Our New National Broadband Plan Doesn't Address Competition? Consumer advocates not impressed by first glimpse of plan... With just 63 days left to go before the FCC unveils the nation's first ever broadband plan, the FCC this morning shared the plan's basic structure with the press and public. According to a press announcement (pdf), the plan will focus on reforming the USF, fostering more ISP transparency, address spectrum issues, exploring accessibility for those with disabilities and pushing for the creation of a national wireless broadband network. The plan also hopes to address innovation in the set top box market, examine bringing broadband to tribal lands -- and will even examine the impact broadband has on media and media diversity. Missing from this flurry of agenda items? The plan seemingly doesn't address what's arguably the biggest problem in the U.S. broadband industry: the lack of significant competition in many major markets. Today's omission is annoying consumer groups -- and it should. Fostering additional competition can organically help a world of consumer issues (network neutrality, high prices, unfair cap and overage schemes, poor customer service) without having to rely on a frequently incompetent Uncle Sam to individually regulate each problem. We see almost nothing in this plan that would address the competition crisis in American broadband markets -Ben Scott, Free Press |
"Americas most basic broadband problem is that we are stuck with a duopoly of local cable and telephone companies that controls virtually every broadband market in America," argues Free Press Policy Director Ben Scott. "We see almost nothing in this plan that would address the competition crisis in American broadband markets or rapidly advance American broadband networks to world class quality," says Scott. "There was no discussion of opening telecommunications networks to competitors," complains Public Knowledge President Gigi B. Sohn. "There was no discussion of structural separations of carriers into wholesale and retail components. These are the factors that Harvards Berkman Center told the FCC in a study a mere two months ago were the reasons other countries have surpassed ours they are using policies we discarded." The study Sohn's citing argued that countries that embraced open access policies backed up by consistent regulatory enforcement saw increased competition and lower consumer prices. It also highlighted how countries like France took our discarded system of local loop unbundling, and built a healthy competitive fiber market and consumer benefits (like 100Mbps Cable, VoIP & 120 TV Channels for $38). The study was, of course, roundly criticized by industry carriers -- who'd prefer the government continues what they've been doing: whatever the industry's largest and wealthiest carriers tells them to. While there have been the occasional mystery leaks to the Wall Street Journal inferring that the FCC was going to do something substantive like revisit local loop unbundling, there's been plenty of hints indicating that the FCC's broadband plan was going to stick pretty close to the status quo. A recent FCC report highlighting key obstacles to a healthy broadband industry oddly failed to cite flawed FCC policy or a lack of competition as contributing factors. While lip service was paid by the FCC in terms of consumer involvement in the plan -- consumers were, as usual, largely absent from any substantive policy shifts while armies of carrier lobbyists worked tirelessly to impact the plan. Speeches made by new FCC boss Julius Genachowski consistently strive to make everybody feel good about the process, but just as consistently fail to address core industry problems. Yes, there's still 63 days left, and perhaps the FCC is keeping many details close to their vest to prevent industry lobbyists from derailing them. Yes, the problems facing the FCC are so vast, they certainly can't be addressed overnight. Still, there's worrying indications that we may be watching a very elaborate dog and pony show, where the FCC only tackles the uncontroversial subjects (who opposes helping the disabled?) but lacks the courage to really stand up to carriers, rock the boat, and implement brave policies that could seriously reshape the sector. While it's great the FCC is suddenly concerned with making everybody feel good about the process, any national broadband plan worth its salt is going to annoy major carriers -- because it should make increased competition its primary goal. Increased competition means reduced revenues, a constricted ability for carriers to engage in anti-competitive practices, and limits their ability to lag on network upgrades and expansion. If the FCC isn't making a lack of competition the plan's primary angle, neither they -- nor their national broadband plan -- can be taken seriously.
|
 iansltx join:2007-02-19 Golden, CO kudos:2 Reviews:
·Verizon Online DSL
·RoadRunner Cable
·Comcast
| *raises hand timidly* I know that everyone wants 50/50 to the home for $50 per month. However the first priority of the broadband plan is, and should be, getting decent internet service out to as many people as possible. 1.5/512 DSL for $50 per month isn't exactly hot stuff, but the program should try to make that service available to 99% of the nation before beefing up competition in more urban areas. | |
|  |  gatorkramNeed for SpeedPremium join:2002-07-22 Winterville, NC kudos:2 | Re: *raises hand timidly* said by iansltx:I know that everyone wants 50/50 to the home for $50 per month. However the first priority of the broadband plan is, and should be, getting decent internet service out to as many people as possible. 1.5/512 DSL for $50 per month isn't exactly hot stuff, but the program should try to make that service available to 99% of the nation before beefing up competition in more urban areas. They should be able to do both at the same time. I do grow tired of people saying these types of things. -- Give me bandwidth or give me death! »/testhistory/661871/4f240 | |
|  |  |  iansltx join:2007-02-19 Golden, CO kudos:2 | Re: *raises hand timidly* Priorities though...we only have $164 per customer to spread around. | |
|  |  |  |  gatorkramNeed for SpeedPremium join:2002-07-22 Winterville, NC kudos:2 | Re: *raises hand timidly* said by iansltx:Priorities though...we only have $164 per customer to spread around. If I lived in an area, that had no broadband access, I'd do everything within my power, including tossing money at someone, to fix the problem.
I think people need to be willing, to toss some of their own money at these problems, to get them fixed.
If they ran fiber in my back yard, and said it would cost $500 to get hooked up to it, I'd pay. Right now I guess no one wants my money. -- Give me bandwidth or give me death! »/testhistory/661871/4f240 | |
|  |  |  |  |  iansltx join:2007-02-19 Golden, CO kudos:2 Reviews:
·Verizon Online DSL
·RoadRunner Cable
·Comcast
| Re: *raises hand timidly* Absolutely agreed on the part that people should still chip in for their broadband connectivity. However the question is of where government money should go to help things out.
This may sound harsh, but IMO the government's money is better spent bringing DSL to an area that has no wireline internet than bringing fiber to an area that has 3M down, 768k up DSL. Even if (gasp) the fiber was 50/50 for $50 and the DSL was 3/768 for the same price. This is from a guy who has a 22/5 Comcast connection at his apartment, shares a gigabit connection at his university next door, and goes back home to parents with a 512k WISP connection (2M has the same 25GB cap and costs $100 per month).
To get cable at the last location, the bill would be $9000. A little up the road, some friends have a longish driveway. $2000 for cable. So they're using wireless, same as my family. I'm 100% sure both they and we would switch immediately if Verizon DSL became available at our respective houses. You won't see that kind of signup rates if we were in an area with DSL and some provider laid fiber down. Sure, I'd switch. They probably wouldn't. | |
|  |  |  |  |  jus10 join:2009-08-04 Sterling, VA Reviews:
·Comcast
| said by gatorkram:If I lived in an area, that had no broadband access, I'd do everything within my power, including tossing money at someone, to fix the problem. So what you're saying is that you'd move? | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  gatorkramNeed for SpeedPremium join:2002-07-22 Winterville, NC kudos:2 | Re: *raises hand timidly* said by jus10:said by gatorkram:If I lived in an area, that had no broadband access, I'd do everything within my power, including tossing money at someone, to fix the problem. So what you're saying is that you'd move? I'd try to avoid living in such an area in the first place. It happened to me a few years back. Was renting a house, was told we could get DSL there. Needless to say, couldn't get DSL, and dialup didn't even work well. Was stuck there for a year.
A few wireless providers talked about putting up towers in the area, but nothing happened. That frankly was a very hard year. -- Give me bandwidth or give me death! »/testhistory/661871/4f240 | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  VanPremium join:2009-07-08 New Orleans, LA | Re: *raises hand timidly* And I made this mistake where I am at now....I was offered a job that I accepted very, very quickly and found a great location place but the internet is miserable here.
I told myself in the future I would make SURE I looked into what was offered somewhere before I moved there...ie call companies to see if they serviced there.
I am happy here though AND I do think those acting like moving is so simple....dont move that often | |
|
 |  |  |  |  jgkoltPremium join:2004-02-21 Lakewood, OH | Helping chip in for the installation feels fair if that pipe could go whatever carrier you choose. Much like you can now with natural gas. The problem lies where you may be stuck with one carrier once you do that and then it becomes a waste, as competition would be limited. | |
|  |  |  |  |  CylonRedPremium,MVM join:2000-07-06 Bloom County | said by gatorkram:said by iansltx:Priorities though...we only have $164 per customer to spread around. If I lived in an area, that had no broadband access, I'd do everything within my power, including tossing money at someone, to fix the problem. I think people need to be willing, to toss some of their own money at these problems, to get them fixed. If they ran fiber in my back yard, and said it would cost $500 to get hooked up to it, I'd pay. Right now I guess no one wants my money. But now running any amount of cable to areas does NOT cost $500 - it is more like several thousand and a certain number of people have to get the service an be locked into it for several years.
As an example - my father and some of his neighbors for TW to quote them the cost. Each house would be charges a couple GRAND just to run the cable down the street. Then another grand or so to run it to the house then it was going to be something like $200\month for a locked in period of 3 or so years.
Now - how much are you willing or can pay? After all - you can get service if you pay enough - just get yourself a T1 and pay several hundred per month. -- Brian
"It drops into your stomach like a Abrams's tank.... driven by Rosanne Barr..." A. Bourdain | |
|
 |  |  |  | | You appear to be confusing NTIA and RUS's $7.2B broadband stimulus program, with the FCC's mandated National Broadband Plan. $164 per unserved household is the (actually incorrect) figure from a PR consulting firm.
But the FCC's NBP has nothing to do with that. They were given the task of doing something about this country's lack of a world class network, at fair prices, in addition to the lack of universal service and adoption. | |
|  |  |  |  |  iansltx join:2007-02-19 Golden, CO kudos:2 Reviews:
·Verizon Online DSL
·RoadRunner Cable
·Comcast
| Re: *raises hand timidly* Okay, so the $164 figure is wrong? That's cool.
But still, which would you rather have? T-Mobile's HSPA 7.2 network or Verizon's (slower) EvDO network, all else equal? I'd take the EvDO any day (again, all else equal) because the coverage is so much greater than T-Mobile's, though all else isn't equal... | |
|
 |  Host: Time Warner Intern.. PC gaming GAMES PC gaming Tech
1 edit | I know that everyone wants 50/50 to the home for $50 per month. I think people just want quality service at a fair price.However the first priority of the broadband plan is, and should be, getting decent internet service out to as many people as possible. No competition, no build outs. Competition is the cornerstone. I don't see why the plan can't address competition and penetration simultaneously. | |
|  |  |  gatorkramNeed for SpeedPremium join:2002-07-22 Winterville, NC kudos:2 | Re: *raises hand timidly* said by Karl Bode:I know that everyone wants 50/50 to the home for $50 per month. I think people just want quality service at a fair price. However the first priority of the broadband plan is, and should be, getting decent internet service out to as many people as possible. No competition, no build outs. Competition is the cornerstone. I don't see why the plan can't address competition and penetration simultaneously. I'll take 50/50 for $50 a month  -- Give me bandwidth or give me death! »/testhistory/661871/4f240 | |
|  |  |  |  IowaManPremium join:2008-08-21 Grinnell, IA | Re: *raises hand timidly* I want them to establish an acceptable definition of upload speed i.e a minimum of 768k. For download it needs to be 6 Mb | |
|  |  |  |  |  gatorkramNeed for SpeedPremium join:2002-07-22 Winterville, NC kudos:2 | Re: *raises hand timidly* said by IowaMan:I want them to establish an acceptable definition of upload speed i.e a minimum of 768k. For download it needs to be 6 Mb I think I remember something about downstream needing to be 768... Sadly, I don't think upstream is even on the radar. -- Give me bandwidth or give me death! »/testhistory/661871/4f240 | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  iansltx join:2007-02-19 Golden, CO kudos:2 Reviews:
·Verizon Online DSL
·RoadRunner Cable
·Comcast
| Re: *raises hand timidly* The standard is currently 768/200 unfortunately, though classifications are available for stuff above that.
Personally, 1.5/512 or 3.0/768 would be good benchmarks; if 3/768 is available for $50 or less per month then an area isn't underserved. Maybe it's stuck in 2006 but it's not underserved. However an area that can't get 768/384 (not 768/200) should get priority over an area that has 3/768 available, albeit for $70 per month (HCTC.net). | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  IowaManPremium join:2008-08-21 Grinnell, IA | Re: *raises hand timidly* Agreed 3.0/768K is a decent speed with good upload and would serve a lot of users especially if they have dial-up or satellite | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  | | Again (see above), the speeds you quote here are the standards adopted by the NTIA and RUS for the stimulus program (it also happens to be the "Broadband Tier 1" speed the FCC adopted as a part of the Form 477 data reform efforts; but that definition is under reconsideration). They are not the speeds adopted by the FCC for the national broadband plan, as that decision has not yet been made.
I don't mean to be picking on you. I just want readers to know that the stimulus program and the National Broadband Plan are two separate things. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  iansltx join:2007-02-19 Golden, CO kudos:2 | Re: *raises hand timidly* Sorry, I did have them confused. Thanks for straightening things out. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  | | So far...we tested on forty casual internet users. Thirty-six of them could not see a significant difference between 1.5 Meg and 3 Meg when checking email and reading CNN or Foxnews.
1.2 Meg was the tripping point as we moved up from 900 Kbps. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  Host: Time Warner Intern.. PC gaming GAMES PC gaming Tech
| Re: *raises hand timidly* Yeah I still don't think the two are somehow mutually exclusive. You don't have to tackle penetration solely before you tackle competition, especially if you're talking about a national broadband plan that seemingly wants to juggle any number of balls in the air. | |
|  |  |  |  |  iansltx join:2007-02-19 Golden, CO kudos:2 Reviews:
·Verizon Online DSL
·RoadRunner Cable
·Comcast
| Re: *raises hand timidly* Which is better, going from zero providers in an area to one, or going from one to two, or going from two to three? I'd maintain that zero to one is where all the money should be going. We just have to define "zero." If the government defines it too loosely, they're doing too much and wasting money. I have Comcast DOCSIS 3 available to me here, and though it's not fiber it's still a decent connection, and the government didn't have to lift a finger to get Comcast to compete in this way. Heck, Qwest didn't either; they're still stuck on 5 Mbps ADSL at my place. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  | | Re: *raises hand timidly* Again, the FCC's mandate for a National Broadband Plan goes far beyond unserved areas -- they are required by Congress to address that and more.
There's no reason why the FCC can't fix the USF and restructure the existing cable leased access requirements to allow leased channels be used for DOCSIS, creating another competitor.
This plan is about solving all sorts of problems, not just the (very important) problem of unserved areas. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  iansltx join:2007-02-19 Golden, CO kudos:2 Reviews:
·Verizon Online DSL
·RoadRunner Cable
·Comcast
| Re: *raises hand timidly* How would leasing a single channel for DOCSIS work? Aside from the fact that you usually only have one or two available channels for return path in a cable system, where would the demarc be between the cable-CLEC and the MSO?
FWIW, the closest thing to this is what TWC does with Earthlink and (in some places) LocalNet. TWC apparently hands off from their backbone to Earthlink/LocalNet's at a POP, and they handle the ISP side of things, similar to how Qwest does alternate-ISP arrangements.
Line sharing is a lot easier with point-to-point connections (DSL or active fiber) than with shared connections (cable or GPON). As much as I like the idea of RCN coming in, buying 18MHz of downstream spectrum and 4MHz of upstream spectrum from Comcast and putting 60/6 broadband on it for $100, it's just too hard to do. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | | Re: *raises hand timidly* Good question, and I'm the wrong dude to answer it. I can however point you to a now-defunct company called Internet Ventures, Inc. and its subsidiary, Internet On-Ramp, Inc, who filed a petition with the FCC to do this exact thing in June of 1999, which was denied a year latter, but not on technical grounds. They had a plan, and if I recall correctly, there is a white paper by a tech consulting firm floating around that describes how line sharing on D1/D2 would work. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  iansltx join:2007-02-19 Golden, CO kudos:2 Reviews:
·Verizon Online DSL
·RoadRunner Cable
·Comcast
| Re: *raises hand timidly* If you'll find that whitepaper I'll definitely read it. Sounds quite interesting, though with today's FTTN infrastructure, relatively small node sizes and such it would be a much more expensive proposition in all likelihood than, say, DSL/CO line sharing. | |
|
 |  |  VanPremium join:2009-07-08 New Orleans, LA | I think I become more depressed reading your articles
I went back a few weeks ago and saw past bills for my internet and they keep rising/rising/rising and honestly....my speeds really have not gone up/up/up that much...and I lived in areas where I only had one choice for acceptable/fast internet.
Then I see your stories about 2-3 companies in areas fighting each other and BAAM...prices drop $30 in some places....$30 freakin dollars...like Lake Charles....
So pathetic | |
|  |  |  | | I'm with you Karl.
I'd give up any of the proposed changes (or even all of them!) if we could just get competition back to some of the major markets in large cities.
Wouldn't a competition friendly environment also foster new smaller rural companies to service the rural areas while also creating jobs in those rural areas?
Sounds like a win/win? | |
|  |  |  |  | | Re: *raises hand timidly* You create more carriers, you create more carriers looking for expansion possibilities into markets AT&T/Verizon doesn't want to serve. | |
|  |  |  |  |  iansltx join:2007-02-19 Golden, CO kudos:2 | Re: *raises hand timidly* Like Suddenlink or WindJammer?  | |
|  |  |  |  |  56403739Less than 5 months leftPremium join:2006-03-08 Naples, FL kudos:2 | said by Karl Bode:You create more carriers, you create more carriers looking for expansion possibilities into markets AT&T/Verizon doesn't want to serve. I suppose the result of the last attempt at creating artificial competition has slipped your mind.
All this is fine on paper, but when the money hits the purchase order it all turns into Northpoint, Rhythms and any number of other pyramid schemes designed to cash in and cash out.
This time won't be any different. | |
|
 |  Reviews:
·Comcast
| Introducing competition would speed up rollouts.
Either a company rolls out service first, or someone else does, and gains the foothold in that market.
You're confused if you think true competition wouldn't enable the greatest gains in all areas. | |
|  |  |  See 15 replies to this post | |
 |  ArrayListnetbus developerPremium join:2005-03-19 Evanston, IL | competition would do what you ask. | |
|  |  |  iansltx join:2007-02-19 Golden, CO kudos:2 | Re: *raises hand timidly* Competition between which parties, and how much money does the government have to throw at these parties (both of them? All five of them?) to make this happen? Could the government use that money better elsewhere? | |
|
 |  | | i would chip in for as fiber connection to my home with uncapped/24-7 acces and if it was the city i lived in doiung it so we can compete against slime warner (the only game in town now). | |
|
 gatorkramNeed for SpeedPremium join:2002-07-22 Winterville, NC kudos:2 | Sigh I've given up pretty much all hope in our government to solve issues like these.
If you ask me, we should be able to stop paying our taxes.
I wonder if google and microsoft, and maybe a few other huge corps in this country, could toss enough money at this problems to fix them.
I realize, some people think we have more important things to worry about, but this is my pet peve, and my project. -- Give me bandwidth or give me death! »/testhistory/661871/4f240 | |
|  |  See 10 replies to this post | |
 camaro92Question everythingPremium join:2008-04-05 Westfield, MA Reviews:
·Comcast
| Just another day The lobbyist must be working overtime to make the fcc believe there is plenty of competition, just look at a broadband map(if you can find a accurate one) of Montana or say north Dakota plenty going on there.The first step to a broadband plan is MANDATORY LINE SHARING, bring that up to isp and they go running to the bank to grease the regulatory wheels. | |
|  | | Broadband is a utility Forcing the cable companies and phone companies to lineshare is like forcing the water company and natural gas companies to share their pipes. Companies that do not maintain their own lines are parasitic participants in an artificial market.
I do take issue when telcos prevent other carriers from building their own network. | |
|  |  See 6 replies to this post | |
 | | We want the Government to MANDATE competition? So what we want is the Government mandating competition? Just how are they going to accomplish that?
Tell the cable companies that paid for their own networks and the telcos that paid for their own fiber builds to disconnect from their wires and cables and let someone else use them?
You can't mandate competition. If competition were viable, meaning that a profit could be made by the 3rd or 4th competitor to enter a market, then it would have been done already. Since in most localities, there is very little that is stopping competition other than the cost of building a network.
The Government can't force a company to become a competitor in a market or in all markets. So what exactly do you want them to do?
A 3rd competitor that can afford to do the initial build into a market is not going to be able to take enough customers from the incumbents to make a profit and keep prices competitive. The best they could do is build, come in with lower prices, steal some customers, then the incumbents lower their prices, and the customers stop bleeding. Then the 3rd competitor slowly disappears as they are making no money.
I don't see how you expect the Government to magically create competition. | |
|  |  | | Re: We want the Government to MANDATE competition? said by skuv :
So what we want is the Government mandating competition? Just how are they going to accomplish that?
Tell the cable companies that paid for their own networks and the telcos that paid for their own fiber builds to disconnect from their wires and cables and let someone else use them?
You can't mandate competition. If competition were viable, meaning that a profit could be made by the 3rd or 4th competitor to enter a market, then it would have been done already. Since in most localities, there is very little that is stopping competition other than the cost of building a network.
The Government can't force a company to become a competitor in a market or in all markets. So what exactly do you want them to do?
A 3rd competitor that can afford to do the initial build into a market is not going to be able to take enough customers from the incumbents to make a profit and keep prices competitive. The best they could do is build, come in with lower prices, steal some customers, then the incumbents lower their prices, and the customers stop bleeding. Then the 3rd competitor slowly disappears as they are making no money.
I don't see how you expect the Government to magically create competition. Then why has line sharing worked in Europe?
Guess what? I just proved you wrong. Sucks to be you. | |
|  |  |  | | Re: We want the Government to MANDATE competition? said by sonicmerlin:Then why has line sharing worked in Europe? Guess what? I just proved you wrong. Sucks to be you. And what did you prove wrong, exactly?
How is the government going to basically STEAL the coax and fiber that these companies have paid for and make them share it?
If the lines had been laid by the government and paid for by the government, it would be a different story. Kind of like the story of when we already had line sharing in the US over the copper that the government did help lay and pay for with AT&T. And that is still be shared by the DSL companies that happened to be able to afford to operate.
Again, I ask, how does the government MANDATE competition? They just can't give away someone else's assets away. And how well would it work out forcing companies to take loans to build out competing networks that are pretty much not going to make any money in most cases? | |
|
 patcat88 join:2002-04-05 Jamaica, NY kudos:1 | America has universal broadband in 2007 Didn't Bush promise universal broadband by 2007? 
»Bush on Broadband | |
|  | | haha your going to get canada'd na na naaaa na na | |
|  KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium join:2000-01-17 Tulsa, OK | All our Government knows how to do is take money ... and hand it to Corporations. And I'm not talking about small Corporations and local small businesses, but large, often Multinational Corporations.
They tax the people and then give it large companies. It's a joke. Look at Healthcare. Look at Telecom, including this proposal. Look at the vast amount of Agri-Business, and look at our Energy policy.
So, it looks like the plan is "Everyone should have access to broadband." Noble goal. Now the fun part "We'll use USF to pay for it."
SO Result is: The people pay this tax (Fee, but essentially a tax) which is then given over to Mega-Com Telecommunications Co to build out a nationwide network of broadband. Which they then OWN (note: We pay for it, they build it and own it) and then because they OWN it they CONTROL it and say "It's our pipes, we will decide how they are used."
This is a massive joke. This proposal for far does nothing to address the real issues, which are the lack of communication competition and real choices for broadband.
In one fail swoop, we hand the Nation over to a future monopoly duopoly type system that will hold us back for DECADES. At the same time, we give them the means to control any competition from Internet IP streaming third parties because they "own" the pipe, so they can Cap, overage, throttle, filter "For network management purposes".
Why is it our Government can't do anything bold and provide leadership in any field anymore? Our politicians trip over themselves to hand the people's money away. It's such a waste, and we *ALL* get screwed for the benefit of a select few.
Question: Who gives a damn if every household in America has "broadband" access if it's capped, metered and overaged to death so you can't actually use it for much.
We're setting up a system where all our communications and entertainment is owned and fed to us by 2-3 large companies who control how we use it, when we use it, and how much we'll pay for it, and our "choices" will be to hand over our money and STFU.
Bah! Humbug. -- "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
| |
|  joebarnhartPaxio evangelist join:2005-12-15 Santa Clara, CA | The problem is capital, not Capitol! Small providers like mine (Paxio) would love to expand. They just can't get the capital needed to grow. If we just had low-cost loans for broadband there'd be fiber all over the damn S.F. Bay area and nobody would care about cable and DSL.
So there's something the Capitol can do after all -- establish policies that promote capital formation and credit to companies who are building infrastructure.
(you want this... you know you do!)
 | |
|  nOv1c3 join:2006-11-08 Whitney, TX kudos:1 | fcc I think most of you missed the most important line in this whole article
(((and will even examine the impact broadband has on media and media diversity.)))
HELLO Fairness Doctrine . This admin could care less about broadband , They have only one thing on there minds and that is media control | |
| 
approval from: KrK 
| Who really paid for the network The real problem is scarce resources, bandwidth for wireless, rights of way and telephone poles for fixed broadband. Providing bandwidth for 5 different carriers is an inefficient model. These resources must be shared to open up competition. The network can still be owned by private enterprise.
Now some will complain that the companies that own these pipes built them by investing and risking their profits. A little research will prove this not to be true. The telcos built their infrastructure as monopolies before the AT&T breakup. In the 1990’s they promised to build a 45mb nationwide network for $200 billion in tax breaks. There is no 45mb network and the tax breaks continue. The cable companies were given 30 years of exclusive rights with no competition to build their networks. So who really took the risk and paid for these networks? The consumer.
So what’s the answer - separate the infrastructure owner from the internet service provider. Before the telcos started providing internet service there were numerous isp’s in every city providing dialup service. Now there are only two providers the telephone company and the cable company. Net neutrality wasn’t a problem then because you could change internet providers at any time. Having so many isp’s allowed different models to be tested. Some charged by the minute others had flat rates. Some even tried the free model paid for by advertising. This competition is gone now replaced by a duopoly that has a vested interest in protecting their outdated technologies.
When I originally saw the Harvard report I thought there was a ray of hope but now I don’t believe anything will change, with an uninformed public and the enormous lobbying efforts of the cable and phone companies the pressure for change just isn’t there. | |
|  | | Competition I'd die for some competition in my area. I live in a small rural town. Although the town has DSL and Comcast rolled out into it I live about 2miles from the town and cannot get anything.
They did road construction at the end of the street were we live. I saw spray painted lines of Comcast cable, and ATT fiber sprayed going PAST my street, not down it this was depressing.
About 4 years ago a WISP final answered my prayers, however, that went sour. I payed 59.99 a month for 1mb/1mb(which now is 1mb/512) which NEVER worked as intended latency is always jittery jumping from 5ms to first tower and then to 5000ms back and forth off and on all day but never at night when people sleep.
There are over 450 houses here yet no one will service us but the WISP who can serve us cant serve us correctly.
I'd take 1mb/1mb easy for 60 a month if it was stable. Or even 768/256 | |
|  elray join:2000-12-16 Santa Monica, CA | Reform the USF? Uh-oh.
That means the charge will double, in order to have more bureaucrats administrating and "accounting for" the gravy train to be doled out to the clever hustlers who figure out how to qualify for it. | |
|
 | |
|
|