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."

Comments

nothing but hot air.

[Lumpy]

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..

Re:nothing but hot air.

[hackstraw]

Disallow cities from forcing companies to pay extortion to them in "franchise fees"

In looking at my bills, there is a neatly itemized bill that is outside of all advertised pricing that says: "franchise fee".

So to me it seems like I am being extorted, not the poor company.

Now, lets wait until the FCC has fucked up the internet like phones and collects about 33% of the bill due to various FCC fees for the privilege of using the internet like I have for over 10 years already.

Why is it that gasoline filling stations are few of the companies out there that actually tell you up front how much something is going to cost (with a big sign visible to boot)? Everywhere else I go, I can expect to pay an additional 10 to 30 someodd percent additional on my bill for the things that the company "forgot" to put on the price.

Going Backwards

[ehaggis]

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.

Whatever.

[jpiggot]

Well, that's great Kevin. Glad to see you're loosening rules in order to reward billion dollar companies, whom I'm sure have my best interests at heart (cause, you know, they always have before...just look at how great the customer service for those cable monopolies worked out) And it's nice to see that you're taking a break from being a slave to a highly vocal minority that seeks to impose their quasi-religious views on what I watch in the privacy of my own home.

I also love his supposed problems with "blocking channel options" not being available to cable and satellite customers. What a non-issue to suck up to "concerned parent groups" I don't think I've seen a cable system since the '80s that didn't have some option on your cable box to block channels, and satellite always had it. God forbid parents should read the manual, or actually pay attention to what their children are watching.

Wrong, wrong, wrong

[XanC]

The goal of government is to prevent people from interfering with each other's rights. Not to form society according to the vision of master planners.

The FCC should exist to enforce private property rights on pieces of spectrum, and stay the hell out of the business of engineering society.

What is the trade?

[rolfwind]

Unless some further regulation is attached, I don't see how promoting a duopoly is beneficial to the consumer.

Traditional U.S. government sanctioned monopolies attained their position by HAVING to provide service to the majority of consumer even in areas that would be a losing proposition (because of infrastructure versus population density) and having their prices set for them by a regulatory commission.

Will Verizon have to suddenly build more Central Offices (CO) or mini-CO's (so more people can get DSL) for the sake of this benefit? And what will Comcast trade in?

I fail to see how this helps anything but the big business.

The part of local government and wireless is cool, but at best this initiative will be sporadic or in big cities where getting broadband is less of a hassle.

Yeah, that'll work

[overshoot]

Cut all competition out of the process, and you get what we had in 1995: Baby Bells that would charge you for running a "study" of whether they could hook you up in five or ten years.

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.

Re:Sure it is

[LWATCDR]

"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.

Re:this doesn't make sence

[dgatwood]

It would help "broadband", which translates "help a handful of companies charge higher rates for worse service so that maybe those companies will have a financial incentive to deploy broadband more broadly." Bottom line: the FCC is now firmly in the pockets of the ILECs and the public had better get used to getting screwed, 'cause it's only going to get worse. Much, much worse.

There is exactly -one- way for the government to help broadband deployment: provide large block grants to communities for use in building up public communications infrastructure. The cities that have put in municipal fiber tend to be years ahead of neighboring communities in terms of broadband deployment, with lower costs for the user, better service, etc.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think the government should be in the telecommunications business. I just think it should own the infrastructure and lease it on fair and equal terms to private ISPs and LECs as the ILECs are currently forced to do. That would put everyone on equal footing (except the ILECs, but even then, largely so).

That's hardly the exclusive goal of government

[Snar Bloot]

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".

Re:Sure it is

[Rei]

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.