please tell me that I'm wrong about AT&T getting ready to drop DSL in Tulsa ...
please tell me that I'm wrong about AT&T getting ready to drop DSL in Tulsa ...
1st: Drop ATM based DSL yes but not IP DSL.
The idea being to turn down ALL of the older frame relay and ATM technology based services in favor of a pure IP network. Which is much faster and a lot more versatile.
2nd: Fiber is not a "downgrade" by any means.
Fiber is by far the most reliable and fastest means of getting service to a customer there is. There is no theoretical limit on using fiber like there is with copper as new technologies are proving. What can be done strictly with light these days borders on magic.
3rd: Fiber doesn't run on bad batteries.
It uses the same power distribution that the copper network equipment uses. Which is redundant and is backed up with Gen sets and batteries.
If someone loses service during extended power outages it's usually because the customer doesn't have their equipment on a UPS. Or they're an extended distance from a CO running through an RT and the RT has lost power which would be an all copper setup. Actually, most RT sites don't have gen sets just batteries for a short outage. Or lastly, the cables have been damaged.
The idea being to turn down ALL of the older frame relay and ATM technology based services in favor of a pure IP network. Which is much faster and a lot more versatile.
2nd: Fiber is not a "downgrade" by any means.
Fiber is by far the most reliable and fastest means of getting service to a customer there is. There is no theoretical limit on using fiber like there is with copper as new technologies are proving. What can be done strictly with light these days borders on magic.
3rd: Fiber doesn't run on bad batteries.
It uses the same power distribution that the copper network equipment uses. Which is redundant and is backed up with Gen sets and batteries.
If someone loses service during extended power outages it's usually because the customer doesn't have their equipment on a UPS. Or they're an extended distance from a CO running through an RT and the RT has lost power which would be an all copper setup. Actually, most RT sites don't have gen sets just batteries for a short outage. Or lastly, the cables have been damaged.
certainly not disagreeing with your premise of adopting IP DSL vs existing legacy ATM DSL. but that takes a considerable $$$$ investment by AT&T for IP DSL ... it's not exactly a secret AT&T wants to drop support for copper lines entirely in favor of wireless/fiber.
unless customer service rep for AT&T I spoke to a few weeks ago is wrong .. plans are to drop DSL entirely sometime in the near future. fact is copper based DSL is capable of supporting up to 9 mb already with no telling what improvements coming down the pike.
currently getting 2mb down/400k up ..which is plenty fast for my needs. streaming video only needs a modest 150k or so bandwidth .. most times when a video stream slows down it's not the line's limitations .. more likely throttling and/or bottle neck for that particular traffic path or whatever ... NOT my lowly 2mb downstream limitations.
as for reliability during multiple extended downtimes like ice storms in Tulsa that power was down for 2 1/2 weeks, 1 week, 4 days, etc, etc. my DSL/pots never went down the entire time power was out vs cable and fiber at my buddies houses were down for almost the entire time power was out for the city.
I strongly disagree CY..
I had one of those 2.5Mb down/450Kb Up DSL lines in Newalla and it sucked.
You coudn't even stream a 480P Youtube video reliably without buffering.
FORGET streaming 1080P HD or heaven forbid 4K content.
People need to start thinking 20Mb download minimum speeds for the future.
don't get me wrong .. not saying your 2.5Mb down/450Kb Up DSL line didn't suck .. but your buffering problems was NOT due to line speed limitations. if you truly got the 2.5 mb down speed you paid for .. that's plenty fast enough for any streaming content.
throttling streaming content to upsell faster download speeds is not unheard off ... which leads back to OP
And that is why AT&T spends between 13 to 18 billion a year on capitol spending just upgrading the network. If you look, that is about 10% of the company’s market cap, which is aggressive investment in my mind. IP DSL has been being installed in wire centers for ~5 years or so. Just a guess, I would say the ATM DSL customer base is somewhere between half to two thirds converted over to IP DSL already – and they run on copper – with no plans to change. That doesn’t count the FFTN or FTTP Uverse customers which are already IP.
FTTP has been the ONLY build option for new residential areas for a couple years now. I would personally love to have that as an option for myself. The only places where fiber is being overlaid in copper neighborhoods are in a few cities in Texas and Kansas, and they are being offered 1GIG service in those areas. Will fiber services be offered in outstate rural areas? Probably not anytime soon. More than likely they are going to be offered a wireless solution that will carry a full range of services as the traditional offering are turned down.
So yes, technically copper outside the reach of IP DSL will probably go away. In the future/now, if you’re within the range of IP DSL (on copper) that will be your service option, if not, it’ll probably be wireless. BTW, DSL available speeds are determined by a number of factors number one being the distance to the DSLAM. The farther away you are the slower things get. As a general rule, IP DSL has a farther reach and can attain faster speeds to equal distances as ATM DSL. Both can run considerably faster than 9mb BTW. Plus they can do some voodoo things such as pair bonding to get it out a little further. But the condition of the cable plant becomes a huge factor in determining how well it’ll work. For your info, FTTP isn't limited the way copper services are. Also, a wireless solution is no slouch. I work entirely on wireless with a 30Gig data plan and it works very well for me. Just a guess on my part, I believe paid data caps with eventually go away as new revenue streams open up like paid content.
Your reliability example is apples to oranges. There are numerous reasons why your buddy’s service could have been out while yours was on. The first that comes to my mind is that your service is probably buried and at least a portion of his was probably aerial. Ice storms are kind of rough on aerial cables and that’s why buried is the preferred solution. Another one is that when the power company was replacing the poles that were downed they were cutting cables while doing so – it happens all the time. I’ve seen it happen where there were multiple cuts, because the utility that was replacing a string of broken poles was cutting buried cables at every pole replaced.
Net Neutrality: FCC Chief Proposes Regulating Internet Like a Utility
Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler on Wednesday proposed sweeping new federal rules to regulate the Internet like a public utility, a notion endorsed three months ago by President Obama.
The plan "assures the rights of Internet users to go where they want, when they want, and the rights of innovators to introduce new products without asking anyone's permission," Wheeler wrote in an essay posted online Wednesday by Wired magazine.
An FCC official said the rules would prohibit broadband service providers from blocking access to legal content, slowing delivery speed based on content or source, or favoring some content providers by giving them preferential delivery speeds.
"In other words," the official said, "no fast lanes."
The rules would apply equally to wired and wireless services, including mobile broadband used by smartphone and tablets.
The FCC chairman's approach is an endorsement of what has come to be known as "net neutrality." With two content providers, Neflix and YouTube, accounting for roughly half of all Internet traffic at peak times, some in the industry have advocated charging them or other heavy users for special fast lanes.
But advocates of net neutrality have claimed such an approach would make it too hard and expensive for the YouTubes of the future to win over an audience.
"Internet companies are pleased to hear that Chairman Wheeler intends to enact strong, enforceable, and legally sustainable net neutrality rules that include bright-line rules," said Michael Beckerman of the Internet Association, representing Google, Yahoo, Facebook, Twitter, Netflix, Amazon and other industry giants.But the National Cable and Telecommunications Association said the rules would impose the "heavy burden" of utility regulation on the Internet.
"It will result in a backward-looking regulatory regime, ill-suited for the dynamic Internet," said the association's Michael Powell, a former FCC chairman.
Wheeler's proposal now goes to the other four FCC commissioners, who are scheduled to vote on it at a public meeting Feb. 26.
An FCC official said the plan would not allow the FCC to regulate Internet rates or authorize new local or federal taxes.
Comcast, the parent company of NBC Universal, said in November said it supported Obama's call for "a free and open Internet."
Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler on Wednesday proposed sweeping new federal rules to regulate the Internet like a public utility, a notion endorsed three months ago by President Obama.
The plan "assures the rights of Internet users to go where they want, when they want, and the rights of innovators to introduce new products without asking anyone's permission," Wheeler wrote in an essay posted online Wednesday by Wired magazine.
An FCC official said the rules would prohibit broadband service providers from blocking access to legal content, slowing delivery speed based on content or source, or favoring some content providers by giving them preferential delivery speeds.
"In other words," the official said, "no fast lanes."
The rules would apply equally to wired and wireless services, including mobile broadband used by smartphone and tablets.
The FCC chairman's approach is an endorsement of what has come to be known as "net neutrality." With two content providers, Neflix and YouTube, accounting for roughly half of all Internet traffic at peak times, some in the industry have advocated charging them or other heavy users for special fast lanes.
But advocates of net neutrality have claimed such an approach would make it too hard and expensive for the YouTubes of the future to win over an audience.
"Internet companies are pleased to hear that Chairman Wheeler intends to enact strong, enforceable, and legally sustainable net neutrality rules that include bright-line rules," said Michael Beckerman of the Internet Association, representing Google, Yahoo, Facebook, Twitter, Netflix, Amazon and other industry giants.But the National Cable and Telecommunications Association said the rules would impose the "heavy burden" of utility regulation on the Internet.
"It will result in a backward-looking regulatory regime, ill-suited for the dynamic Internet," said the association's Michael Powell, a former FCC chairman.
Wheeler's proposal now goes to the other four FCC commissioners, who are scheduled to vote on it at a public meeting Feb. 26.
An FCC official said the plan would not allow the FCC to regulate Internet rates or authorize new local or federal taxes.
Comcast, the parent company of NBC Universal, said in November said it supported Obama's call for "a free and open Internet."
FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler: This Is How We Will Ensure Net Neutrality
By Tom Wheeler 02.04.15 |
Federal Communication Commission(FCC) Chairman Tom Wheeler waits for a hearing at the FCC December 11, 2014 in Washington, DC.
After more than a decade of debate and a record-setting proceeding that attracted nearly 4 million public comments, the time to settle the Net Neutrality question has arrived. This week, I will circulate to the members of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) proposed new rules to preserve the internet as an open platform for innovation and free expression. This proposal is rooted in long-standing regulatory principles, marketplace experience, and public input received over the last several months.
Broadband network operators have an understandable motivation to manage their network to maximize their business interests. But their actions may not always be optimal for network users. The Congress gave the FCC broad authority to update its rules to reflect changes in technology and marketplace behavior in a way that protects consumers. Over the years, the Commission has used this authority to the public’s great benefit.
Tom Wheeler
Tom Wheeler is the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission.
The internet wouldn’t have emerged as it did, for instance, if the FCC hadn’t mandated open access for network equipment in the late 1960s. Before then, AT&T prohibited anyone from attaching non-AT&T equipment to the network. The modems that enabled the internet were usable only because the FCC required the network to be open.
Companies such as AOL were able to grow in the early days of home computing because these modems gave them access to the open telephone network.
I personally learned the importance of open networks the hard way. In the mid-1980s I was president of a startup, NABU: The Home Computer Network. My company was using new technology to deliver high-speed data to home computers over cable television lines. Across town Steve Case was starting what became AOL. NABU was delivering service at the then-blazing speed of 1.5 megabits per second-hundreds of times faster than Case’s company. “We used to worry about you a lot,” Case told me years later.
But NABU went broke while AOL became very successful. Why that is highlights the fundamental problem with allowing networks to act as gatekeepers.
While delivering better service, NABU had to depend on cable television operators granting access to their systems. Steve Case was not only a brilliant entrepreneur, but he also had access to an unlimited number of customers nationwide who only had to attach a modem to their phone line to receive his service. The phone network was open whereas the cable networks were closed. End of story.
The phone network’s openness did not happen by accident, but by FCC rule. How we precisely deliver that kind of openness for America’s broadband networks has been the subject of a debate over the last several months.
Originally, I believed that the FCC could assure internet openness through a determination of “commercial reasonableness” under Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. While a recent court decision seemed to draw a roadmap for using this approach, I became concerned that this relatively new concept might, down the road, be interpreted to mean what is reasonable for commercial interests, not consumers.
That is why I am proposing that the FCC use its Title II authority to implement and enforce open internet protections.
Using this authority, I am submitting to my colleagues the strongest open internet protections ever proposed by the FCC. These enforceable, bright-line rules will ban paid prioritization, and the blocking and throttling of lawful content and services. I propose to fully apply-for the first time ever-those bright-line rules to mobile broadband. My proposal assures the rights of internet users to go where they want, when they want, and the rights of innovators to introduce new products without asking anyone’s permission.
All of this can be accomplished while encouraging investment in broadband networks. To preserve incentives for broadband operators to invest in their networks, my proposal will modernize Title II, tailoring it for the 21st century, in order to provide returns necessary to construct competitive networks. For example, there will be no rate regulation, no tariffs, no last-mile unbundling. Over the last 21 years, the wireless industry has invested almost $300 billion under similar rules, proving that modernized Title II regulation can encourage investment and competition.
Congress wisely gave the FCC the power to update its rules to keep pace with innovation. Under that authority my proposal includes a general conduct rule that can be used to stop new and novel threats to the internet. This means the action we take will be strong enough and flexible enough not only to deal with the realities of today, but also to establish ground rules for the as yet unimagined.
The internet must be fast, fair and open. That is the message I’ve heard from consumers and innovators across this nation. That is the principle that has enabled the internet to become an unprecedented platform for innovation and human expression. And that is the lesson I learned heading a tech startup at the dawn of the internet age. The proposal I present to the commission will ensure the internet remains open, now and in the future, for all Americans.
By Tom Wheeler 02.04.15 |
Federal Communication Commission(FCC) Chairman Tom Wheeler waits for a hearing at the FCC December 11, 2014 in Washington, DC.
After more than a decade of debate and a record-setting proceeding that attracted nearly 4 million public comments, the time to settle the Net Neutrality question has arrived. This week, I will circulate to the members of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) proposed new rules to preserve the internet as an open platform for innovation and free expression. This proposal is rooted in long-standing regulatory principles, marketplace experience, and public input received over the last several months.
Broadband network operators have an understandable motivation to manage their network to maximize their business interests. But their actions may not always be optimal for network users. The Congress gave the FCC broad authority to update its rules to reflect changes in technology and marketplace behavior in a way that protects consumers. Over the years, the Commission has used this authority to the public’s great benefit.
Tom Wheeler
Tom Wheeler is the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission.
The internet wouldn’t have emerged as it did, for instance, if the FCC hadn’t mandated open access for network equipment in the late 1960s. Before then, AT&T prohibited anyone from attaching non-AT&T equipment to the network. The modems that enabled the internet were usable only because the FCC required the network to be open.
Companies such as AOL were able to grow in the early days of home computing because these modems gave them access to the open telephone network.
I personally learned the importance of open networks the hard way. In the mid-1980s I was president of a startup, NABU: The Home Computer Network. My company was using new technology to deliver high-speed data to home computers over cable television lines. Across town Steve Case was starting what became AOL. NABU was delivering service at the then-blazing speed of 1.5 megabits per second-hundreds of times faster than Case’s company. “We used to worry about you a lot,” Case told me years later.
But NABU went broke while AOL became very successful. Why that is highlights the fundamental problem with allowing networks to act as gatekeepers.
While delivering better service, NABU had to depend on cable television operators granting access to their systems. Steve Case was not only a brilliant entrepreneur, but he also had access to an unlimited number of customers nationwide who only had to attach a modem to their phone line to receive his service. The phone network was open whereas the cable networks were closed. End of story.
The phone network’s openness did not happen by accident, but by FCC rule. How we precisely deliver that kind of openness for America’s broadband networks has been the subject of a debate over the last several months.
Originally, I believed that the FCC could assure internet openness through a determination of “commercial reasonableness” under Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. While a recent court decision seemed to draw a roadmap for using this approach, I became concerned that this relatively new concept might, down the road, be interpreted to mean what is reasonable for commercial interests, not consumers.
That is why I am proposing that the FCC use its Title II authority to implement and enforce open internet protections.
Using this authority, I am submitting to my colleagues the strongest open internet protections ever proposed by the FCC. These enforceable, bright-line rules will ban paid prioritization, and the blocking and throttling of lawful content and services. I propose to fully apply-for the first time ever-those bright-line rules to mobile broadband. My proposal assures the rights of internet users to go where they want, when they want, and the rights of innovators to introduce new products without asking anyone’s permission.
All of this can be accomplished while encouraging investment in broadband networks. To preserve incentives for broadband operators to invest in their networks, my proposal will modernize Title II, tailoring it for the 21st century, in order to provide returns necessary to construct competitive networks. For example, there will be no rate regulation, no tariffs, no last-mile unbundling. Over the last 21 years, the wireless industry has invested almost $300 billion under similar rules, proving that modernized Title II regulation can encourage investment and competition.
Congress wisely gave the FCC the power to update its rules to keep pace with innovation. Under that authority my proposal includes a general conduct rule that can be used to stop new and novel threats to the internet. This means the action we take will be strong enough and flexible enough not only to deal with the realities of today, but also to establish ground rules for the as yet unimagined.
The internet must be fast, fair and open. That is the message I’ve heard from consumers and innovators across this nation. That is the principle that has enabled the internet to become an unprecedented platform for innovation and human expression. And that is the lesson I learned heading a tech startup at the dawn of the internet age. The proposal I present to the commission will ensure the internet remains open, now and in the future, for all Americans.
from Redit ... FAQ for Net Neutrality:
www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2uw4z7/its_net_neutrality_fun_time_we_are_public/
======================
It's Net Neutrality Fun time! We are Public Knowledge, open internet advocates here to discuss Title II, Net Neutrality, Rural Broadband and more! Ask us anything!
submitted 2 hours ago * by PublicKnowledgeDC
Unfortunately, we have to bring this session to a close. A huge thank you to everyone for participating and engaging in this subject. You made this both fun and successful.
If you are still curious or have more questions, please check out our website www.publicknowledge.org where you will find our blogs and podcasts or follow us on Twitter @publicknowledge. Thank you again, and keep following as this issue continues!
Our Contributors:
Michael Weinberg - VP of Public Knowledge
Chris Lewis - VP of Government Affairs
John Bergmayer - Senior Staff Attorney - focuses on Mergers, Net Neutrality and more
Jodie Griffin - Senior Staff Attorney - knows all things tech transition, net neutrality, music licensing and broadband build out
Edyael Casaperalta - Rural Policy Fellow
246 comments
share
top 200 commentsshow all 246
sorted by:
best
[–]ii-V-I 31 points 1 hour ago
Wheeler's recent statement said that last-mile unbundling is off the table. Doesn't that mean that ISPs can still hold their customers over a barrel and charge us a ton without offering fast speeds?
permalink
[–]PublicKnowledgeDC 26 points 1 hour ago
It is true that the FCC is not implementing last-mile unbundling obligations in these rules, but there are still other steps the FCC can take to encourage competition for consumers, like examining all the potential harms of mergers or encouraging the deployment of new networks through efforts like municipal broadband.
-- Jodie
permalink
parent
[–]ii-V-I 19 points 1 hour ago
there are still other steps the FCC can take to encourage competition for consumers, like examining all the potential harms of mergers or encouraging the deployment of new networks through efforts like municipal broadband.
But doesn't that mean we're right back where we started? Examining harms is fine and dandy, but it leads to no actionable consequences for ISPs. And without the last-mile, muni broadband will be financially out of reach for the majority of small towns in the whole country.
permalink
parent
[–]PublicKnowledgeDC 16 points 1 hour ago
Another way to look at this: net neutrality is important but doesn't solve every problem. As to the other problems: We're working on it. PK also works for copyright reform, open spectrum, muni broadband, and lots of other stuff.
-John B
permalink
parent
[–]SuperMike83 8 points 53 minutes ago
It doesn't solve ANY problems, it just changes the loopholes these corporations use to screw over the consumer.
permalink
parent
[–]ii-V-I 2 points 1 hour ago
net neutrality is important but doesn't solve every problem
After title II, whats stopping ISPs from basically saying, "You want us to be a utility? Fine, that will be $1 per GB you use."
permalink
parent
[–]TheOtherHarryPotter 7 points 55 minutes ago
As far as I know, there's nothing stopping them from doing that now if they wanted to. Reclassification of the sort the FCC seems to be planning shouldn't change anything related to that either way.
permalink
parent
[–]FourAM 3 points 43 minutes ago
Except how spiteful broadband providers are towards their customers who pushed the FCC to reclassify.
permalink
parent
[–]ii-V-I 4 points 46 minutes ago
Reclassification of the sort the FCC seems to be planning wouldn't change anything related to that either way.
With title II, ISPs will have to finally invest in infrastructure if they're no longer allowed to throttle and shape traffic for network management. Also, they won't be able to extort companies like Netflix for millions due to peering shenanigans.
Title II will impact ISPs by increasing costs and decreasing revenue. Shareholders will go bananas. Now is their chance to say "well we told you title II was going to increase your bill." And suddenly we're all paying $200/month for Internet.
permalink
parent
[–]MisterWoodhouse 4 points 37 minutes ago
And suddenly we're all paying $200/month for Internet.
There's a sure-fire way to incur the wrath of the Justice Department. Either colluding with competitors to increase prices or leveraging regional monopoly status to extort extra profits out of trapped customers.
permalink
parent
[–]ii-V-I 5 points 33 minutes ago
Either colluding with competitors to increase prices or leveraging regional monopoly status to extort extra profits out of trapped customers.
Isn't that exactly ISPs current business model?
permalink
parent
[–]MisterWoodhouse 8 points 21 minutes ago
Until recently, the big guys were protected by being able to point to regional DSL providers as "competitors" and, thus, were technically not regional monopolies in many areas (even though we know better). Then the FCC dictated that broadband internet is now defined as having a minimum speed of 25 Mbps down/3 Mbps up, which wiped away most regional providers as "competitors" in claims by Comcast, Time Warner Cable, Verizon, etc.
With the new FCC minimum bandwidth requirements for broadband internet, many cities and towns only have one or two broadband providers by definition, making it harder for the big guys to get away with inflating prices just to expand profits.
So, to answer your question, yes, it is exactly the current business model of several ISPs, but the difference is that now they no longer have a "token fake competitor" to use as a defense for their monopolistic actions in many cities and towns. The possibility of a Justice Department crackdown on ISP regional monopolies is what will, hopefully, keep the notorious mega-ISPs in check when it comes to price changes following the implementation of new Net Neutrality rules.
www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2uw4z7/its_net_neutrality_fun_time_we_are_public/
======================
It's Net Neutrality Fun time! We are Public Knowledge, open internet advocates here to discuss Title II, Net Neutrality, Rural Broadband and more! Ask us anything!
submitted 2 hours ago * by PublicKnowledgeDC
Unfortunately, we have to bring this session to a close. A huge thank you to everyone for participating and engaging in this subject. You made this both fun and successful.
If you are still curious or have more questions, please check out our website www.publicknowledge.org where you will find our blogs and podcasts or follow us on Twitter @publicknowledge. Thank you again, and keep following as this issue continues!
Our Contributors:
Michael Weinberg - VP of Public Knowledge
Chris Lewis - VP of Government Affairs
John Bergmayer - Senior Staff Attorney - focuses on Mergers, Net Neutrality and more
Jodie Griffin - Senior Staff Attorney - knows all things tech transition, net neutrality, music licensing and broadband build out
Edyael Casaperalta - Rural Policy Fellow
246 comments
share
top 200 commentsshow all 246
sorted by:
best
[–]ii-V-I 31 points 1 hour ago
Wheeler's recent statement said that last-mile unbundling is off the table. Doesn't that mean that ISPs can still hold their customers over a barrel and charge us a ton without offering fast speeds?
permalink
[–]PublicKnowledgeDC
It is true that the FCC is not implementing last-mile unbundling obligations in these rules, but there are still other steps the FCC can take to encourage competition for consumers, like examining all the potential harms of mergers or encouraging the deployment of new networks through efforts like municipal broadband.
-- Jodie
permalink
parent
[–]ii-V-I 19 points 1 hour ago
there are still other steps the FCC can take to encourage competition for consumers, like examining all the potential harms of mergers or encouraging the deployment of new networks through efforts like municipal broadband.
But doesn't that mean we're right back where we started? Examining harms is fine and dandy, but it leads to no actionable consequences for ISPs. And without the last-mile, muni broadband will be financially out of reach for the majority of small towns in the whole country.
permalink
parent
[–]PublicKnowledgeDC
Another way to look at this: net neutrality is important but doesn't solve every problem. As to the other problems: We're working on it. PK also works for copyright reform, open spectrum, muni broadband, and lots of other stuff.
-John B
permalink
parent
[–]SuperMike83 8 points 53 minutes ago
It doesn't solve ANY problems, it just changes the loopholes these corporations use to screw over the consumer.
permalink
parent
[–]ii-V-I 2 points 1 hour ago
net neutrality is important but doesn't solve every problem
After title II, whats stopping ISPs from basically saying, "You want us to be a utility? Fine, that will be $1 per GB you use."
permalink
parent
[–]TheOtherHarryPotter 7 points 55 minutes ago
As far as I know, there's nothing stopping them from doing that now if they wanted to. Reclassification of the sort the FCC seems to be planning shouldn't change anything related to that either way.
permalink
parent
[–]FourAM 3 points 43 minutes ago
Except how spiteful broadband providers are towards their customers who pushed the FCC to reclassify.
permalink
parent
[–]ii-V-I 4 points 46 minutes ago
Reclassification of the sort the FCC seems to be planning wouldn't change anything related to that either way.
With title II, ISPs will have to finally invest in infrastructure if they're no longer allowed to throttle and shape traffic for network management. Also, they won't be able to extort companies like Netflix for millions due to peering shenanigans.
Title II will impact ISPs by increasing costs and decreasing revenue. Shareholders will go bananas. Now is their chance to say "well we told you title II was going to increase your bill." And suddenly we're all paying $200/month for Internet.
permalink
parent
[–]MisterWoodhouse 4 points 37 minutes ago
And suddenly we're all paying $200/month for Internet.
There's a sure-fire way to incur the wrath of the Justice Department. Either colluding with competitors to increase prices or leveraging regional monopoly status to extort extra profits out of trapped customers.
permalink
parent
[–]ii-V-I 5 points 33 minutes ago
Either colluding with competitors to increase prices or leveraging regional monopoly status to extort extra profits out of trapped customers.
Isn't that exactly ISPs current business model?
permalink
parent
[–]MisterWoodhouse 8 points 21 minutes ago
Until recently, the big guys were protected by being able to point to regional DSL providers as "competitors" and, thus, were technically not regional monopolies in many areas (even though we know better). Then the FCC dictated that broadband internet is now defined as having a minimum speed of 25 Mbps down/3 Mbps up, which wiped away most regional providers as "competitors" in claims by Comcast, Time Warner Cable, Verizon, etc.
With the new FCC minimum bandwidth requirements for broadband internet, many cities and towns only have one or two broadband providers by definition, making it harder for the big guys to get away with inflating prices just to expand profits.
So, to answer your question, yes, it is exactly the current business model of several ISPs, but the difference is that now they no longer have a "token fake competitor" to use as a defense for their monopolistic actions in many cities and towns. The possibility of a Justice Department crackdown on ISP regional monopolies is what will, hopefully, keep the notorious mega-ISPs in check when it comes to price changes following the implementation of new Net Neutrality rules.
I still live in the hinterlands... The only broadband I can get access through is wireless. I'm beyond the threshold of copper DSL, even though AT&T ran fiber within a quarter mile of my house, I still cant get fiber based DSL. I'd just like to see a Mandate to provide stable usable high speed access to the internet to rural customers by what ever means that works best. While they are at it, why in heck do I have to pay for all the sattellite channels that I won't watch to get the few that I do. I'm made to subsidize program content that i either find morally repugnant or of little interest. Let the content wars begin...
Similar threads
