Slashdot Mirror
FCC Considers Opening Up US Broadband Access
An anonymous reader writes On October 14, the FCC issued a call for public comments on a study (PDF) done by Harvard's Berkman Center for Internet and Society about whether the US should require the telephone and cable companies to open their networks to competitors so that independent ISPs could begin offering broadband, much in the way it was done back in the days of dialup access. The study found that open-access in virtually every other country 'is playing a central role in current planning exercises throughout the highest performing countries,' noting: 'While Congress adopted various open access provisions in the almost unanimously-approved Telecommunications Act of 1996, the FCC decided to abandon this mode of regulation for broadband in a series of decisions in 2001 and 2002. Open access has been largely treated as a closed issue in US policy debates ever since. We find that in countries where an engaged regulator enforced open access obligations, competitors that entered using these open access facilities provided an important catalyst for the development of robust competition which, in most cases, contributed to strong broadband performance across a range of metrics.'"
I'm not sure that a charge-by-minute scenario for high-speed is really in my best interest.
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
It is bad enough that we pay astronomical amounts just for internet access. This will be a great opportunity for competition, and an overall better product.
The government has say in certain things like trash collection for efficiency. Internet access has become such a commodity in the modern world that allowing competition can only broaden our capabilities. Oh, and knock some off my bill every month!
One question: who do the new warrants go to for interceptions? The provider or the infrastructure provider?
Something witty.
This is a practice Canada currently uses. And we are ditching it. Estimates are that prices will almost double and dozens of companies will go broke as a bell monopoly forms and dominates the ISP market in Canada. Its like doomsday.
I think it is safe to say that if the US implements it you will see lots of competition and halving of prices if this is implemented in the US. The idea that all countries don't do this is ridiculous. And the only people it hurts are entrenched corrupt monopolists.
Which is why it probably won't happen.
a-compelling-study-on-a-slow-moving-possible-future-outbreak-of-common-sense
I've got to say that--for all the many, many other ways the Obama administration has disappointed me and failed to delivery--the recent changes at the FCC and it's new more pro-consumer bent has truly pleasantly surprised me. Between pro-consumer moves like this, their slap down of Apple/AT&T, and their support of net neutrality, they're taking a remarkably progressive (and sorely needed) approach to communications issues. It's too bad the telecommunications giants will probably just bring in their many whores in Congress to pass laws to override the FCC in the end.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
contributed to strong broadband performance across a range of metrics.'
slashdot
Can they do this with cell phone networks too? Not only to stop the Verizon "Can you hear me now", but I imagine that would focus on better phones rather than commercials about a fscking map.
Just wonderin'
~Mekkah
I remember when you could get DSL from various competitive providers over the same bare copper wires, which the Bells were required to share access to. ("Remembering" this isn't hard, since it only requires going back to 2000 or so, before the Bush administration gutted the rules and gave Verizon its monopoly back.) It wasn't exactly "balkanization," nor is that an honest description of the situation in many other countries where line-sharing rules exist.
Frankly, that sounds like telco FUD. There's no advantage, to the customer, of having only one choice of ISP per wire coming into their house. The only one who benefits from this are the cable and telcos, because it effectively means that in order to compete with them, you need to independently solve the last-mile problem. It makes the startup costs of being an ISP immense, thus eliminating competition.
Back when the line-sharing rules were abolished, the telco apologists said that ending line-sharing would result in more physical last-mile options. Instead of just cable coax and Bell copper, we'd have IP over water mains, gas lines, sewer pipes, wireless mesh networks, etc. Of course, it's now 2009, we've had no mandatory line-sharing for the better part of 10 years, and none of those alternatives have materialized. Because, as it turns out, running the last mile is really, really hard. And we can look at other countries, ones who didn't happily take the collective dick of the phone companies in their mouth, and see that shared infrastructure seems to work better, on the whole.
It's not a choice between monopoly and balkanization, it's a choice between having four or five companies try -- and most of them fail -- to provide paltry broadband service to your house, duplicating effort with each other all the way, versus having one or two good, high-speed links to your house and then having those same four or five companies compete to provide transit over that shared infrastructure.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Funny story. When I first got DSL, back in 1999 or 2000, I (a) really wanted to stick with my cool existing dialup ISP, and (b) really wanted a static IP. My landline provider, Verizon, was happy to sell me DSL for $49/mo, but with dynamic IP and none of the awesomeness my current ISP provided (static IP, shell access to the email/Web host, etc, etc). Fortunately, thanks to the laws then in place, my ISP was able to offer DSL access over my Verizon line -- still giving me static IP, and letting me keep my existing accounts, all at the same $49/mo.
UNfortunately, Verizon back-charged my ISP something like $32.50/mo. for DSL access, so my ISP was suddenly getting $17.50/mo from me for an always-on DSL line's worth of traffic, where before they'd been getting $25/mo for a most-of-the-time-on dial-up connection's worth of traffic. They got to keep a faithful customer, so yay, but they lost revenue and increased expenses. I'm not sure how many others followed in my footsteps, or how much of a difference it made to the company, but they finally folded up and stole away in the wake of an ice-storm in 2002.
So, open access sounds like a great thing for consumers -- assuming the entrenched monopolists/duopolists can't find a way to make it economically untenable, while still complying with the letter of the law. Of course, the only way that could happen is if the telcos and cablecos could somehow exert influence over the content of said law. Good thing that never happens.
Wait... Are they trying to say ... that competition is ... good? What a novel idea! Why didn't someone think of that sooner!
sigh...
Open access already is required by law, but the FCC isn't enforcing it. Why? Well, getting past the "It's all Bush's fault" crowd, the law was so poorly written that it was practically unenforceable. The ILECs "opened" their lines to competitors, and then used paperwork, "reasonable" delays, and low level sabotage to ensure that their competitors didn't keep the clients they could get.
The problem isn't the FCC; the problem is a Congress that writes laws consist of
1) broad but vague edicts that are left to the Executive branch to complete ("Stimulus" Plan), and
2) "Disease of the Week" laws that are extremely narrow in response to whatever is in the news right now (banning ANY lead in childrens' items, no matter the exposure risk).
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
Open access is just a short term solution at best, a sham at worst; as long as the media conglomerates own and operate the "last mile" infrastructure they will always have a competitive advantage in delivering services. Open access works best in those other counties because the delivery system is often owned by the govt or a non-profit, not someone who is competing with others to provide service.
and my costs will go up remarkably.
Like my gas costs, where the old company that got forced to become just a carrier and could not sell gas to me suddenly is half my bill in summer. Now I have this nice maintenance and transport charge for the gas which is a flat fee +some if I go over some mystical limit that stresses the pipes I guess.
Meaning in summer half if not three fourths of my bill is paying the transport layer and very little goes to actual gas or the person who bills me. Yeah, I can't wait.
It sounds great, after all we get to beat on some company we don't have to face ourselves and demand their service or their property. Up until they stop upgrading it and we have to wait for the next "non regulated" service to come along until it gets "shared" and so and so on.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
... to make it more effective.
Don't the telcos in the US wholesale their DSL business to third parties already? Yes, I realise that DSL isn't the only way to connect to the net.
we could try treating both our young & old folks, as well as our neighbors, better. that might delay our demise? rays of hope 'theater' does not appear to be covering it?
OK, who are you going to believe: Harvard, Adam Smith, and a bunch of empirical evidence, or the oligopolists who have monopoly rents to defend? Competition never did anything good for anyone who was in charge of an existing monopoly. Competition may be one of the fundamental tenets of free market capitalism, and may be a principle requirement for maximization of both GDP and a society's ability to satisfy wants, but it simply does not guarantee those who have attained wealth and power that they will be able to continue their acquisition of it without trying very hard.
Ask yourself what is really important here: The principles of economics which are supposed to be the bedrock of our superpower status, or the rights of a few CEOs to do a poor job and charge whatever they want?
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
Let me remind everyone of how things were back in the golden age of the internet.
You had dozens of ISPs to choose from. In a major city, perhaps hundreds. You could instruct your computer to connect to any one of those ISPs, regardless of who was your local telephone company. If you didn't like your ISP, then you could switch to another one that same day. No installers, no custom modems rented from the phone company or ISP. Just a standard device.
Back then, we never worried about network neutrality, or traffic filtering, or censorship. There were no sites like ESPN that could only be accessed by certain ISPs. Internet was really really really cheap ($9.99) and "unlimited" really was unlimited.
The reason things changed is because when we used dial-up over telephones, phone companies were legally required to be neutral carriers. When we switched to broadband that was no longer the case. Basically, the phone companies found a legal loophole that killed competition. It has taken congress and the FCC 10 years to understand this. Hopefully they won't get lobbied by the new oligarchy and kill this proposal to fix things.
Verizon installed a fiber node this past year in my neighborhood, yet I cannot get FiOS because "it's not done".
To make matters worse, I cannot use my preferred ISP (Speakeasy) because of the infrastructure hurdle mentioned above.
In my mind, this is anti-competitive behavior by a monopoly (Verizon, obviously) to prevent me from choosing a different ISP. I really wish I could because Verizon's service and reliability is absolutely horrible.
One point of irony in all of this is that when the Verizon tech tested the copper line, the automated voice is still "Welcome to Bell Atlantic", the PREVIOUS established monopoly. (and it was James Earl Jones' voice no less.)
As Nobel Laureate Dr. Paul Krugman noted today in his column, competition is always a good thing.
I'm a 2000 man.
There is no compelling reason to create an interstate authority to deal with something as physically local as wires between your house and a network switch a mile away. There were some good reasons for creating the FCC, and none of those reasons apply here.
As for opening access, that decision can be left to whatever government authority has given special favors (e.g. monopoly) to the phone/cableTV company. Maybe that really is US Congress sometimes. I honestly don't know. But I also know my local phone company is mostly regulated by the state, and my local cable TV company has a very special deal with the city government. Why can't those entities set terms that advance the interests of the people, in exchange for the monopoly powers?
We don't need Washington for this, and it's ok if your city/state ends up disagreeing on policy decisions with my city/state. Maybe our communities' needs really are different.
Local governments sure as hell represent the people effected by their decision a lot more, than the FCC ever can. That's not anti-Washington tea-bagger cynicism; that's the cold hard mathematics of taking the reciprocal of the number of constituents that a government serves. It's a basic fundamental idea in democracy, and the reason we have any state, county, and city governments.
So wait, what you're saying is that lines which were built with huge amounts of public money, by companies with a publicly mandated monopoly should be... open? to the public?
This is gonna blow my mind to chunks to the milky way.
What we (the people) should do is tell comcast and ted turner to go suck a fat one, take back the lines that we paid for, and turn them over to co-ops who actually want to give us better service at a lower price.
Ze Atomic Device! It iz Ztolen!
Norway, Finland, Sweden & Denmark are all among the top nations in the world, for both cell phone & broadband coverage, and among the lowest prices in the world for cell phone use.
A key part of bringing this about here in Norway has been that the physical access layer ("last mile copper"/gsm cells) has to be available to competitors, with government-controlled rates.
I.e. when I got ADSL about 8 years ago, I got it from NextGenTel, a competitor to Telenor who owns my regular phone circuit.
On the GSM side we have two physical operators (Telenor and Netcom), both my kids get their cell phone service from one of many virtual operators (Tele2) which uses the Netcom infrastructure. Their monthly bills are usually so low that the operator will wait 3 months between each bill to reduce billing overhead. (I'm paying less than $10/month for each of them.)
Tele2 btw used to be based on the Telenor network, they got an even better deal (i.e. probably lower than government-mandated rates) from Netcom so overnight they simply moved everything across. My kids had to reset their phones to reconnect to the new set of towers, everything else just worked.
Terje
"almost all programming can be viewed as an exercise in caching"
", but they lost revenue and increased expenses."
no, they got more revenue because you paid them 24 buck more per month(49 - 25). There expense went up, so there profits decreased.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I don't think its a good idea as long as no government money "Our Money" has been used by theses tel cos IE comcast att the ones keeping the lines. If they have received any government money then i say the lines are everyones and any business can use them as long as they also pay for line upkeep
Jack of all trades,master of none
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I must be missing something here.
Those who "provide broadband" are the physical infrastructure providers (allowing for minimal software layers regarding static/dynamic IP addressing, mundane access control, etc.); this is not the same as what many deem "ISP"s to wit email service, web hosting, etc. It's the difference between who paves & maintains the road to your mailbox vs. who picks up your trash. Back in the "golden age of the internet [where] you had dozens of ISPs to choose from" it was the phone company that provided the physical infrastructure connecting you to a bridge to the backbone; today you have a choice of phone, cable, DSL, 3G, 4G, WiMax, satellite, etc. providing that "last mile" type service bridging you to the Internet backbones. Don't confuse "golden age ISPs" data bridging service with their coincidental email/hosting/etc. services which you can now get from anywhere on the planet.
So ... I'm confused about what the FCC is considering opening up access to what by who. Anyone can, with big money, get into the very expensive "last mile" service (or into the backbone service). Comcast gives me that "last mile" service (and I have options for AT&T DSL, Clear WiMax, Verizon 3G, etc.); pray tell who else is supposed to gain access to Comcast's wiring to my home for what purpose? My web/email hosting is on Hostway who knows where.
What am I missing here?
Can we get a "-1 Wrong" moderation option?
I've noticed many cases where the physical line owned by the local provider is capable of MUCH MORE bandwidth than they're willing to sell. They simply refuse to sell you the faster connection.
AT&T is a good example. With ADSL2 my current pair is rated at being able to go up to nearly 20 megabits down and 2 megabits up. Yet they will only sell me 6 megabits down and HALF a megabit up.
Allowing competition in this area would rock; it wouldn't be long before another provider offers the higher speeds on AT&T's own lines, and then AT&T would have to up their own offerings as well in order to not look like fools.
So I see this as going either way. More competition is usually a good thing in the end.
Balkanization please!
caritj.org
The only reasonable way to make this work is to force the companies involved to break up. The physical plant and the services MUST be separate companies with no special treatment for anyone. The owner of the physical network sells bandwidth to all comers at the same rate, and that is ALL they do. Data from A to B, charged either by rate-limit or per GB with the same price no matter who comes asking. I should be able to get the same rate for a connection as a Fortune 100 company. That will level the playing field and induce the company running the network to keep upgrading the network as they can sell more that way. I would also have some % improvement they have to make in overall speeds per year or something like that. And break the monopoly on the last mile physical wires as well. If someone else thinks they can do it better, fine, they can try, under the exact same rules.
Of course, it also requires an active enforcement from FCC or a local PUC. If a small local ISP has problems that the bigger guys don't, they should be able to get help.
I'd like to see the same thing done with cellular as well. Move everyone to the same network standard (the latest GSM) and use ALL the spectrum for everyone's networking. One company owns the towers and backhauls, and sells transport to the companies selling services like voice/data. Any phone that works will work on any provider as the network is the same. Just swap the SIM cards. Better coverage and speeds for everyone. I'd also like to see them break the contract model a little. It's fine to have a contract for the term of the subsidy, but it should be an upfront thing and you're just paying for the handset costs with a separate line item on the bill. Once the handset is payed for, it's no longer on the bill. So the cost of the handset is obvious and you don't pay for it unless you choose to finance your handsets. The cost of the service shouldn't include the cost of a handset. If I bring my own, I shouldn't have to pay for one anyway.
Both of these would spur competition and drive costs down and service levels up. All good things, unless you are making a ton of money from the current system. Why would you want to change and take a risk if you're that guy?
In Chile this has been open for several years, 31% of population today has broadband access, not bad for a developing country. For my home I can choose form several providers (also between two TV-Cable operators, apart from satellite, but that's another topic) . I pay around $28 for 3Mbps. and can go from 1Mbps for US$11 up to 10Mbps for US$70.... or FTTH for US$OMG!! Competition is always good to the final user. (almost everybody advertises NO blocking or NO P2P restrictions... it's to easy to change to the competitor) Just to let you know.
Isn't this what the US was built on?! The whole freedom thing! Why should any telco have any right to prevent competition? At the same time, why should they be required not too? Lastly why should the FCC be involved at all with the exception of making sure they are playing fairly.
In Sweden i have 100 mbit fibre.
And i have 8 provides i can choose to supply the bandwidth.
In addition, i have 5 suppliers for IPTV ( takes about 6 mb/sec for full HD).
And then thousands of voips for telephony of course.
The actual Ine is owned by a local company, that also runs the BigIron Rouetrs. SO the monthyl 250 sek ( about 20 USD) pays for the local wire AND the bandwith.
Its pretty simple and easy system, and you also get 5 static IP addresses.
Why the US has not moved to a model that separates the wire from the bandwidth i have no idea.
The same thing has happened with DSL, with any company being able to install their own DSLAM into the local telso building nearby
The law was fine, it was the Bush FCC that FUBAR-ed it. The law (statute) requires non-discriminatory access to telecommunications services. The Bush FCC decided to argue that ISPs weren't actually selling telecommunications services, because it was an "integrated package" with email, etc... That is just plain stupid. SCOTUS went along with it because a few conservatives on the court (Justices Thomas) decided they'd overlook an administrative agency's clearly irrational interpretation of a statute because it would result in a libertarian economic policy they favored. Scalia's dissent was withering, and rightly so. Read it here: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-277.ZD.html
IMHO, a statute would be helpful... The critics have at least one thing right; this kind of policy shouldn't change whenever the Presidency switches parties.
I'm not sure how it is for the rest of you, but 15 years ago I had about 3 companies (Covad, Birch, AT&T, etc) that I could choose from to get a 1.5M SDSL line for roughly $60/month. Fast forward to today and I have a 768K for $60. Upgrade options? Sure I got em, I can get a 1M ADSL for $79 or a 1.5M fiber line with forced TV and Phone for over a $100. It's pathetic that over a 15 year period, not only do I lose speed, but I also have to pay more for essentially the same service. I hear about FiOS, but it's not offered where I'm at. I have one option and that's AT&T.
I remember when the government removed the requirement that the telco's offer market rates to competitors and immediately I knew that this was a bad thing. I'm sure that the telco's cried about increased bandwidth, greases the right pockets, etc. But what it really boils down to is greed. So over a 15 year period, they CHOOSE not to upgrade the backbone, but instead they choose to put more restrictions on the customers.
I have no sympathy for them whatsoever. I hope the government bitch slaps them for what they have done. I keep hearing that the telco's received around $300 Billion to improve the system, but I don't see it. Where did that money go? How come this question isn't being persued. If AT&T, Verizon or whoever, starts bitching about being forced to offer this, then I hope the FCC opens up a probe into where this money went and start demanding that they pay it back.
The real Sig captains the Northwestern. This one captains
I remember all too well the days of multiple DSL providers sharing Bell's copper wiring.... You had to deal with retaliation by Bell workers who didn't like the other providers encroaching on what they saw as "their territory". Your DSL order via Covad or Nothpoint, for example, would often have big delays before installation was complete, compared to the same type of order direct from your local Bell company. Issues with errors on the circuit were rampant, too - especially when a Bell worker would do things like stealing the "tested good" copper pairs in a box for Bell service, leaving the "questionable" ones for the people ordering the 3rd. party DSL services.
Even when things proceeded normally with a new installation, there was always the extra hassle of knowing your ISP was just a "middle man" in the equation. Every time you reported an outage or issue to them, they'd have to turn around and open a trouble ticket with Bell, and work things through with them before reporting any progress back to you.
I'm not saying opening up the lines to competition is a bad thing ... but there are problems inherent with doing so, when the party owning the physical connections doesn't get as much financial incentive to maintain the circuits when a 3rd. party is running THEIR data over them.
Its 2009 and I live in a big city (Phoenix, AZ). Yet still broadband cable is a (Cox) monopoly in my neighborhood. You can guess how good (not) and expensive (very) the service is.
I am also confused by this. If Comcast has cable lines running past my house, and Time Warner doesn't, how would Time Warner provide me with service?
Our culture has evolved to the point where technology is almost required for daily living. Kids in public schools get computer based homework in some areas. That assumes all families in that area have computers and access, etc. Online shopping is taking away from brick and mortar stores every year. Online voting is getting noise in the news every election cycle. And on and on.
At some point information access will be on par with public utilities, such as water, waste, electric. It should probably be structured in that fashion. Who owns the gas lines, the electric grid, the water lines, and others? It depends on the area, but network infrastructure should follow the pattern.
Personally, I think the local cities (in most suburban cases) should own the network and either lease it back to a provider(s) or provide access to the infrastructure (an access fee).
If all the fiber the cable companies have laid becomes public and they are termed ‘neutral carriers’.. what will drive cable companies to continue growing the infrastructure?
I agree, competition is great and especially in this industry, but how do you address a disincentive like this.. will the cable company receive compensation for the cable they install? Will they charge a ‘toll’ to use their lines, increasing competitors fees? I foresee a possible oligarchy of sorts, where groups invest in expanding the infrastructure and agree to charge the same for use of that wire..
Thoughts? Comments?
... whether this sort of proposal is floated by the gov't every time members of Congress need to replenish their campaign fund accounts. You know that everyone from AT&T to Verizon will be slipping them millions to defeat such legislation/regulation. Us end users shouldn't get our hopes up.
Have gnu, will travel.
I live in an upscale condominium development. The major ISP's all want a piece of the pie but will not allow competitors to use their "last mile" of cable. As a result, we have three ISP's (maybe more) running their cable everywhere in the development. It's a terrible waste of resources. I recently moved into my condo and the previous owner used Comcast. I wouldn't use Comcast if it was the last ISP on earth and fortunately didn't have to. The new ISP had to rewire my condo and the old Comcast wiring is still in so I have wires from two competing ISP's in my condo. I don't use Comcast, but their cable is still there.
If companies that put in the physical "last mile" had to allow their competitors to use it, it would be a better use of resources.
I want universal service, dammit, in exchange for utility right-of-way access through my property. Case and point: Verizon ran a fiber through my yard (on the pole for everyone to see) to service an adjacent community. I tried to get FIOS for years, but nooooooo, they wouldn't give me a drop.
I really wish the state governors would grow a pair and demand that companies using the utility corridors provide access to anyone who asks for it. If that's not economical, they can find a different way to route their toobs.
The worst part of US broadband is the fine print. "UP TO Xmb for $50 a month" when you rarely get even close to half of what they say you can get
People never do anything for anything other than personal satisfaction.
There are several major problems with this philosophy, including the implication that every altruistic act in the world is somehow tainted by personal satisfaction.
But the biggest, IMHO, is this: have you taken a look around and noticed how many people are doing things that are totally self-destructive and making them miserable, and yet they can't stop?
I'm not talking about things like cigarettes, booze, or drugs, by the way. I'm talking about people who see a golden opportunity -- for a dream job, a dream date, or whatever -- and who freeze up and find some way to sabotage themselves. Or people who are trapped in loveless marriages, who loathe their spouse, and who have ample opportunities to get out, and yet don't.
So I think your personal philosophy vastly underestimates the percentage of human actions that are motivated not by pleasure-seeking, but by anxiety. People will do anything to avoid having to feel anxiety, and that includes not doing things that would give them tremendous pleasure, if only they had the courage to experience a little fear to get there.
I guess you could call the avoidance of anxiety a form of "personal satisfaction", but to me, that's a bit like saying "It's pleasurable to not be doused with gasoline and set on fire." True in one sense (direct comparison) -- but rather deceptive in another.
I am suprised this hasn't been mentioned. But in fact there is a disparity in the regulations as they exist now. Telcos still do have to provide open access to competing DSL providers. Around here for example Front Range Internet is using that open access to sell DSL accounts. Cable companies do not have to abide by the same rules it was decided for whatever asinine reason (payoff) that cable companies would not be held to the same standard as their competitor. Of course Qwest here is pissed about it and as much as I generally despise Qwest they are right about that not being at all fair.
If done right, it can be great. In Québec, Canada, two large companies (Bell and Vidéotron) had a monopoly on broadband. A few years ago, a 650k access was about 30-35$ (including modem rental, all fees, with a yearly contract). Now, Bell is forced to share it's network and small companies can "rent" a dry loop (a phone line that cannot make phone calls) for 8$ a month. Bell support to those companies was bad (read: non-existant) in the first few years, but now they have been imposed a short delay (a week or two) to fix the problems, or they get a fine. The system seems to work pretty well.
"I can not bring myself to believe that if knowledge presents danger, the solution is ignorance." Isaac Asimov
Quoted pricing for Cincinnati:
When I moved to Japan in autumn 2002, the lowest tier with the least service was about $30/month for 12mbps.
When I left Japan in summer 2005, my service had been upgraded at no additional cost, still in the lowest tier, to 18mbps, and that was very soon to be phased out for 24mbps.
Correlation, causation, and all that, but it's worth noting that there's a lot more competition for internet access there than just about anywhere I've seen or heard about in the US.
(And before anyone brings out that tired old argument about population densities, explain why the major US cities -- which are quite densely populated -- still don't have widely available and similarly inexpensive broadband. And yet Finland does.)
Cheers,
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
Competition [...] may be a principle requirement for maximization of both GDP and a society's ability to satisfy wants.
Let's not lose sight of the fact that the real point of economics is to study how We The Humanity can best allocate our resources to maximize the satisfaction of peoples' wants.
Owning stuff is nice, but to understand the goal we shouldn't ask Adam Smith, we should ask Abraham Maslow.
We now return you to your normal scheduled programming ;-)
I've been waiting for this for years!
I've been using a privately owned ISP (Zipcon.net, they're great!) rather then the Verizon DSL ISP I once had. Verizon not only had horrible customer service (literally hours on hold, frequent connection loss etc.) but I also had a sneaky feeling that my privacy would be at risk. We all know how that turned out during the last administration.
My private ISP has much better uptime and the owner or some other person in the know will answer my calls during the first 4 rings almost all the time. If my DSL wire provider has an issue (yes, Verizon) he will deal with it for me, as opposed to Verizon which required me to wait hours for the ISP only to tell me that it was the other part of their company and to call them and wait on hold, again for long periods of time.
Because of all of that, I've not switched to FIOS even though it's been right in front of my house since the early days (we were a test neighborhood). If this rule goes through, I'll be jumping on FIOS and keeping my current, very good, ISP.
Get in there guys and make your comments to the FCC!
When the track owner owns the trains as well.. you see where the priority lies. One of very few good uses for government is to protect competition. Not regulate it. The verticle integration of line and service is causing a problem. Remove the problem. Don't come up with some pansy over-regulated sharing happy happy pancake crap. Split the roles into different companies and move along. No new laws, just a return to sanity. The entry costs are respected without the consumer getting bent over. The lobbying at local, state, and fed levels and a lack of modern gov to adhere to their job responsibilities (and only those) caused the issue in the first place (see not splitting an abusive monop, hell they embraced it). That last thing we need to do is allow MORE inept government to regulate the internet at any level. No ongoing regulation required, just remove the problem.
Doesn't Sweden now also allow the government to wiretap all of your communications without your consent? The NSA does it here, but at least they have to do it in darkness. When it hits the light of day people get pissed off. Open competition is a great thing, and we do have mostly monopoly telecoms here. I don't believe that government enforcing open networks is the best move though. That is akin to saying that all your neighbors have the right to trespass on any property. You might get where your going faster, but it sets a bad precedent. I would just as soon keep them from getting any more 'bright ideas', and the means, and legislation to go snooping around where they don't belong. Keep them out of the datacenter, and out the cable plant!
I art more snarky, and terse than thou. I art Slashdot!
Sweden did pass a monitoring law, the same thing is out of the question here, maybe because Norwegians are a lot more stubborn than Swedes. :-)
Re. "right to trespass": In all of Scandinavia except Denmark, we have laws guaranteeing the "right to trespass", i.e. anyone can walk anywhere they like, on public or private property, as long as they stay away from developed areas.
This means that all of the forests and mountains that cover 95%+ of Norway are available to all, you can even put up a tent and stay there for up to three days. (Notice I said walk, you cannot use any form of motorized vehicle outside the street system, even if it is your own property.)
You cannot damage anything of course, and you can't leave any trash or other traces indicating that you've been there.
Terje
"almost all programming can be viewed as an exercise in caching"
I don't know. I remember driving from Philadelphia to Long Island to Atlantic City and then Back to Philadelphia in a Rented Corolla. It felt just fine on the highway.
But I may be biased, I left my old Corolla at the Airport in Kingston when I made that trip.
--= Isn't it surprising how badly I spell ?
that it works in Australia. Although the problem we have is that most of the cable is owned by one company.... still it means that there can be competition when it comes to support and service