Slashdot Mirror
FCC Chair Says Broadband Top Goal
Carl Bialik from the WSJ writes "FCC chairman Kevin Martin says 'his top goal is to increase Americans access to high-speed Internet,' the Wall Street Journal reports. 'Late last week, he began circulating plans to loosen rules so neither phone nor cable companies will be required to share their Internet connections with competitors like America Online, a change that essentially would create a duopoly in many local markets. He also embraces the idea that local governments should be allowed to offer wireless Internet services, at least in rural areas where some phone and cable companies balk at providing high-speed service.' The Journal also has a transcript of its interview with Martin, in which he discusses indecency and whether broadcast rules should also apply to satellite and cable."
Broadband may the the FCC's top goal, just make sure you don't offer free access to it! You can make something ubiquitous if you make it free, otherwise charging $40 - $80 for the "right" to broadband won't find it available in every home in America.
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
He wants to energize the deployment of broadband in America?
remove all restrictions. Allow municipal wifi. Allow everything. Disallow cities from forcing companies to pay extortion to them in "franchise fees", one of the biggest hurdles and deterrents to small business starting up in an area.
when i see real solutions from the FCC then we will see real progress..
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Before there was a "requirement" to share lines, many ILECs (Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers) withheld valuable technology from the public. Bellsouth had DSL capability for years but releasing to the home user would have cannibalized their business T1 subscriptions. Even with "requirements" to share lines and invite competition, ILECs tend to drag their feet and construct obstacles for CLECs (Competitive Local Exchange Carriers) to enter the market.
One ring to bind them - should probably have more fiber and less rings in their diet.
If they would simply focus on the absurd price that is being charged for broadband, then the consumers would fall in line. $70 a month (without cable service)for internet access is crazy. Not to mention that the service provided by Comcast is some of the worst I have ever seen in my life.
why would deregulating the communication industry help broadband. The only reason I have broadband at the price that I do is because regulations force Verizon and SBC to share there lines at a fair cost. Companies like XO would dissappear. I don't like the Idea that I have to go with either Charter or Verizon for broadband I would like more options. The only way this will happen is if other companies can tap into the cable and data lines at my driveway.
ya, "loosen rules" on those cable and telephone companies that got government subsidies for the last 50 years so that companies who DIDN'T receive subsidies can't compete as they don't have the cash to lay the networks themselves... and the government isn't handing out any new subsidies. THAT will give the consumer a better choice... *right*
While you're at it, make sure to relieve those poor corporations of any promises they made in order to receive subsidies like minimum speeds and % of coverage in a given area. Wouldn't want to "hold back the spread of broadband" or anything.
The FCC should exist to enforce private property rights on pieces of spectrum, and stay the hell out of the business of engineering society.
That, and of course you also get (surprise!) the "preferred network solution provider" as the one-and-only choice. Guess which "preferred network solution provider" has the most sweetheart deals in the USA?
Hint: they not only "support" only one operating system, they don't allow others to connect.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
I think that things like building roads, administering various aid-to-needy-people programs, and limiting and controling access to various public resources (hunting licenses, fishing, park usage, timber usage, etc) might be in some way considered to be contributing the the way society is "engineered".
What I haven't been able to understand is why can't/doesn't the FCC force the local monopolies to split into a service company, and a physical maintence company?
The only part that the natural monopoly exists is really on the physical properties. Then the services compete on services, while everyone just pays the physical wires company fees for upkeep and expansion?
This seems to makes much more sense, since these network seems to moving more towards packet-switched technologies rather than circut based technologies.
So, why not?
Why aren't you encrypting your e-mail?
WSJ: Let's turn to indecency. You're pretty young and you don't have kids. Why does broadcast indecency incense you so much?
Martin: I think there's been an increasing sense of the people who are filing complaints at the commission that they're incensed. My first year on the commission there were a couple hundred complaints. I think the next year there were over 10,000 and two years later there were over 100,000 and by the following year there were more than a million complaints. Its actually many of the consumers who are increasingly upset by what's on TV and radio and they're filing at the commission. There's a growing chorus of people complaining about what's on television and radio and that's what you're seeing the commission respond to.
WSJ: It's not personal, it's just that people are filing a lot of complaints?
Martin: I evaluate every complaint on the merits of the complaint but I think consumers have become increasingly frustrated on what's on television and radio. There was a lot of consumer outrage and Congress was upset and the commission has an obligation to enforce its rules that indecent material is prohibited during certain hours from being on television and radio. Its' incumbent that the FCC enforce its rules and we're going to.
WSJ: Do you think the government should be in the role to decide what's indecent?
Martin: You always have to be careful when you're talking about the government being involved in content issues. For anyone who expresses concern about what's on television or radio today the first line of defense always has to be the parents. The parents who are with their children and should be watching or supervising what they're watching on television or listen to on radio should be doing everything they can to make sure their children aren't being exposed to things they think are inappropriate. Fundamentally, the government should be trying to provide tools for parents to help them control what's coming into their living rooms and what their kids are exposed to.
Ok... now correct me if I'm wrong, but he's saying that the numerous complaints is about broadcast television and radio. . But not about Sattelite, etc, right? If there is, I must be blind.... So why is there a comment in the header about sattelite, etc, having anything to do with this?
More interestingly he says that they base their decisions (at least in part) on the number of complaints...... I find myself wondering what they'd do if a large section of the population copmlained there wasn't enough indecency on TV.
So the FCC wants to bend over for private industry and protect the children. And the boonies can have some muni wifi as long as no corporations are harmed.
Does the interviewer bother to throw any criticism, even for the sake of a straw man argument? Nope. Just more longwinded leading questions and inane banter. Just because the WSJ is pro-business does not excuse them from actually acting like journalists. This interview might as well have included a happy ending for all the ego-stroking involved.
Asking a question about whether the increase in indecency complaints was mainly due to organized letter writing campaigns would be a start. Maybe a firing offense too. Twenty years ago it would be considered good journalism and it would have been a firing offense not to ask. Its just a shame that the WSJ doesn't apply the same treatment that it would to a business exec.
The biggest cause of prices being what they are is that we who support these services don't work for free. Have the government do them and you can multiply corruption times ten and watch your taxes climb to cover it. Either way, you WILL pay.
And right now, YOU the Internet using public are one of the faster growing costs of the Internet: stupidity. It is the common users who infect their machines with viruses, it is idiot spammers abusing the net, it is script kiddies and amature hackers spreading trojans and so on. And we who support it, have to spend part of our busy time dealing with that. And did I mention, we don't work for free.
It is not a matter of Comcast profiteering or having some supposed monopoly. It is not about local or state governments not giving out municipal wireless (yes, let's trust our pipe to the net to the same people we otherwise wouldn't trust as far as we could throw them on any other subject). It's about the fact that building out miles and miles of fiber and copper costs. It's about the fact that thousands and thousands of industrial-duty routers and switches costs. It's about the fact that facilities to house the aforementioned items costs. It's about the fact that the people who KEEP it working despite the (l}users doing their level best to level the network, disrupt their own connections, and otherwise fark up their service and the service of others costs.
Just as with coding, I don't work for free. What I write isn't coming to you for free, the service I support in my day job isn't coming to you for free. But I don't expect too many to care. I see every day fellow support techs carp about the McDonald's wages they are now being offered to do jobs which used to pay $35K/year but then complaining that their high speed Internet costs. All I can do is shake my head as I give them a penalty line bounce lart.
If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
So I've never asked myself this, and I'm tempted to make this a separate ask-slashdot question, but why the heck is broadband so important? Most of all, why is it a federal government interest?
/.? At some type of disadvantage in this world?
If I didn't have broadband, I'd still have a POTS line or ISDN, plus dialup, I guess. I couldn't watch Battlestar Galactica without a lot more patience, free music would be a lot more annoying, and iTunes music store could be less popular.
So, I can afford cable internet and won't give it up until I can no longer afford it. But would my life suck without it? Would I be out of touch with my government? Blocked from
Is there really some compelling interest in that EVERYONE have broadband?
--Jim (me)
There you have it: Order, Justice, Tranquility, Defense, Welfare, Liberty.
Your notion of laissez fair was thrown on the scrapheap of stupid ideas in Washington's first term. Read up on Alexander Hamilton's Reports on Credit and Manufacturing and Congress' endorsement of them, including many of the "founding fathers", for more info.