FCC, AT&T Discuss Wireless NeutralityAs agency continues investigation of sector 03:29PM Wednesday Oct 07 2009 by Karl Bodetags: fcc · net-neutrality · wirelessJust one day after the FCC's neutrality push and anti-competitive inquiries netted some substantive results, FCC boss Julius Genachowski gave a speech at the CTIA wireless industry trade show today in San Diego. In it, the FCC head repeated promises to get more wireless spectrum into the hands of carriers, and reiterated his plans to impose shot clocks in municipalities to help speed up tower builds. But he also held tight to plans to impose neutrality regs on wired and wireless networks: Managing a wireless network isnt the same as managing a fiber network, and what constitutes reasonable network management will appropriately reflect that difference (but) ...there shouldnt be any confusion. I believe firmly in the need for the FCC to preserve Internet openness, whether a person accesses the Internet from a desktop computer or a wireless laptop or netbook As you might expect, AT&T mobility CEO Ralph de la Vega also held firm to AT&T's position that the wireless sector is simply so fantastically awesome, new consumer protections aren't necessary. In a bullet point riddled speech (with slides) (pdf), De La Vega proclaimed the wireless sector is the "most competitive in world," and a "virtuous cycle of investment and innovation." For fun, he illuminated the difference between wired and wireless networks: A single fiber strand has theoretical capacity of 25,000,000 Mbps while the theoretical capacity for LTE or 4G wireless using radio spectrum is 100 Mbps (assuming 2X 10 MHz channels). Additionally, radio spectrum is shared by users in any given location. Because of those facts, a few heavy data users can crowd out many average customers if wireless carriers lack the flexibility to manage bandwidth usage for the benefit of all customers. For all its faults, we can probably safely assume the FCC knows the difference between wired and wireless networks, and is willing to cut a little slack when it comes to intelligent network management techniques when it comes to the latter. The real question as these rules get hashed out will be determining the line between a carrier blocking an application and service to protect the network, and a carrier blocking an application or service to protect voice, SMS or content revenues. Related:- Tuesday Morning Links
- Tuesday Evening Links
- Google Voice Ban Is Clear Network Neutrality Violation
- AT&T Finally Allows Skype Over 3G
- AT&T Sends Anti-Neutrality Screed To Employees
- FCC Begins Crafting New Neutrality Rules
- Law Experts: FCC Neutrality Rules Too Murky
- New FCC Commissioner Clyburn Not The Pushover Some Expected
|
  knightmb Everybody Lies
join:2003-12-01 Franklin, TN
·AT&T DSL Service
| The last line says it all quote: The real question as these rules get hashed out will be determining the line between a carrier blocking an application and service to protect the network, and a carrier blocking an application or service to protect voice, SMS or content revenues.
That's what it ultimately boils too. Let's say for example I'm a wireless ISP and I'm selling some re-branded VoIP service to customers. Before long, I start to notice that some iPhone users are using the network to make calls and then some Blackberry customers are also using the network to make phone calls. Before long, it seems everyone is because no one wants to use my re-branded phone service. So in an attempt to pull back customers, I complain/make up fake data/etc. that all those other users are hurting the users of my service in some way. I start blocking all the iPhone/Blackberry guys from either using their own service piggy back or make some stupid traffic shaping rule that adds delay or packet loss to their phone service.
Everyone complains about how their phone doesn't work with my service and then I slip out the "well it's probably them, my phone network though works flawless all the time, why don't you switch".
Months later when it lands on every news site that I'm not being fair to AT&T or whoever, investigations are opened up and again I just lay out the same line of "well, the phones were hurting our service, we had to protect our core service" and push out a bunch of power point slides about it and everyone goes home happy and angry at the same time. 
Yeah, the only difference is, I don't have millions to spend on legal defense to tie it up in court for the next 25 years before some new technology comes along. -- Fight Insight Ready (Was NebuAD) and the like: Click Here to pollute their data | |
|  |  nevtxjustin
join:2006-04-18 Dallas, TX
| Re: The last line says it all quote: The real question as these rules get hashed out will be determining the line between a carrier blocking an application and service to protect the network, and a carrier blocking an application or service to protect voice, SMS or content revenues.
At least we're getting a better picture of what the FCC is thinking about.
Its about anti-competitive behavior where you start blocking competing services. Its not about throttling bandwidth or caps for network capacity.
And that is an important distinction. Us WISPs were worrying the FCC would force us to not bandwidth limit heavy users, but it seems this isn't the case. At least for now. | |
|  wbertram
join:2005-08-19 Allentown, PA
1 edit | For all its faults,.... "For all its faults, we can probably safely assume the FCC knows the difference between wired and wireless networks,...."
Bad assumption! I am sure the technical staff at the FCC (if there is any left!) know the difference. But I am equally sure that the politicians who run the FCC, and have run it for several administrations, and make all the decisions, don't know the difference, nor do they care! | |
|   AlfredNewman
@chase.com | My my... that sure was a pretty slide show. I'm sold! Where do I sign-off on this? | |
|  xlimitx
join:2001-12-31 Wilkes Barre, PA | I can't wait! Whew, I can't wait to get my 25Tbps connection! | |
|  |  patcat88
join:2002-04-05 Jamaica, NY
| Re: I can't wait! said by xlimitx :Whew, I can't wait to get my 25Tbps connection! There is no microchip you can pump 25tbps through. | |
|  |  |  xlimitx
join:2001-12-31 Wilkes Barre, PA | Re: I can't wait! I guess I should have prefaced that with:
begin{ sarcasm } | |
|  |  |  Pv8man
join:2008-07-24 Hammond, IN | Yet.....yet....
at least not until we finish the development of a nano engineered processor that uses Light instead of electricity.
read up on it, that's the future of computing. | |
|  |  |  |   cpsycho
join:2008-06-03 Orangeville, ON | Re: I can't wait! I want a 1 tqps net connetion. | |
|   DJ_Oedipus
@truenet.com
| Why do they have to block services? Instead of blocking individual services or using some kind of deep packet inspection, is it not possible to limit hard users by their static physical addresses (MAC in the networking world)?
This is done all the time on line/wireless internet networks, and I don't think people will complain. Give people burstable traffic for quick downloads/uploads, but after some threshold start to throttle all network traffic from/to the device. Network abuse can be logged, and after repeated incidents boot the client off your service.
Maybe I'm not on the right path, seeing that as you pass from tower to tower, the rules would have to remain in place, but there has got to be some easy solution to the problem in my humble opinion. | |
|  |   george357 Carp, the other sport fish
join:2009-09-18 Hot Springs, NC
·Verizon Wireless B..
·HughesNet Satellit..
| Re: Why do they have to block services? How can throttling be justified? I am currently a HughesNet subscriber and I am limited to 425mb in a given 24hr period. I am paying for 1.6mbps down, I knew Hughes had these limits when I signed up but they are my only option for decent speed. When someone is paying for a certian download speed they should have the capability of having that speed 24/7/365 it is what we are paying for! Its one thing when you know at the start its going to be limited but after you are already sibscribed then that is pretty close to bait&Switch if you ask me. Pay for Xmbps download speed get X download speed at all times, No limits at no time!!!
George -- Spaceway III HN 9000 Pro+ Plan 1.6 Mbps Down. Acer 5000 series laptop w/AMD 64 bit Turion 1.6ghz, 1gb Ram, 90gb HD. Windows XP SP3, Ubuntu 7.10 Dual OS. FireFox 3.5 | |
|  |  |   DJ_Oedipus
@truenet.com
| Re: Why do they have to block services? You have an easy solution. Buy a T1 if no other service is available, and getting the exact speed is that important to you. I have never heard of an ISP rate limiting on a business class connection such as a T1, DS3, OC3, etc... If the price is too high, than obviously it's not that important to you.
I hate to say it, but on wireless networks there is a need for throttling. IE theoretically max for 2.4MHz is 54Mbs, on 900MHz your limited to about 5Mbs. (these may be wrong, as you can use OFDM and other protocols to increase rates, and I don't know them all) But in any case these are physical limits in reality your only going 1/2 duplex (I don't know any phones with MIMO yet) so you'll need to half the speed and subtract some for lost packets, retransmissions, timings, etc. Divide that by the number of customers on a tower and you'll get what's available to each customer (in reality it's more of the law of averages). I don't know the exact frequencies they use, but you see the point. IMHO it's better to throttle bandwidth hogs, than to crash the tower so that no one can get service. | |
|  |  |   FastiBook
join:2003-01-08 Newtown, PA | Re: The other shoe talks, quid pro quo I agree 110%.
- A -- LETS GO METS! | |
|  |  |   Wizeguy
join:2008-08-23 Safety Harbor, FL
| Re: The other shoe talks, quid pro quo Eggsactly..the last time the Government auctioned off bandwidth the big cats gobbled it up. They do not want competition plain and simple. They enjoy playing "Clash of the Titans" with each other and if a little guy gets in the way they will combine forces to squash him. They got a lot of nerve saying net neutrality would stifle competition, the dogs! | |
|  jjeffeory
join:2002-12-04 USA | Pretty slide show... Misleading data taken out of context. Wow, not even that great of a slide show... I would have thought it would be a better product. Go figure... | |
|   FastiBook
join:2003-01-08 Newtown, PA
·Verizon FIOS
| I think.... I think having many small companies, AND a few HUGE ones is good, problem, is there are too few big ones, and all most no small ones. Whatever happened to live and let live, customers first? That's how it used to be, at least of what we could see of policy. Have a league of good and varied services and providers, let the end user pick.
Maybe i should buy spectrum, and keep it dark on purpose... 
- A -- LETS GO METS! | |
|  |  |   bjl Premium join:2002-05-02 Newport Beach, CA | Re: 25Tbps and... Just because the fiber is capable of that, doesn't mean the rest of their infrastructure (routers, switches, etc) is. | |
|  | |  |
|
|