What do you mean by "do I think the same things would be happening?"
I have no love for the FCC under the Bush administration, and I think their actions were either the result of blatant corruption or stupidity. It's hard to look at their regulatory history and not be suspicious of the motivations for such a "pro-telco" agenda. That said, the "competition" of the late 90s was largely "fake" in a lot of ways. One of the fundamental purposes of the Telecom Act of 1996 was to force linesharing as a transitional stage while competitive carriers built out their own networks. Very little last mile buildout by CLECs actually happened--most CLECs just rode Ma Bells lines and were basically just glorified salespeople fronting private label bell products. A lot of money was made through various forms of arbitrage plays--which, given that they sucked a lot of revenue out of the industry without adding any value, weren't good. Unfortunately, this sort of arbitrage mentality still infects a lot of the telecom market. On the other hand, the same arbitrage plays did have the benefit of making dialin PRIs very profitable, making unlimited dialup Internet access feasible and setting the general consumer expectation that Internet should not be metered in the same way as normal telephone calls. I'm not sure what you mean by "cable didn't have anything to do with this". The market share, as well as the lack of regulations on the cable companies was one of the main talking points behind getting the Tauzin-Dingell act pushed through Congress. Regardless, I think your general question is "would we need forced network neutrality" if the provisions of the telecom act of 1996 were still in place to some degree. I think so: - As previously mentioned, no one really pursued last mile buildout except for the MSOs and ILECs. This means that any competition is going to be "forced" to some degree by regulations. - Eventually, IPTV / triple play would still be the logical evolution of service providers, whether they are ILECs, MSOs, or CLECs. - Once they offer voice / video services, they have every incentive to make sure that competitive services don't perform well on their network. This doesn't change if you go from 2 providers in a zip code to 5, they still have the same incentives. - If CLECs were still viable, then the regular M&A trends would have lead to heavy consolidations. and there still wouldn't be that much more competition. - The basic problem that net neutrality solves is that traffic shaping has the potential to fracture the Internet. If application providers need to pay more in general to send content to the Internet, then fine. However, the overhead of requiring application providers to negotiate with each and every network provider in the world to ensure that they have a viable path to the end-consumer essentially kills any innovation from anyone other than the biggest of companies. A "standard" of sorts is necessary, much in the same way that power companies are regulated to ensure that their voltage is consistent all across the US. Still, I wish the past 8 years of regulatory actions had gone differently. I think business customers, specifically, really got screwed by the last 8 years of regulation: residential Internet access is generally cheap, while millions of small business are still stuck with $700 T1s as their best method for getting on the Internet. Had regulation changes not killed off CLECs and killed line sharing requirements (or, at least cast enough doubt on them to make any investment very questionable), I think CLECs, unrestrained by having a big cash cow of existing T1 customers, would have made that space a lot more interesting. -Clint Ricker On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 12:27 AM, Scottie Arnett <sarn...@info-ed.com>wrote: > One question Clint. If you go all the way back to the FCC Computer > Inquiries Acts I, II, and III...do you think all the same things would be > happening? What if the FCC did not get rid of the enforcement bureau that > was handling this? And after that the Tauzin-Dinguall Acts in the late 90's > early 2000's? Keep in mind at the time Cable had nothing to do with this. > > When it comes down to the $$$... The telephone companies were missing out > on their own boat ... as to say( back in the days when BBS's became web > sites) and VOIP was just a dream. They saw they were missing out and > everything since the mid 90's and what the FCC has done has only helped the > RBOC's and ILEC's. I can name numerous claims that support this. > > Scottie > > ---------- Original Message ---------------------------------- > From: Clint Ricker <cric...@kentnis.com> > Reply-To: WISPA General List <wireless@wispa.org> > Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 09:48:53 -0400 > > >The language of point 3 is targetting heavy "users", not "applications" > that > >may be heavy under some, even common, circumstances. While it seems like > a > >small detail, it is, in fact, a big distinction--why should I be blocked > >from using bit torrent to download a gutenberg ebook (ie legal & small) > >because my neighbor is doing warez full throttle, 24/7/365? > > > >Genachowski specifically alluded to Comcast degrading bit torrent traffic, > >something that Comcast claimed to be doing for reasons of network > management > >and blocking of illegal content. > > > >Waving the illegal content flag is, in my opinion, very short sighted: > >- Legal video streaming services (hulu, netflix on demand) are rising. > >These are worse, in a lot of ways, than the bit torrent model since it > >requires a sustained throughput to provide a usable customer experience. > >They also often use HTTP or other common protocols. > >- Bit Torrent itself is trending more "legal"; major content providers and > >software companies are using it for legal distribution of content while > the > >illegal content is making its way to other networks that are more secure / > >private > >- Last, but certainly not least, content providers are VERY eager to sign > up > >the ISPs as "content" cops. Once you start down that road, you may very > >well find yourself as an operator having given away your own safe harbor > >rights and having the legal obligation to police your network for bad > >content. In general, it's hard to not see the WISPs taking the side of > >major MSOs, RBOCs, and content providers as a dangerous game. It's one > >thing to decide to block bit torrent because it carries a large percentage > >of illegal content. It's another thing when you have to implement, at > your > >own expense, url / ip filtering, install deep packet inspection hardware > >(VERY expensive), and other extensive, expensive, and very time consuming > >process or face repeated and ongoing liability every time some kid on your > >network wants to duck out on paying 99c for an mp3. > > > >The content providers have been pushing for this for years; if ISPs start > >dancing the same tune to win the "right" to do some occasional fiddling > with > >some packets, it would likely shift the balance of power. Given that many > >of the major service providers (Comcast, Time Warner, etc...) are also > major > >content providers meaning that the expenses of manditory content filtering > >carried by the service provider business are offset by potential increases > >in profitability for the content producing side of the house. You, on the > >other hand, have nothing to gain here. > > > >You thought CALEA was bad? > > > >-Clint Ricker > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 9:00 AM, Curtis Maurand <cmaur...@xyonet.com> > wrote: > > > >> > >> Take a look at the third and the fifth bullet points. > >> > >> --C > >> > >> Clint Ricker wrote: > >> > Where is everyone getting that you are allowed to prioritize anything? > >> The > >> > speech details three points along the subject of prioritization. The > >> Julius > >> > Genachowski's recent speech specifically said "no > prioritization"--refer > >> to > >> > section 5. > >> > > >> > - "This means they cannot block or degrade lawful traffic over their > >> > networks" (blocking / deprioritizing) > >> > - "or pick winners by favoring some content or applications over > others > >> in > >> > the connection to subscribers' homes" (prioritizing) > >> > - "During periods of network congestion, for example, it may be > >> appropriate > >> > for providers to ensure that very heavy users do not crowd out > everyone > >> > else" (block / degrade on a per-user basis, rather than > per-application?) > >> > - Doesn't apply to managed services (I believe that he's referring to > >> metro > >> > Ethernet with QOS) > >> > - "open Internet principles apply only to lawful content, services and > >> > applications -- not to activities like unlawful distribution of > >> copyrighted > >> > works, which has serious economic consequences." (As I said in my > Senate > >> > confirmation hearing, open Internet principles apply only to lawful > >> content, > >> > services and applications -- not to activities like unlawful > distribution > >> of > >> > copyrighted works, which has serious economic consequences.) > >> > > >> > Where has any statement been made regarding prioritization being ok? > >> > > >> > Thanks, > >> > -Clint Ricker > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 4:01 PM, Mike Hammett < > wispawirel...@ics-il.net > >> >wrote: > >> > > >> > > >> >> Right, which is why I phrased it that way. You can't deprioritize > >> >> anything, > >> >> but you can prioritize anything (based upon what I've read on this > >> list). > >> >> They accomplish the same thing, but at face value, one is permissible > >> the > >> >> other is not. > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> ----- > >> >> Mike Hammett > >> >> Intelligent Computing Solutions > >> >> http://www.ics-il.com > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> -------------------------------------------------- > >> >> From: "Jeff Broadwick" <jeffl...@comcast.net> > >> >> Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 12:53 PM > >> >> To: "'WISPA General List'" <wireless@wispa.org> > >> >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] The Net Neutrality speech we've all been waiting > >> for > >> >> > >> >> > >> >>> You'd have to ask the FCC. Seems like it's the opposite side of the > >> same > >> >>> coin. > >> >>> > >> >>> Jeff > >> >>> > >> >>> -----Original Message----- > >> >>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org > ] > >> On > >> >>> Behalf Of Mike Hammett > >> >>> Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 1:51 PM > >> >>> To: WISPA General List > >> >>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] The Net Neutrality speech we've all been > waiting > >> for > >> >>> > >> >>> What's the difference between prioritizing all traditional services > >> above > >> >>> other and deprioritizing the "bad" ones below other? > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> ----- > >> >>> Mike Hammett > >> >>> Intelligent Computing Solutions > >> >>> http://www.ics-il.com > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> -------------------------------------------------- > >> >>> From: "Jeff Broadwick" <jeffl...@comcast.net> > >> >>> Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 12:07 PM > >> >>> To: "'WISPA General List'" <wireless@wispa.org> > >> >>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] The Net Neutrality speech we've all been > waiting > >> for > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>>> The FCC has said that you cannot de-prioritize any type of traffic. > >> You > >> >>>> have to do it by prioritizing other types of traffic. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> Jeff > >> >>>> ImageStream > >> >>>> > >> >>>> -----Original Message----- > >> >>>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto: > wireless-boun...@wispa.org] > >> On > >> >>>> Behalf Of Jerry Richardson > >> >>>> Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 12:53 PM > >> >>>> To: WISPA General List > >> >>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] The Net Neutrality speech we've all been > waiting > >> >>>> > >> >> for > >> >> > >> >>>> I read the Fifth as I cannot discriminate - meaning block this but > not > >> >>>> that. > >> >>>> It says nothing about shaping. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> Jerry > >> >>>> > >> >>>> -----Original Message----- > >> >>>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto: > wireless-boun...@wispa.org] > >> On > >> >>>> Behalf Of David E. Smith > >> >>>> Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 9:33 AM > >> >>>> To: WISPA General List > >> >>>> Subject: [WISPA] The Net Neutrality speech we've all been waiting > for > >> >>>> > >> >>>> http://openinternet.gov/read-speech.html > >> >>>> > >> >>>> In addition to the four classic "Network neutrality" principles, > the > >> FCC > >> >>>> plans to pursue two more. Quotes from the speech: > >> >>>> > >> >>>> * "The fifth principle is one of non-discrimination -- stating that > >> >>>> broadband providers cannot discriminate against particular Internet > >> >>>> content > >> >>>> or applications." > >> >>>> * "The sixth principle is a transparency principle -- stating that > >> >>>> providers > >> >>>> of broadband Internet access must be transparent about their > network > >> >>>> management practices." > >> >>>> > >> >>>> I love the sixth one, but number five gives me the willies. "Nope, > >> >>>> doesn't > >> >>>> matter that BitTorrent users bring your network to its knees, > you're > >> not > >> >>>> allowed to do anything about it." Please tell me I'm missing > >> something. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> David Smith > >> >>>> MVN.net > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >> > >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> >> > >> >>>> ---- > >> >>>> WISPA Wants You! Join today! > >> >>>> http://signup.wispa.org/ > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >> > >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> >> > >> >>>> ---- > >> >>>> > >> >>>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > >> >>>> > >> >>>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > >> >>>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > >> >>>> > >> >>>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >> > >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> >> > >> >>>> ---- > >> >>>> WISPA Wants You! Join today! > >> >>>> http://signup.wispa.org/ > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >> > >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> >> > >> >>>> ---- > >> >>>> > >> >>>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > >> >>>> > >> >>>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > >> >>>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > >> >>>> > >> >>>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >> > >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> >> > >> >>> ---- > >> >>> > >> >>>> WISPA Wants You! Join today! > >> >>>> http://signup.wispa.org/ > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >> > >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> >> > >> >>> ---- > >> >>> > >> >>>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > >> >>>> > >> >>>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > >> >>>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > >> >>>> > >> >>>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >> > >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> >> > >> >>> ---- > >> >>> WISPA Wants You! Join today! > >> >>> http://signup.wispa.org/ > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >> > >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> >> > >> >>> ---- > >> >>> > >> >>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > >> >>> > >> >>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > >> >>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > >> >>> > >> >>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >> > >> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> >> > >> >>> WISPA Wants You! Join today! > >> >>> http://signup.wispa.org/ > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >> > >> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> >> > >> >>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > >> >>> > >> >>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > >> >>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > >> >>> > >> >>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >> > >> >> > >> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> >> WISPA Wants You! Join today! > >> >> http://signup.wispa.org/ > >> >> > >> >> > >> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> >> > >> >> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > >> >> > >> >> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > >> >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > >> >> > >> >> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > >> >> > >> >> > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > >> > http://signup.wispa.org/ > >> > > >> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> > > >> > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > >> > > >> > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > >> > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > >> > > >> > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> WISPA Wants You! Join today! > >> http://signup.wispa.org/ > >> > >> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> > >> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > >> > >> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > >> > >> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > >> > > > > > > >-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >WISPA Wants You! Join today! > >http://signup.wispa.org/ > > >-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > >WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > > >Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > >http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > > >Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > >--- > >[This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus] > > > > > > Wireless High Speed Broadband service from Info-Ed, Inc. as low as > $30.00/mth. > Check out www.info-ed.com/wireless.html for information. > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
