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."
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.
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,
"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."
Nothing is free. Who will pay for it? You do not free power, water, gas, or place to live why free bandwidth.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
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".
Nothing is free
So, when you last drove, you payed a toll and/or owned all of the roads that you travelled on. When you go to the park, you have to stop and visit all of the maintenance people first to pay them before you can get in. Of course, you can't walk on the sidewalk to get there, either, without paying. Naturally, you pay a fee to get into the local public pool, and you pay a fee when you swim on public beaches. If you want police to protect you, you have to go pay them first - same if you want firemen to come put out any fires at your house. Of course, you don't just pay them, you have to pay for all of their equipment and monthly bills as well.
What, you say? You pay for them through taxes? Well, that is what is being discussed here. The idea is to treat net infrastructure and services as we treat other "widely utilized infrastructure and services" in the country. Should broadband fall under that category? That's the issue up for debate.
Point of interest. Offering to shoot us might not work so well as an incentive as you might imagine.