommendation |
to NoRegBest
Considering this reclassification doesn't regulate rates or provoke competition, I'm not really sure why anyone would expect prices to decrease or ISPs to make less money. | |
|
| fg8578 join:2009-04-26 San Antonio, TX |
to shmerl
said by shmerl:They were OK with reversing the legal precedent of local loop unbundling. So they can't use reversing as any argument now. Let them say it clearly, they aren't happy that ripping users off will be harder. That's about it. Two points: (1) LLU never applied to fiber. So w.r.t. fiber, there was no precedent to reverse. (2) It's true that the FCC applied LLU to copper-based DSL, but the RBOCs sued the FCC on that point and they (FCC) lost. The FCC reversed its DSL LLU order a year later. So while it's technically true that they "reversed the legal precedent" of LLU, they were in fact required to do so by court order. | |
|
| | |
shmerl
Member
2015-Apr-13 10:17 pm
Re: Invalid argumentAs long as they reversed it, it's already another precedent. And if it's within the law, they can't claim reversing the precedent is a problem, especially when we have a precedent of reversing a precedent So let's hope the court will see through their false claims. | |
|
The Limit Premium Member join:2007-09-25 Denver, CO |
I don't get it...Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't SCOTUS recommend that carriers be reclassified under via Title II? Hoa is this lawsuit going to actually hold any water in court? | |
|
| fg8578 join:2009-04-26 San Antonio, TX |
fg8578
Member
2015-Apr-13 3:53 pm
Re: I don't get it...said by The Limit:Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't SCOTUS recommend that carriers be reclassified under via Title II? Hoa is this lawsuit going to actually hold any water in court? (1) It was the DC Circuit Court that overturned the FCC's NN rules in the Verizon case in January, 2014. They didn't exactly recommend that the FCC reclassify. What they did say was, that the FCC cannot apply common carrier rules to entities (i.e., ISPs) that it (FCC) said were not common carriers. The court sort of implied the FCC should reclassify, but stopped short of making that recommendation. (2) SCOTUS has spoken on a similar issue. When Brand-X sued the FCC in 2005 (about unbundling cable modem service), the SCOTUS majority ruled that the FCC could classify cable modem service as an information service (i.e., Title I), rather than a telecommunications service (i.e., Title II). Justice Scalia wrote a scathing dissent, saying cable modem service is a telecom service. His dissent is worth a read. | |
|
| | JakCrow join:2001-12-06 Palo Alto, CA |
Re: I don't get it...The irony was at the time, the FCC headed by Michael Powell chose to -not- classify cable modem service as a telcom service. Michael Powell also thought there was too much competition and was in favor of there being only one cable company, one phone company, and one sat company and that was all "competition" Americans needed for their television and internet access. | |
|
1 recommendation |
wkm001
Member
2015-Apr-13 2:49 pm
I'm guessing USTelecom was laughing as they handed the lawsuit papers over?The US lags far behind in average connection speed. We also pay more for our connections than the average, worldwide.
C'mon people, the internet was born in the US. We should be the leader on both of these categories. So something needs to be shaken up a little. | |
|
| openbox9 Premium Member join:2004-01-26 71144 |
openbox9
Premium Member
2015-Apr-13 3:19 pm
Re: I'm guessing USTelecom was laughing as they handed the lawsuit papers over?said by wkm001:We also pay more for our connections than the average I imagine a relative comparison of costs might be surprising. | |
|
| | KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little Guy Premium Member join:2000-01-17 Tulsa, OK
3 recommendations |
KrK
Premium Member
2015-Apr-13 5:42 pm
Re: I'm guessing USTelecom was laughing as they handed the lawsuit papers over?It is, but not in the way you imply. We overpay for what we get. | |
|
| | |
-1 recommendation |
Hmm
Anon
2015-Apr-13 6:05 pm
Re: I'm guessing USTelecom was laughing as they handed the lawsuit papers over?We also are not a socialist country that gives things away. We also do not have several million people per square foot like Japan. | |
|
| | | | KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little Guy Premium Member join:2000-01-17 Tulsa, OK
3 recommendations |
KrK
Premium Member
2015-Apr-13 6:29 pm
Re: I'm guessing USTelecom was laughing as they handed the lawsuit papers over?Oh yes, we are, just not to the average person.... and the population density argument is a red herring that's been thoroughly debunked repeatedly. | |
|
| | | |
4 recommendations |
to Hmm
I live in a part of a European country that has a tiny fraction of the population density of Manhattan, let alone NYC or other urban areas. We can still do competition and have decent internet access despite this. No excuse why you can't do it for a large majority of the population who don't live in Asspit, Montana.
I like how you say it's not a socialist country, yet it has far more in the way of state owned utilities and enterprises than a country like mine, which is often called "socialist" because it dares to have state led health care. Meanwhile I'm the one paying a private company for electricity/water/gas and sending mail, while you likely are paying the local or federal government | |
|
| | | | JakCrow join:2001-12-06 Palo Alto, CA |
to Hmm
Did you type that with a straight face? Let's look at that again:
"We also are not a socialist country that gives things away"......
Ha! | |
|
| | | openbox9 Premium Member join:2004-01-26 71144 |
to KrK
Really? I'd need to see that relative comparison. Because yes, while my Japanes and German connections to the Internet cost slightly less than what I was paying in the states for Verizon FiOS, my costs of living have been significantly higher, even than when living in NOVA. | |
|
| maartenaElmo Premium Member join:2002-05-10 Orange, CA
3 recommendations |
to wkm001
said by wkm001:The US lags far behind in average connection speed. We also pay more for our connections than the average, worldwide.
C'mon people, the internet was born in the US. We should be the leader on both of these categories. So something needs to be shaken up a little. If I had my way, the FCC would force a split between the companies that manage the INFRASTRUCTURE, and those that offer SERVICE over said infrastructure. My parents in The Netherlands have around 15 providers to choose from, and all of em offer Internet, Phone and TV. They all come in over the same fiberoptic cable, it is just plugged in to a different ISP network on the CO side. They live in a town of about 10,000 in an area that is considered pretty rural. (About 1 hour to the first city that has more then 100k inhabitants) They have more choice then in ANY location the USA. Separate the infrastructure companies from the ISP level. Or allow companies to build such an infrastructure without being hindered by state or local legislation imposed by lobbyist trying to prevent it. | |
|
| | fg8578 join:2009-04-26 San Antonio, TX |
fg8578
Member
2015-Apr-13 3:57 pm
Re: I'm guessing USTelecom was laughing as they handed the lawsuit papers over?@maartena: What you refer to is called local loop unbundling, and is authorized under Title II but for some reason, the Chairman specifically took that option off the table, and the final NN Order "forbears" from that part of Title II.
Maybe he thought by tossing the ISPs that bone, they wouldn't sue. I could have told him not to waste his time, and go ahead and order LLU because the ISPs were gonna sue regardless. Subsequent events have borne me out. | |
|
| | JakCrow join:2001-12-06 Palo Alto, CA
1 recommendation |
to maartena
Remember when we had 15 providers to choose from? | |
|
| | | KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little Guy Premium Member join:2000-01-17 Tulsa, OK
1 recommendation |
KrK
Premium Member
2015-Apr-13 5:43 pm
Re: I'm guessing USTelecom was laughing as they handed the lawsuit papers over?Yeah, me neither. | |
|
| | |
Hmm to maartena
Anon
2015-Apr-13 6:34 pm
to maartena
Who still manages the network? The ILEC? | |
|
| | | |
Re: I'm guessing USTelecom was laughing as they handed the lawsuit papers over?I'm not the OP but I can comment on a different European country that practices a similar model.
The telco runs the network from home to designated ISP handover point, whether that is within the local telephone exchange (some ISPs own extensive LLU networks and prefer to take the traffic there) or hundreds of miles away (the telco operates an aggregation network to scoop up all the traffic from all an ISP's customers nationwide and hand it over at a few points).
The telco owns and operates the VDSL2 DSLAMs and the GPON FTTH networks, while the ISP can choose to operate ADSL2+ over copper LLU or via the telco's own ADSL DSLAMs if they want.
What it means is that a rural dweller like me (in that very lightly populated part of the country I mentioned before) can choose from 20+ ISPs at a range of price points and qualities of service. It works very well. Changing ISPs is either a case of unplugging one router and replacing it with another (when moving between big ISPs) or reconfiguring the PPPoE settings with the new ISP's username/password once the connection dies due to the switchover. Migrating between ISPs is as simple as asking for a migration code from the old ISP, giving it to the new one, and waiting about a week. No serious downtime needed.
In all of this, the telco is also allowed to own and operate its own ISP, but it has regulations over its ownership of infrastructure, on how much it can charge for use of that infrastructure and the relationship between its own retail division and the infrastructure division - there's a chinese wall. In practice they have been great at adhering to this | |
|
| | | | JakCrow join:2001-12-06 Palo Alto, CA |
Re: I'm guessing USTelecom was laughing as they handed the lawsuit papers over?Yes, but you're clearly a communist and, you know.....AMERICA RULEZ! | |
|
fg8578 join:2009-04-26 San Antonio, TX |
fg8578
Member
2015-Apr-13 4:04 pm
Anyone file NN comments?And give your real address?
The only reason I ask is that Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 15(c)(1) requires USTA to provide a copy of its appeal to everyone who participated in the FCC's NN rulemaking, meaning they will have to file 4M copies! (assuming everyone gave a real address, which I doubt).
IANAL, and in my reading of the rule, I don't see the requirement. But the State of Tennessee mailed me a copy of their appeal of the FCC's muni-broadband pre-emption order, and they cited Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 15(c)(1).
If you filed comments, you should be getting a copy in the mail soon! | |
|
JakCrow join:2001-12-06 Palo Alto, CA
1 recommendation |
Broadband "Industry" is it?If NN was really a horrible move, even the small ISPs like Sonic would sue. But they're not, cuz it ain't. | |
|
|
smk11
Member
2015-Apr-13 7:08 pm
"light-touch regulation" meets actual regulationLooking at the members of this bribery group, some don't even provide broadband under FCC's definition now. Maybe the FCC and FTC should counter sue. | |
|
chip89 Premium Member join:2012-07-05 Columbia Station, OH |
chip89
Premium Member
2015-Apr-13 8:15 pm
Suit.The Courts said the FCC can do this the suit must be stopped!!!! | |
|
|
|