Broadband.gov logo
« Back To Broadband.gov

broadband

broadband
Member since : Sep-16-2009 (Verified)
1 Ideas, 6 Comments, 24 Votes

User Activity Stream

Ideas Posted

This "big idea"/"best practice" actually originated with the FCC's own Chairman. FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski stated at the Congressional hearing on Thursday that the FCC should allow competition to solve problems whenever possible, and regulate only if there is market failure.

The FCC should, for example, regulate the pricing of "special access" lines, because the ILECs are using high prices for these lines to cripple competition and drive up prices to consumers. This market has failed and there is no simple way to create competition (certainly not in the timeframe in which we hope that broadband will be ubiquitous); therefore regulation is appropriate.

By the same principle, should not regulate ISPs' network management practices because they are not a problem. No US carrier dares to censor the Internet, because consumers have many alternatives. Competitive markets would quickly remedy any practice which consumers considered to be a problem.

Regulating only where necessary insures that consumers can benefit from innovation (not only technological innovation but also innovative business models) and that practices which are not good for consumers are not "locked in" by regulation.

The FCC's regulatory "muscle" should not be wasted on areas where there is no actual problem, despite the cries of Washington's corporate lobbyists who hope to give their companies an advantage via regulations that favor them. The FCC's authority and energy must be focused on real problems, including the market failures in "special access" and spectrum.
Total Rows   139
Displaying 1 to 25
123456Next »

Comments Posted

broadband 11 days ago
Currently, the FCC does not have the statutory authority to promulgate or enforce "network neutrality" rules. (In its arguments that it does, it literally has to split a sentence in two and ignore the second half of the sentence to make its case -- a very weak argument indeed!) This is a good thing, though, because the market is already competitive enough to ensure that consumers will not be denied access to content which they want and which is delivered via legitimate means. The FCC should not be attempting to solve this "non-problem" but instead should address real problems, such as predatory pricing of "special access" lines and anticompetitive hoarding of spectrum.
broadband 1 month ago
Bad idea. What this is asking for is to put an arbitrary constraint ISPs, preventing them from optimizing networks as circumstances warrant.

Some users -- a very small minority -- need (or would like!) symmetrical bandwidth; others do not. Why force everyone into the same mold? Why tie engineers' hands?
broadband 1 month ago
Last week, the Chairman -- speaking at a Congressional oversight hearing -- said:

"When the market works and there's sufficient competition, then the FCC has no need to act. When the market isn't working, and the consumers could benefit from policies to promote competition, then the Commission MUST act."

Because the "last mile" market is working, and there is no shortage of competition, regulation is inappropriate. There is no need to regulate to ensure an "open" Internet, because the Internet is already open and customers will vote with their feet and wallets to keep it that way.

The "openinternet.gov" site is disappointing, because it suggests that the FCC may devote its energy to something which is not a problem rather than to areas where genuine problems do exist (e.g. "special access" and spectrum hoarding). The Chairman has stated that he intends the Commission to be "fact-based" and "data-driven." If this is not merely an idle claim, then the FCC should refrain from wasting its time on unneeded "network neutrality" regulation (which is, essentially, the discredited Fairness Doctrine applied to the Internet) and work on the issues I've mentioned above, where it can truly help consumers.
broadband 1 month ago
Michael:

You are correct that if an entity other than a telephone company exerts market power over the lines that are necessary to reach the Internet backbone, it may be appropriate to regulate that entity as well.

For example, in many cities -- including ours -- Level3 Communications has fiber running through town but refuses to serve the local community by providing connectivity to the Internet. (In the case of my city of Laramie, Wyoming, it actually owns THREE backbones running through or near town; it built one and acquired the other two, which were originally owned by Wiltel and Broadwing.) Along one of those backbones, there is a building -- right at the edge of town -- which is fully equipped to be a network point of presence, complete with dozens of co-location cages.

Yet, the company will not provide us with bandwidth from this facility at any reasonable price. When we approached them, they first denied the existence of the facility. When we went so far as to SHOW THEM PICTURES -- including pointing it out on satellite maps -- they finally agreed to quote us a price on bandwidth from the facility.

But the quote was absurd. They insisted that we, a small, local business, pay them tens of thousands of dollars upfront and a similar amount PER MONTH, for far more bandwidth than we needed or could afford to buy. They wouldn't even agree to let us buy a smaller amount of bandwidth at the start and increase to more later.

In short, it was really no "offer" at all, becuase they knew we could never accept it.

We have heard similar stories from other rural areas in Wyoming and elsewhere. Level3 is "redlining" all but the largest cities.

It seems reasonable that large backbone providers, which use local right of way (generally at little or no cost), should be required to serve the areas through which they pass.
broadband 1 month ago
Mandating 768K will price many potential users out of the market in areas where bandwidth is expensive. In many rural areas, a T1 line -- 1540K of wholesale bandwidth -- can cost $450 or more per month. This means that 768K of bandwidth will cost about $225 per month... at wholesale, not at retail! By the time the ISP adds in expenses to pay for the "last mile," the bandwidth will be unaffordable.

It would be not only unwise but harmful to do that.

There should be no speed mandates unless there are also cost controls at the wholesale level.
broadband 1 month ago
This is practical and within the FCC's power today. I hope that the FCC's energy will not be so consumed by the creation of the Broadband Plan that it fails to act on this issue even before the Plan is released. It's too important to wait.