 | | Down the rabbit hole There's not enough competition, so let's do a government takeover. | |
|
 |  funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | Re: Down the rabbit hole said by MyDogHsFleas:There's not enough competition, so let's do a government takeover. Wow, your rhetoric actually has mold on it!
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- District of Columbia -- KJ7RL
Tweet! Tweet! -- »twitter.com/funchords | |
|
| | Reviews:
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: Down the rabbit hole said by funchords:said by MyDogHsFleas:There's not enough competition, so let's do a government takeover. Wow, your rhetoric actually has mold on it! The arrogance of your response is sadly unsurprising, since I see it all the time. Those on the "just make it a government owned infrastructure" side are so convinced they are not only right but have the ONLY intelligent answer, that they don't even try to have serious discussions, they just snigger and mock. Or if they attempt an explanation, it's as if they were talking to a two-year-old. "Look Jane! The fire department is GOOD! The nice people should just pay taxes and let the government do EVERYTHING! See Spot run!" | |
|
| | | | | Re: Down the rabbit hole Except this has nothing to do with government ownership of infrastructure.
It is simply a case of the expert federal agency using the tools in the law to ensure that our broadband networks adhere to the basic principle of non-discriminatory interconnection, and that ISPs are precluded from abusing their terminating access monopoly power.
That's it. No one is talking about government takeover, certainly nothing in the article that suggests that. | |
|
| | | |  gballMaster YodaPremium
join:2000-11-28
South Bend, IN | Re: Down the rabbit hole Guess he didn't want to have that 'serious' discussion after all. | |
|
| | | | Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
2 edits | said by Bill Dollar:Except this has nothing to do with government ownership of infrastructure. It is simply a case of the expert federal agency using the tools in the law to ensure that our broadband networks adhere to the basic principle of non-discriminatory interconnection, and that ISPs are precluded from abusing their terminating access monopoly power. That's it. No one is talking about government takeover, certainly nothing in the article that suggests that. Get real. The accepted wisdom on this board is that the government should own the infrastructure. And that's exactly where this Susan Crawford is headed. Reclassifying broadband is just the first step. Those who say "Oh no! That's not at all what we want!" are, for the most part, being disingenuous.
Just take a look at all the fawning news items here whenever a municipality tries to do their own fiber or wifi rollout.
This is exactly parallel to the health care bill. The proponents really, really wanted it to be government ownership of the system. But they knew that wouldn't pass. So they took a step towards that.
The basic strategy is to choke the corporations with so many regulations and restrictions that their service becomes terrible and their price becomes very high. (this is happening in Massachusetts right now on health care.) Then they can roll in and declare that these corporations are SO AWFUL that they just HAVE TO take it over, because IT'S THE PEOPLE'S RIGHT to have these services.
Just wait and see. It's playing out. | |
|
| | | | | | | Re: Down the rabbit hole You do realize that all high capacity enterprise broadband services are today classified as title II telecom services, right? Yet this hasn't lead to a government takeover, anymore than there is a government takeover of the other major title II service -- basic telephony.
I'm glad you can divine where Susan Crawford is "headed," but I choose to not live in a world of conspiracy. | |
|
| | | | | | | Well Bill, it sounds like you have a high speed connection because if Verizon and Cablevision had decided not to wire your house, because the population density isn't high enough and there's not enough profit in it, then you would almost positively be making a less idealogical case and more of a plain logical case. Simply, the market is pretty good at providing for a lot of people but it is extremely bad at providing for ALL people. If you think all people need broadband like all people need electricity then it's only the government that can insure it and the tool we use to insure it (we the people, which is what the government is) is regulation. Even more plainly. Your government takeover talk is nonsense and anti-american. My and our government provides for all of the people as best it can. That's worked pretty well so far although usually imperfectly.
| |
|
| | | | | | | The major difference between health care & telcom is that telcom is a natural monopoly and healthcare is not. Monopolies should be regulated, I'm all for municipal/government owned fiber infrastructure with an open 'dimly lit' service offering to any service provider that wants to sell over it. I would rather have one really good fiber plant in my town than 3-4 terrible copper/fiber/coax plants.
Competition doesn't happen in the rural markets because there isn't enough money to build one fiber network let alone two.
I don't think this should be funded by the federal or state governments. Let the local towns support their local networks. States can fund a regional network and the big carriers can handle the national transport. | |
|
| | | | | | WhatNowPremium
join:2009-05-06
Charlotte, NC | Re: Down the rabbit hole It is a case of other peoples money. If everybody and the government keep knocking the big ISPs they are going to get less. It is all about money. One of the reasons so many people out side the big cities do not get better broadband is because of Government interference. They kept forcing more and more open access until there was no profit in landlines and the baby bell quit building out their network as fast no landlines no DSL. With the move to cell phones there are even less landline customers to support building out in marginal areas and none in rural areas. With net neutrality making the ISPs just dumb pipes with no caps and more then likely price regulation why go out on a limb.
You guys are right it will not be a complete government take over because they want the customers to be mad at the ISP not the government. In other words you build it and maintain and pay for it and any time your customers don't like what you do I will make them happy and force you to do it. | |
|
| | | | | | | Highway infrastructure isn't a bad model. That has worked out reasonably well, at least better than if highways were owned by GM and Ford.
Regardless, changing the regulatory environment isn't a first step to government infrastructure. It is a different issue and you don't get from regulation to government built and owned infrastructure. No one is seriously talking about confiscating communications networks.
If anything sound effective regulation would lessen the motivation for government infrastructure.
"This is exactly parallel to the health care bill. The proponents really, really wanted it to be government ownership of the system."
Some wanted a public option. Some wanted single payer medicare for everyone. No one seriously advocates socializing the provider system. We are talking about the payment/insurance system which even corporate management now realizes is dysfunctional. | |
|
| | | | | | What makes anyone call these Federal Agency politicians "experts"? It is very seldom that actual experts on any subject are involved in federal lawmaking or rulemaking!!! Does anyone really think that actual health care experts would have needed 2700 pages to "reform" health insurance? Only lawyers could have come up with the mess we ended up with! | |
|
| | | | | funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | Re: Down the rabbit hole said by Mikey1 :
What makes anyone call these Federal Agency politicians "experts"? It is very seldom that actual experts on any subject are involved in federal lawmaking or rulemaking!!!
If you see the roster inside the FCC, you do see a lot of ex-telecom people (which is both good and bad, because they sometimes also come with telecom [anti-consumer] biases). We also now have Jon Peha as the FCC's Chief Technologist -- a great choice all around. The people at the very top and their staffers, you're right, are usually political cronies. In this case, we have Julius Genachowski at the chair for the FCC, while not an engineer, he's is both net savvy and an experienced Internet venture capitalist. He's not some Senator's Soandso's son-in-law.
Now since all the power is at the top, you're probably about 75% right. But not everyone at an agency is a know-nothing.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- District of Columbia -- KJ7RL
Tweet! Tweet! -- »twitter.com/funchords | |
|
| | | | | | "That's it. No one is talking about government takeover, certainly nothing in the article that suggests that."
Oh get serious already.
This administration and the kooks it employ like Susan Crawford have made nationalizing every industry they can make an excuse to get they claws into a top priority. Using federal regulations to restrict the decision making ability of business and industry to the point of leaving nothing but the appearance of private enterprise is what's being discussed - no matter what newspeak terms Big Bro Obama uses to disguise what he's doing.
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck... | |
|
| carmas
join:2003-07-31
Floral Park, NY | ....Also will be an excuse to add all kinds of Telco taxes and fees to ISP bills... | |
|
| | cacoPremium
join:2005-03-10
Whittier, AK | Re: Down the rabbit hole They don't need an excuse now. | |
|
| | | Hey the asses who own these companies need to be reined in and so the goverment maybe able to help out.
There is no competition where i live and prices are high.And on top of that these greedies want to cap accounts and maybe slow some traffic down to favor others.
i do not love goverment but i do love fairness and we won't get that from thse huge ISP's so it may be good to get the goverment in this. | |
|
| | WhatNowPremium
join:2009-05-06
Charlotte, NC | Re: Down the rabbit hole With net neutrality a group that wants private or better performance will not be allowed to buy that. What if a private group wanted to have a semi private virtual network and they needed an international ISP to make it work well that would be banned because everybody must be treated equal. Net neutrality does not really help the little guy but it really helps the big content providers.
Fairness is in the eyes of the beholder. If it could be built and offered cheaper then someone would. | |
|
| ackman
join:2000-10-04
Acworth, GA
1 edit | id1ot...free market had its chance, tax cuts for the wealthy had their chance, neither worked, and Bush admin took our national debt from $6 trillion up to $12 trillion. To use the government as the big bad straw man is, at best, an ignorant perspective. The real solution is to enforce laws already on the books, specifically the Sherman Antitrust laws. Break up all the "too big to fail" companies, period. Unfortunately, that does require the big bad federal government to enforce, which would be a blessed thing to have happen. Not to mention taxing the he11 out of Chinese imports and foreign services from India and other offshore providers. America needs to be placed first again, not in a pool of global mediocrity. | |
|
| | Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: Down the rabbit hole Well first off the antitrust laws are not applicable. Read up on them and you'll see that they are not applied just because a corporation is big, but because they meet the definition of a monopoly, which is quite specific. There is no "law on the books" that the "big bad federal government" can enforce.
Regarding "too big to fail" companies... what we should have done is not bail them out, and let the investors take the hit. The argument against this is that we would have tanked the economy. I don't think so.
Regarding taxing imports... please join the 21st century, we are in a global economy, protectionism doesn't work.
Regarding "tax cuts for the wealthy"... this is just spin. What is the correct level of taxation for the wealthy? When is it too high such that reducing it would not be called a "tax cut for the wealthy"? It seems like the "progressives" never met a tax increase they didn't like.
Regarding "free market had its chance"... wow. So requiring mortgage companies to make subprime loans to low income customers is a "free market"? So letting financial institutions know that if they fail they'll be bailed out is a "free market"? I don't think we have given it a chance yet, and we're heading more and more away from it.
Regarding "Bush admin increasing national debt" ... Obama is making him look like a piker. | |
|
| | ack2001
join:2006-09-20
San Francisco, CA | said by ackman:Not to mention taxing the he11 out of Chinese imports and foreign services from India and other offshore providers. America needs to be placed first again, not in a pool of global mediocrity. Read up on the Smoot–Hawley Tariff Act of 1930, which was an utter disaster--killing American exports and massively raising domestic prices. We're already in terrible trouble because of today's FedGov policies; don't let them pile on any more. | |
|
| | Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
| And, oh yeah, take your name calling and shove it up your ass. I did not call any names, I stuck to the discussion at hand.
You just prove once again the insufferable arrogance and nastiness of the "progressives". | |
|
 ropeguruPremium
join:2001-01-25
Mechanicsville, VA
1 edit | By definition... She is correct in that they should be telecommunications companies.
Telecommunications is the technology of sending signals and messages over long distances using electronic equipment
»www.google.com/dictionary?aq=f&l···ications
While I hate to see it go that route, fair is fair. | |
|
|  Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4 |  Re: By definition...
said by ropeguru:She is correct in that they should be telecommunications companies. While I hate to see it go that route, fair is fair. That is a weak term. The industry has moved on since 1996 and the Telecom Act. And the merging of voice; data; video; wired; wireless; cable; etc. has identified the need for CONGRESS to lay out a regulatory scheme that deals with the new reality of a technology that has morphed in to something better called "Communications service provider". Trying to fit the new reality in to a regulatory scheme based and written for wired telephone companies is a huge mistake.
»How about "Communications service provider"?
»FCC power drain mostly thru lost court decisions
The reason the FCC is considering this policy is that they are worried Congress in a new law will actually write new rules that would only give them the authority to enforce the law and not make it up as they see fit. | |
|
| | | | Re: By definition... said by Romney2012:said by ropeguru:She is correct in that they should be telecommunications companies. While I hate to see it go that route, fair is fair. That is a weak term. The industry has moved on since 1996 and the Telecom Act. And the merging of voice; data; video; wired; wireless; cable; etc. has identified the need for CONGRESS to lay out a regulatory scheme that deals with the new reality of a technology that has morphed in to something better called "Communications service provider". Trying to fit the new reality in to a regulatory scheme based and written for wired telephone companies is a huge mistake. » How about "Communications service provider"?» FCC power drain mostly thru lost court decisionsThe reason the FCC is considering this policy is that they are worried Congress in a new law will actually write new rules that would only give them the authority to enforce the law and not make it up as they see fit. Of course Congress needs to redefine the terminology as it's completely outdated.
--
CCNA, Comtrain Certified Tower Climber | |
|
| | | | | Re: By definition... No, the terms are not outdated, and neither is the 1996 Act unworkable.
Congress has set up our communications systems into buckets a) two-way communications; b) one-way over the air broadcast; c) one-way by wire broadcast; d) content and applications markets that use two-way communications.
Congress anticipated the convergence of old one-way mediums onto two-way networks, as any perusal of the legislative history will show. This is the future they anticipated, but the FCC's past fiddling with the classifications has lead us to the current unworkability of the law.
DSLReports.com? Unregulated information service. AT&T DSL? Regulated two-way telecom service, that Congress gave the FCC the power to deregulate via the forbearance process.
But to buy into the notion that the Telecom Act's definitions are unworkable is to buy into the industry's efforts to permanently remove themselves from any and all oversight. Some on this forum may want that, but it's not a good approach to our nation's most vital communications infrastructure. | |
|
| | | | Reviews:
 ·AT&T U-Verse
| Re: By definition... Bill Dollar said: "Congress anticipated the convergence of old one-way mediums onto two-way networks, as any perusal of the legislative history will show."
I would have to disagree, Congress is lucky to anticipate tomorrow, let alone 15 or 20 years further on in time. Look at this fiasco called a health care bill. The only anticipation was what certain members of Congress could get under the table. Congress does not give a flip about you, or me, only where their next junket comes from. Sorta why I never vote for an incumbent in any election. | |
|
| | Here come taxes, fees and unexplaneable charges !!! Land lanes may have a rebirth if this is allowed. ISP's need to stay as information services !! | |
|
|  GbcueAlmost P.E.Premium
join:2001-09-30
Santa Rosa, CA
kudos:8
·AT&T U-Verse
| Re: Here come taxes, fees and unexplaneable charges !!! said by exRolman :
Land lanes may have a rebirth if this is allowed. ISP's need to stay as information services !!
What's wrong with more landlines?
--
My Blog 2.0 | |
|
Reviews:
·Optimum Online
·Verizon FiOS
| policy goal as long as it's to spur REAL COMPETITION that LOWER$ RATE$ for all & increases speeds, I'm in favor. once you start going down that tax honeypot which is to say once regulatory authority is established, there is little control the consumer has over the taxation such as a "$X" fee for monthly service surcharge. keep taxes out, competition in. | |
|
| funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | Re: policy goal said by tmc8080:as long as it's to spur REAL COMPETITION that LOWER$ RATE$ for all & increases speeds, I'm in favor. once you start going down that tax honeypot which is to say once regulatory authority is established, there is little control the consumer has over the taxation such as a "$X" fee for monthly service surcharge. keep taxes out, competition in. I'm afraid that deregulation has resulted in a competition failure. All we've seen since deregulation (2002 for cable, 2005 for DSL) are FEWER companies and slower growth rates. The impetus for deregulation was to create competition and investment, but it didn't happen.
I can't predict that re-regulation will reverse that trend, not without line sharing. Look, we really don't want 14 different boxes nailed to the side of every house, 14 different conduits tearing up the streets and sidewalks. We just want 14 different choices. So how do we do that in a way that's fair to everyone, including the companies that provide us broadband today?
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- District of Columbia -- KJ7RL
Tweet! Tweet! -- »twitter.com/funchords | |
|
| |
See 6 replies to this post |
| | Backtrack In hopes that it adds competition/innovation, go for it. Maybe use it in the process of reforming USF as well.
--
Thy really? | |
|
| | | Re: Backtrack said by BBBanditRuR:In hopes that it adds competition/innovation, go for it. Maybe use it in the process of reforming USF as well. With respect to the USF, reclassification simply guarantees they can charge you the same rate as they do for your phone line
As to competition/innovation, no it won't add either, just give the government a big hammer to beat those who get out of line.
--
CCNA, Comtrain Certified Tower Climber | |
|
| | Does it really matter... at this point. All the ISPs and telecoms have plenty of lobbyists. They have an agenda and they get it taken care of. Pretty amazing actually. | |
|
| | | Re: Does it really matter... Yes. This matters to the shareholders of the companies, which includes over 45 million people who have their pensions in AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, Time Warner Cable, and Cablevision stock. Yes, it really matters. | |
|
| | Reviews:
·Mediacom
| Re: Does it really matter... said by wildcat man:Yes. This matters to the shareholders of the companies, which includes over 45 million people who have their pensions in AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, Time Warner Cable, and Cablevision stock. Yes, it really matters. Except that those companies will still be making money hand over feet no matter what happens. If they reduce the pensions to meet some stupid profit margin requirements, then business itself in the US needs to be reevaluated.
--
»/im/82288374/5591.png | |
|
| | | | | Re: Does it really matter... No, they wont be making money hand over fist. They have broadband wireless (Clearwire, VZ, then AT&T) to keep landline pricing in check. Also, they will have price caps that were common with Title II restrictions in the good ol days of LD. Broadband is the cash cow of cable. Take away high speed internet pricing flexibility, and your cable and phone rates will go up (wireless phone rates for the AT&T and VZ re-regulated companies). | |
|
| | all part a hollywoods plans guys dont be fooled its gonna lead no where good | |
|
 old_dawg"I Know Noting..."
join:2001-09-22
Westminster, MD | just a few years off... Was George Orwell:
White House senior adviser Susan Crawford resigned last week to little fanfare, but some White House insiders say her leaving may reveal growing tensions inside the Obama Administration about just how radical the administration has become in developing policies...
Radical?, say it ain't so, here's your hope and change and transparent government...suckers.
--
"Our network engineers are aware of the problem..." | |
|
|
See 7 replies to this post |
|
 dellsweigExtreme AerobaticsPremium,MVM
join:2003-12-10
Campbell Hall, NY
kudos:1
 ·Vonage
1 edit | good or bad medicine? Well - the argument could be as simple as this.....
If the industry opposes it (and they do){
It must be good for us consumers;
}else{
The consumer gets screwed;
The telcos/cablecos make more money;
Service continues to degrade;
} | |
|
| |
| |
1 edit | Re: good or bad medicine? While I strongly oppose the move to tax broadband in any form, your concerns are simply misplaced, at least in magnitude.
If the FCC maintains the current assessment structure (based on carrier's interstate revenues), your broadband bill would go up by a few dozen cents at most (this is because carrier's business lines, which make up a much higher proportion of their interstate revenues) would shoulder a much larger share of the burden.
If the FCC moves to an assessment based on a per-connections fee (as AT&T and others want them to), then your bill would rise higher, but only by about a dollar per month.
In either case, the FCC has pre-empted any state fees by ruling that broadband is an interstate service, not an intrastate service. State's won't be able to assess fees on your dry-loop DSL. | |
|
| | | |
| | | said by dellsweig:Well - the argument could be as simple as this..... If the industry opposes it (and they do){ It must be good for us consumers; } elseif {industry opposes ( and its a trick) do and the hell with people }; there fixed it for you The consumer gets screwed; The telcos/cablecos make more money; Service continues to degrade; } | |
|
|
| | One thing not addressed yet... ... is whether a "Communication Services Provider" includes the wireless arms of VZ and AT&T. Why wouldn't it?
I'll have a lot more respect for the FCC when they tackle net neutrality along with "search neutrality" - why should search results that folks are willing to pay more for be allowed when content can't pay for prioritization? Google has more market share than Comcast... | |
|
Fixit
join:2010-01-17
Costa Mesa, CA | another thing that wont happen If we all boycotted and canceled our service with our isp's it might make a dent in price. They cant make money if no one buys there service.But most of us are addicted to it. | |
|
WhatNowPremium
join:2009-05-06
Charlotte, NC | Fixit is right If it did not have value you would not keep the service. The guys that really have a right to complain is the ones that can't get any service. If you have two choices with some speed count your blessings.
I look at the airline industry there is so much competition almost every one of them is losing money and one is even charging to use the john or carry on luggage for they can have the cheapest tickets on the web. | |
|
| | Larry Summers is the disease that keeps giving... That someone at the center of the deregulation that helped lead us into this economic cluster#### could have the influence that he has indicates a major lapse of good judgement on the president's part.
Crawford can comfort herself that she is in good company with those, like Brooksley Born, who have had an unfortunate run in with this infection. | |
|
 camaro92Question everythingPremium
join:2008-04-05
Westfield, MA | Wow! This women has bigger balls than most men up there. | |
|
1 edit | There's just one teensy weensy problem with Crawford's op-ed ...and that is that it's full of falsehoods. The truth is that in 1989 -- with Bill Kennard as chair of the FCC and Bill Clinton as president -- the FCC reported to Congress that Internet service should not be classified as a Title II "telecommunications service," and that doing so would have severe adverse consequences for consumers. Thus, the FCC never "deregulated" Internet service; it was never regulated! This was affirmed by orders issued in 2005 and 2006 by the FCC (under Michael Powell, another Clinton appointee) which were approved UNANIMOUSLY by all of the Commissioners -- Republicans and Democrats alike. So, Crawford's false assertions that the "Bush FCC" "deregulated" Internet service are simply "party-baiting" and have no basis in fact.
Of course, Crawford was handpicked by Google -- a big campaign contributor -- to serve on the Obama transition team and in the Obama White House (until she was replaced by a Google exec -- their chief lobbyist!). So, needless to say, she supports Google's corporate agenda 100%. And that agenda includes regulating ISPs so severely that they can have no influence over the future development of the Net. In the meantime, Google -- which has monopolies on Internet search, search advertising, banner advertising, and video -- would be completely in the driver's seat. Total control by one corporation. Given that Google already spies on Internet users, dropping spyware "cookies" on their machines and reading every GMail user's mail, do you trust it not to be evil? If so, I have a bridge I would love to sell you, and it's not an Ethernet bridge. | |
|
| | | Re: There's just one teensy weensy problem with Crawford's op-ed Some background. Susan crawford is a law professor with a long history of thinking about internet issues. She is not a tool of google and I'm pretty sure she has never been on google's payroll.
Interestingly this argument is surfacing on the net as a result of arguments made by people like Hank Hultquist.
»www.broadbandforamerica.com/blog···fication
Who is this Hank hultquist you might ask? Why I'll be damned, he's a paid ATT lobbyist.
Here, for example, is his profile at the wireless communications association, where he is on the executive committee
quote:
AT&T
Hank Hultquist
Vice President, Federal Regulatory
Hank joined AT&T (then SBC) in 2004. He represents AT&T at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) on a number of issues including broadband and Internet policy, video and media policy, intercarrier compensation, and universal service. He is a member of the Board of Directors and the of the Wireless Communications Association (WCA) and serves on the North American Numbering Council (NANC)...
Now I want to be clear that I am not accusing you, superwisp, of being a tool of ATT because I don't believe that you are. I do believe you are mistaken and I did want to provide context for what is going on.
quote:
So, Crawford's false assertions that the "Bush FCC" "deregulated" Internet service are simply "party-baiting" and have no basis in fact.
Are you seriously trying to argue that classifying one half of the broadband duopoly as an information service, rather than a telecommunications service, didn't radically alter the regulatory landscape?
The fact that there was subsequent reclassification of dsl as in hank's own words
quote:
2005, 2006 and 2007 when it likewise classified cable broadband, DSL, powerline broadband and wireless broadband as information services
For example, the dsl reclassification:
»hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/a···50A1.pdf
quote:
2. In this Order we reach a classification determination that is CONSISTENT WITH OUR DECISION IN THE CABLE Modem proceeding, as affirmed by the Supreme Court. Unlike the Cable Modem Declaratory
Ruling,3 however, which addressed a service and its transmission component that had not previously been
classified under the Act or subjected to any network access requirements, because facilities-based
providers of wireline broadband Internet access service are subject to legacy regulation,4 we must
consider that legacy regulation in determining the appropriate regulatory framework for wireline
broadband Internet access service providers.
...
3. Today, we decide that the appropriate framework for wireline broadband Internet access service,
INCLUDING ITS TRANSMISSION COMPONENT, is one that is eligible for a lighter regulatory touch.5 In the past, the
primary, if not sole, facilities-based platform available for the provision of “information services” to
consumers was an incumbent local exchange carrier’s (incumbent LEC’s) telephone network.
...
Facilities-based wireline broadband Internet access service providers are no longer required
to separate out and offer the wireline broadband transmission component (i.e., transmission in
excess of 200 kilobits per second (kbps) in at least one direction) of wireline broadband
Internet access services as a stand-alone telecommunications service under Title II, subject to
the transition explained below. In addition, the Bell Operating Companies (BOCs) are
immediately relieved of all other Computer Inquiry requirements with respect to wireline
broadband Internet access services.
Let's understand what has been happening.
Originally internet services were provided by lots of small mom and pop operations over the regulated telephone network. It was wisely decided to not regulate internet services. There was no need to in this environment. There was robust competition among internet service providers, the providers were distinct entities from the wireline provider and the wireline provider WAS regulated.
Today's market is profoundly different. Internet access for small business and residential users is 97-98% controlled by the wireline providers. These providers, through a series of rulings on cable classification and then, as a result of this, the reclassification of dsl a few years later, have managed to use the light regulatory approach of internet services to weasel out from under the regulatory environment that has existed for wireline providers. This is why it is accurate to refer to the bush years as years of increasing deregulation and a series of maneuvers by the incumbents that have consistently subverted regulatory power and authority.
You can play games and say that "internet service" was never classified under title II. As with any attempt to deceive this is strictly speaking true but is a slight of hand that covers over the way the companies that control wireline have slithered out from under regulatory oversight.
Now we have a court ruling that the fcc doesn't have the authority to deal with the comcast behavior that we remember so well here a few years back, which gives indication of how effectively the last decade neutered regulatory power. | |
|
| | | | Re: There's just one teensy weensy problem with Crawford's op-ed Crawford is a shill and a liar. Google got her a position in the Administration, and she has been motivated to do its bidding ever since.
As for the results of the decision: they mean that we're safe from "net neutrality" regulation at least for awhile. Which is good, because my customers like my service and I want to be able to keep providing it.
See
»files.ctia.org/pdf/filings/10042···INAL.pdf
for a brilliant legal analysis explaining why the FCC cannot proceed with "network neutrality" regulation without seeking authorization from Congress, which hopefully it will not get. | |
|
|
|
·
·
