« Wireless industry gears up for WiMax | Home | Muni Wi-Fi: Not As Good As It Gets »
FCC Probe: Net Neutrality Goose Chase?
By Larry Hendrick | March 28, 2007
I can think of a lot of ways to spend tax dollars that don’t include a wild goose chase. As the paragraph below says, neither side of the debate expects anything to turn up from this investigation. If that is so, then why waste our money?
I have long been against so-called Net Neutrality, because I have never witnessed government intervention that went according to any plan. They will over-regulate and over-burden the small businesses into extinction.
I get my DSL from a small local provider that would be out of business from some of the recommended regulations that are thrown about because maybe, someday, someone, somewhere, might do something.
I think there are better ways to address these issues if they ever becomes a reality.
FCC Probe: Net Neutrality Goose Chase?
As well intentioned as the fact-finding mission may be, the FCC isn’t likely to turn up much, say both sides of the debate. Broadband providers have consistently stated that they do not give preferential treatment to some services, nor do they plan to block competing services. Comcast’s Vice-President of External Affairs, Joseph Waz Jr., summed up the position at the Broadband Policy Summit in May, 2006, when he said calls for legislation barring preferential pricing were “a solution in search of a problem.”
Topics: Business, General, Technology |
March 28th, 2007 at 12:47 pm
I agree that we don’t need net neutrality legislation but I do think we need some government intervention to make sure that high speed broadband gets deployed in this country. There is no reason we should have such slow speeds as such high costs. There are government policies that could help providers build out more capacity. Check out http://www.speedmatters.org.
March 28th, 2007 at 4:41 pm
Laura, thanks for coming by and giving me a comment. I appreciate it a lot. But, I don’t think I understand, Laura. High speed Internet is available for as little as $14.95/month. I have a 3.0Mbs DSL connection, available from Verizon for $29.95/month.
In the areas where Verizon has installed their Fios FTTH, they offer 10Mbs for $44 and 100Mbs for about $65. That is pretty good pricing from where I sit.
Now to be sure, I’m a full-on capitalist, rather than a socialist, and that does affect my opinion. It’s not a right, it a luxury.
I think my rent is too expensive, but the government isn’t stepping up to make that cheaper, and somewhere to live is not a luxury. Maybe speedmatters.org could give me a hand with that. I’d be very grateful.
March 28th, 2007 at 6:11 pm
America is 16 in the world in broadband use per 100 in the population. We spend less of our GDP on telecommunications investment than many other countries.In Japan they pay about $40 for 100 mbps for fiber to the home. I disagree that it’s a luxury and I think in the next few years it will be even less so. Too much public government information is on line; school children without it are at too much of a disadvantage. I understand this is a capitalist country, that’s why I don’t think government should build the capacity. I think they should develop a policy to create incentives for companies to build out more capacity and make sure it covers all areas at good speeds.
March 28th, 2007 at 6:46 pm
Laura, to make sure you know, I love the exchange.
I don’t see the advantage in providing Internet to children when many states have 50% dropout rates and the ones that do graduate can’t read or write in a functional way.
The grade on public schools is F- and the government has put all those policies in place. They continue to pass additional legislation to “fix” the problem, but it only adds to the “mess.”
Oh, and Japan is 145,000 square miles and the United States is 3.5 million square miles. That isn’t a fair comparison for infrastructure costs. Two completely different things, apples and bananas, sky blue and crimson red, …
Next, no school child is without Internet access. Every public library (another government entity) provides computers and Internet at no charge. It hasn’t hurt any of the last three generations to go to the library every night. Some months I spent more time at the library than sleeping, but it was, and is, available.
From my experience working for an ISP for years, there are so many factors that play into the “retail” price of access, the most people have no idea. I have written several articles on the cost of bandwidth on this site in the past. Search for “Fairy Tale” and you’ll see a couple. Suffice it to say, when the “full cost” of 100Mbs to an ISP is over $10,000/ month, it’s not going to be sold for $40. Government regulation, or lets call it what it is, cost controls won’t work. At least they haven’t worked with any industry they (government) have tried enforcing policies on.
I wish I wasn’t getting tired fingers from typing, because I have a lot to say about the statistics you’ve quoted in the first sentence. Just addressing that sentence could become a whole article on its own. Maybe tomorrow.
March 29th, 2007 at 10:58 am
Larry,I live in a small town in California and my chilrdern are required to use the Internet for a lot of their school projects. I am fortunate enough to have a good job and be able to provide a computer and DSL connection for them to use. But wake up, how long has it been since you have tried to go the the public library to access the Internet. When I was recently there I observed the long line of people waiting in que to use one of the outdated computers available. Not only does it take forever to get your turn, when you do you have a limmited time online. Then you either have to pay to print the information you gather or write it down and go home to transpose it to your computer, if you have one. I feel so bad for some of my daughter’s friends who are less fortunate than us that we let them come over regularly to study so they will have access and it won’t take them all night to get their homework done. The USF was put in place to make sure everyone had access to a telephone. We need to reform the USF to accomodate Internet access which is fast becoming (if it isn’t already) much more important.
March 29th, 2007 at 3:23 pm
Roger, thanks for jumping into the conversation. You are always welcome.
I live in a non-incorporated part of Galveston County. This area has about 5000 population and we are within 30 minutes of six different communities with libraries.
I am at the library every week (usually Fridays), and there are plenty of computers and I’ve never seen a line waiting for them. League City’s Library is not new, but has good resources available for anyone in two counties. The computers aren’t new, but are newer than most people have, and there is not any charge to print. League City has a population of 60,000, so is still considered a small community.
I’m glad you have a good job, but as I stated above, $14.95 will buy full-time, always-on Internet service. That’s $.50/day for something that is not a requirement for life. That’s pretty cheap. That’s less than electricity, gas, or trash service. It’s even cheaper than a cup of coffee every morning on the way to the office. I just bought a new computer (the others are over 5 years old and still function great) for a grand total of $600, which I thought was a bargain, too. Used computers are available for less that $150 at our local Fry’s Store (franchise electronics store). If this puts a burden on someone (and there are some it will), there are other alternatives.
I’m not unsympathetic, I just don’t believe involvement by the government is the answer. The USF (Universal Service Fund) was implemented decades ago, and the last city in the United States (in Louisiana) finally got telephone service in 2006 (did you know that), so that idea wasn’t very efficient since it was originally implemented in 1934. If we depend on the government to solve these problems (as you see them) we should have it solved by 2079. I think that is not a solution, but is what will happen with interference from the US Government.
There are programs run by foundations and private companies that collect and distribute used computer equipment to those in need. That and $.50/day will get someone online. The slowest cheapest Internet connection (or dial-up) is more than sufficient for online research and school work. Higher speeds are purely for convenience or recreation (online game playing) and surely you don’t see that as a requirement. In fact, DSL is cheaper than AOL dial-up service now, so competition is working to drive costs down farther each month.
I think private business and competition will continue to drive down the costs much quicker than regulation. History has shown this to be true, and government intervention usually slows the process.
March 29th, 2007 at 8:25 pm
Larry, you make some excellent points. Especially, as they relate to the Universal Service Fund, but have you considered the barriers of rural, rugged terrain and limited financial resources that reduce providers’ interest in investing or improving telecommunications and internet access on tribal lands? These barriers increase the costs of deploying infrastructure, while at the same time limit the ability of service providers to recover their costs, which can reduce providers’ interest in investing in or providing internet service.
A true high speed digital network would not just be purely for convenience or recreation (online game playing or streaming video), but it can offer advantages way beyond recreational choices; it will accelerate business development and innovations in telemedicine or interactive distance learning.
Government intervention usually does slow the process, but it doesn’t have to be that way in this case.
March 30th, 2007 at 11:21 am
WOW! David, thanks for joining the conversation. As I stated earlier, I appreciate your visit and the interaction on this and other subjects.
Yes, I have considered the barriers of rural, etc. and I see those barriers evaporating. BPL (Broadband over Power Lines) is currently rolling out by electric companies, and that product doesn’t have some of the limitation that current DSL or Cable have. It is already in those areas and can provide access over their current infrastructure. I linked to an article about that a week or so ago. Two other technologies that will bridge that gap are cellular and satellite. Both are getting cheaper and ubiquitous. In fact, I have a neighbor next door and another one across the street that have shunned DSL in favor of satellite Internet access. The speeds have gone way up and the price of the equipment and monthly service has dropped significantly. Are either a perfect fit today? Maybe not, but within a year or so, they could be that resource. And that is much quicker than government processes could even come into existence.
If businesses can increase their customer base profitable, they will. If that can be accomplished with existing equipment or near future technology, they will. Even DSL is stepping into that gap. The equipment (dSlams) that the RBOCs have to install to facilitate the service is dropping from many thousands of dollars to a few hundred. The distance is also being extended to reach farther out. I have seen successful DSL installation out to 22,000 feet, which was unheard of a few years ago. That brings another few million people into the picture for cheap service.
I chair a committee for my local Economic Development Corporation and several times people promoting Muni WiFi have thrown out the “accelerate business development” card, but when I question them for details or proof of existing examples, they are left speechless and quickly change the subject. David, I would love to see real, vibrant examples of this happening. I’m not saying it doesn’t, I just can’t find any proof for the statement.
Any business that can’t afford existing DSL, Cable, Satellite, or cellular access is marginal in survival, anyway. That percentage is so small polling groups would call it “margin of error.”
Telemedicine and and distance learning fall under the same umbrella. They are linked currently with satellite communications for audio and video, and when the service is properly deployed, it can be used by a home user over access as slow as dial-up. Is it a perfect solution? Of course not, but workable.
Also, please do not misconstrue my intentions here. I am all for better, faster, more reliable Internet access for, not only myself, but others as well. I just think it is better handled without the government interference.
Lastly, as is often quoted by me and others, “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over, expecting different results.” Thinking the government can come in and resolve these issues in a timely, efficient, and economic manner is … well, you get the picture.
March 30th, 2007 at 12:24 pm
Larry, I really appreciate your comments but I think you are missing a couple of important points. Even at $14.99 (I am actualy paying $12.99 on a promo soon to go away I’m sure) broaband is out of reach for many. BPL is non-existant here and talking to a friend of mine who works for the power company in this county and according to him it is not comming soon if ever. Cable, Satellite and Cellular is much more expensive and I don’t know about the speeds. Muni WiFi is great for getting your email on the go but not for much else when many people are on at the same time, like in a dense urban area. These are great stopgaps but FTTH, at least for now, seems to be the way to go. The USF is in place and I don’t see it going away anytime soon. So why not try to reform it and make it work. I as well don’t have too much confidence in our government, but with the recent changes we might be suprised. Unless the telecoms have a way to make some money or get a subsidy to deploy fiber it will never happen. I say, lets keep up the fight for an open high speed internet. Let the companies make some money and we will get it sooner than later.
March 30th, 2007 at 5:31 pm
Roger, I understand what you’re saying, but I view the results differently. Your second sentence, ” … is out of reach for many” begins a completely different discussion that neither of us probably wants to visit (because of time constraints). If someone can’t afford $15/month, they are at Pavlov’s first level of need, meaning food, clothing, and shelter. They aren’t worried about Internet access.
From studies released in the last few weeks, the “war on poverty” is not only an abject failure, they proved that the government aid programs had increased poverty to unmanageable levels rather than make things better.
We can’t just give money and long-term assistance without destroying the soul of the very people that we are supposed to be helping.
Well, I really didn’t want to get off on that subject, but it does tie together.
If you read closely, I didn’t list each of those as THE solution, but each as part of THE solution. Eventually BPL will expand because there is money to be made, even if third party companies lease the line access from the utilities, just like DSL is currently spread.
Cable, Satellite and Cellular are more expensive, but the prices have dropped over the last two years by more than 25% and that trend will continue. Eventually they will compete with at&t, Verizon, Roadrunner, and Comcast for Internet customers.
I agree that FTTH (Fiber to the Home) will be a great help, and Verizon has committed hundreds of millions to that project, but at&t says they will not carry it beyond the curb. Speed-wise that is sufficient with the copper capable of supporting gigabit speeds over the remaining short distance.
The last Verizon technician I spoke with indicated that Verizon was committed to completion of the FTTH project by 2010 in all their territory. Frankly, I can’t wait, but have been told my area isn’t slated until 2009, but that is not much over a year away.
However, if some of those people you referenced in the second sentence can’t afford $15/month, how are they supposed to pay for a 100Mbs fiber connection? Bandwidth is not free, and the true cost was explored in my “Fairy Tale” series I mentioned in an earlier comment.
Overall, I realize we will have to agree to disagree, but I think exchanges like the above, helps each of us clarify our position, in order to defend it better, and that is something I really enjoy. In fact, over the last few days, with these exchanges, there is more new content than I have written in a long time.
I plan on adding a post to point people interested in both side of this debate to jump to these comments to learn more about the views of the two sides.
March 31st, 2007 at 3:20 pm
[...] I referenced (and made comments about) a Business Week article titled FCC Prove: Net Neutrality Goose Chase? which told about an FCC investigation into improprieties pertaining to net neutrality. There are [...]
December 12th, 2007 at 3:12 pm
[...] been against the net-neutrality movement from the beginning, stating my mistrust of any government involvement in a free and open Internet. [...]