Slashdot Mirror
Major ISPs Threaten To Throttle Innovation and Slow Network Upgrades
An anonymous reader writes "In a letter released on Tuesday and addressed to the FCC chairman, a group of the U.S.'s top ISPs have warned that if the FCC re-classifies the internet as telecommunications, then innovation would slow or halt and network upgrades would be unaffordable. 'Under Title II, new service offerings, options, and features would be delayed or altogether foregone. Consumers would face less choice, and a less adaptive and responsive Internet. An era of differentiation, innovation, and experimentation would be replaced with a series of 'Government may I?' requests from American entrepreneurs.' They add, 'even the potential threat of Title II had an investment-chilling effect by erasing approximately 10% of some ISPs' market cap.' Ars Technica highlights earlier doomsday predictions by AT&T. The FCC is scheduled to vote May 15 on the chairman's recent proposal encompassing this reclassification option that the ISPs vehemently oppose."
Reader Bob9113 adds that a protest is planned for the same day by those who oppose the FCC's plans.
Sounds like a serious threat. Better cave.
They weren't going to upgrade anything to begin with. Their strategy has so far been imposing limits and charging more. ISPs were never planning to innovate or upgrade.
where the new sheriff holds a gun to his own head and threatens to pull the trigger in order to get everyone to back off. I think it will work this time too as the FCC et al do their usual backing off party trick.
Consumers would face less choice,
How would that even be possible? We only have 4 main providers in the U.S. Are these folks saying that if they were reclassified they would start merging with one another?
One can only hope they go through with this threat because the government would be able to step in and regulate them as a monopoly, forcing them apart like they did with AT&T and for a few years we'd once again have multiple ISPs to choose from.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Careful there, son. If they don't get what they want, customers will have less choice than the one monopoly provider charging several times what international customers in equivalent markets pay that some of those customers can choose from at present.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
that want to make money charging for higher speed access about how preventing them from doing so will be harmful to "consumers".
A brain is a terrible thing to waste... Mind? That's debatable.
I have exactly one choice in my area, and many places in the US are the same. Many more only have two choices, with few having more than that. It's difficult to imagine having less choice than this.
And upgrades? I don't know what they did with all that money they received, but they certainly never upgraded a thing.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
If these companies can not handle regulation, then others will step in.
While people often talk about 'free markets' and 'regulations' like they are opposites, they really are not on the same scale. If a company can not adjust to regulation, then it probably can not adjust to shifts in market demand, supply chain changes, or price fluctuations.
If these big ISPs can not adapt, then they will die.
How could consumers possibly face "less choice" than they do now?! I moved about three months ago and my ONLY choice for wired internet (and cable, for that matter) is Comcast. For two and a half of those months, I had no service and was fighting with Comcast. It sure would have been nice if there WERE another choice. It's also not like I'm living in the middle of nowhere - this is in the DC Metro! This is not a rare thing, at all. Where I moved from I at least had two choices (AT&T and a local Cable / internet company), but that's still not much choice.
Regulation can only help at this point, because it will give consumers a leg to stand on when dealing with these people. I suggest anyone who thinks we DON'T need regulation should try dealing with Comcast customer support for a month, then get back to me.
It seems obvious that an internet service provider would be a telecom, considering that the internet is simply a tool for remote communication. What else would you classify an ISP as?
my opportunity to freely express myself with the potential persecution and hangings and such
How about all those telephone companies that were forced to give service to every American and look how they all went bankrupt, oh wait, no they didn't. ISPs like to say that it will stop expansion, but in reality the government will force them to instead of waiting for Google to announce they're coming to a new city and force the network improvements.
Internet STARTED OUT as a "common carrier" service, which is how we were able to buy DSL service from a CLEC instead of the ILEC. Common carrier status was done away with about the time Verizon took a billion dollars from the taxpayer and started rolling out Fios.
I used to buy DSL from a CLEC in Philadelphia that rode on top of Verizon's copper. When Fios rolled out, I remember discussing with the CLEC that they would not be able to serve me because Fios was not considered a common carrier, and Verizon did not have to sell capacity on its lines at a cut rate to competitive carriers.
That CLEC exited consumer broadband shortly thereafter.
Reclassifying modern broadband as a common carrier is absolutely going to create more competition and more choice for consumers. Yes, it will mean a tiny bit less profit for the majors, because they will have to sell capacity to CLECs again at a discount, but whatever.
Honestly, and I'm hardly ever one to talk about nationalization, but the taxpayer has paid for almost all of the Internet infrastructure that has been laid out since about 2004. It should belong to them and be used for their benefit. If Verizon et al want to be considered media providers and not common carriers, then let them pay the taxpayer for access to the network that the taxpayers paid for. Yes, I know, socialism. So what? A lot of what we do is socialized, because it's better for everyone that way.
Maybe it is time for internet to be treated more like electricity as a "REGULATED UTILITY". That statement should scare the daylights out of ISPs. Sorry but you can only make a 20% profit and yes we will audit the daylights out of you and by the way, you owning media companies is a conflict of interest and you must sell them all off.
The problem is the same one as the RIAA, MPAA, and Coal. All three have the Democrats in their back pockets because of the mostly liberal "artists" or in the case of coal the unions and they have the Republicans in the other pocket because of corporations and stock prices or in the case of coal you can throw in jobs in Republican areas.
What is funny is that nobody likes the cable companies but they politically get their way.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
I'm taking BOTH my balls and going home - while I've still got them.
For quite some time now, according to data from the NCTA:
http://www.vox.com/2014/5/12/5...
"To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
even the potential threat of Title II had an investment-chilling effect by erasing approximately 10% of some ISPs' market cap
Translation: Our investors know we stand to profit greatly from being able to control the flow of internet traffic in accordance with our company's best interest.
What innovations have the major ISPs come up with lately?
Price gouging? Copying services developed by other people?
Sorry, but these clowns have been charging more for less for a long time, and failing to invest in their own infrastructure. They don't innovate. They sit on their piles of money and make promises they'll never keep about how awesome their internet is, and then fight to ensure their local monopolies are protected.
When they say this will stifle innovation, it sure can't be anything they're doing.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Maybe it's time for antitrust regulation to be used against ISPs that have used predatory business practices to eliminate competition from smaller ISPs in their regions in order to maintain monopolies over the areas they service?
They provide a single service, an internet connection, continually reclassifying this depending on if it is Copper, Cable, Broadband, DSL, Fios ... etc is a red herring they provide an internet connection and nothing else ...
They are already a common carrier, they just don't want the service they provide to be classified as this as it would introduce the possibility of competition into the market ...
Puteulanus fenestra mortis
The only innovation they are doing is coming up with better ways to count their money.
Well, they have a point. I mean, they are pretty innovative. Just 10 years ago, I had exactly two options for home broadband. Today, with all that amazing innovation and competition, I have exactly one option for home broadband.
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
They are attempting to monetize individual streams from a service we already pay too much for.
What really yanks my chain is that they built the internet with our money.
We gave them subsidies, tax breaks, and rights for physical placement.
Now they have the nerve to extort the right to further monetize the net.
Remember when conectivity came with benefits?
Most all "service providers" had a community area and good support.
They maintained news servers.
They provided shell access.
As more got on board the unwashed ignored these vital beginnings these services dropped off the menu.
As yet more came along providers used this as an excuse to raise fees.
Then came cellular technology which the providers connected to this network we helped them build.
And more subsidies and tax breaks were given = more of our money was used to build the thing the providers would then charge us more to use.
Given this path and the wreckless way we are governed I predict we will soon have Obama-Net.
All citizens will be legally obligated to purchase service from a provider.
Providers will monetize certain streams as they see fit to further exploit their position.
More of our money will be given to the providers so they can build out the network to effectively reach all.
The providers will fail that measure as they failed to provide DSL or fiber beyond the urban boundaries.
The providers will use the money we gave them for a wired network to build out the cellular network.
Then charge us 10x fees to connect since cellular is unregulated + cheaper infrastructure for them to provide and maintain.
Oh! Wait! This has all already happened (except Obama-Net)(but it's coming)
Rick B.
If that is the case then we will invalidate all those local laws you have somehow gotten enacted to stop competition in local areas.
you know the ones that say it is illegal for the local government to give Comcast competition?
The ones that strangle startups at birth keeping your defacto monopoly.
How about a bit or 'real world' economics to sharpen your game then?
See how you like that then?
I'd rather be riding my '63 Triumph T120.
If you want it to be a "REGULATED UTILITY", the trade off will be that it becomes PRISM compliant. You only have two choices. Getting fucked by the corporations, or getting fucked by the government. Most likely we'll get fucked by both however.
Life is not for the lazy.
This threat is exhibit #1 that the ISPs have gotten too large, and need to be regulated.
US ISPs have steadfastly refused to provide adequate service outside major metropolitan areas for decades.
Threatening not to do something they already don't do strikes me as a pretty damned weak threat.
Chill out bro, they already are PRISM compliant.
We all know this is BS. But we also know the FCC doesn't have much backbone. U.S. folks, please show them your support:
http://www.fcc.gov/comments
http://www.fcc.gov/complaints
http://www.fcc.gov/discuss
You may also write your senator or member of congress:
http://www.senate.gov/general/...
http://www.house.gov/represent...
Comments or complaints sent to any of the above may do a lot more good than any posted here.
They are absolutely right, to an extent. Now hold on, hold on. What they of course carefully avoid mentioning is their sweetheart local monopoly deals. I don't think we need more government to solve the problem caused by government in the first place. If they want to shelter under the rubric of the advantages of a free market, let them have a free market and we'll see who innovates and competes. While they are profiting off government provided monopoly they can go pound sand.
This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
Remember MCI? Yes, tell us all about how much less competition we'll have when you're forced to compete on service instead of in disservice. Blow it out your interconnect. We've already been down this road. ISP definition of "competition" is how much more they can over charge for shit than their competitors without actually delivering service. Thus the throttling unless the endpoints pay even more for the shit they already paid for.
ISPs are quadruple dipping: The website pays for access, the end user pays for access, OK, but then they charge extra for non-NATted IPs (hello, IPv6 exists) and unblocked ports ("business" class), and now they want to sell the websites "faster" access to the customers when we both already paid for that speed of access to each other, AND they want to put caps on the number of bits downloaded -- Hint: That's not how it works. They have to have the hardware to handle peak load, it doesn't matter if I suck in tons of gigs during off-peak time, caps are not about congestion, they're just yet another way to monetize. Not to mention "bursting" plans where they allow the first n-bytes of a download to come in fast, then throttle the shit out of it. "Up To X MB/s, (minimum 0 BAUD, yes Zero)", WTF. Damn, that's more that quadruple, but I lost count of how many dippings that is.
Visit OpenCongress and locate your congress critters via zipcode. Politely call each of them and say, "I want the FCC to classify broadband Internet services providers as common carriers", and have them repeat it (a real person will answer, and they'll have written down your words). I also mention that it should be considered illegal anti-competitive business practices for municipalities to granted ISPs monopolies, and that breaking up said monopolies will allow new competition to flourish. You can leave a comment on Issue #14-28 via the FCC Comment Filing System. Contact the FCC by Email: openinternet@fcc.gov, or call the FCC comissioners (but remember they're not beholden to voters). The most effective thing to do is write a letter to the editor mentioning your congressman's name and the net neutrality issue and send it to your local news outlet, that really gets their goat -- they care about the newspaper for some odd reason, maybe because old folks read it? Here's a petition, but these don't do shit, really it's just the illusion of shit-doing.
P.S. Here's a vid explaining the net neutrality issue. Here's another more sarcastic and long winded vid on the subject. and here's a video from an actual honest ISP. (NSFW, for brutally honest language).
Protip: Use a download accelerator to open multiple connections to the same file and trick the ISP into allowing you a faster speed. When the D/L starts getting throttled (hover to view the speed graph), pause it then unpause it and the speed goes back up (new connections = new "bursting" counter).
The existing ISPs are too large and monolithic. I suspect this is mostly local regulation making pole leasing fees unreasonable.
It needs to be practical for small ISPs to operate anywhere in the US. Any jackass should be able to start his own ISP. Lease the poles, buy some shake and bake ISP equipment, buy the appropriate back end bandwidth, and then run the business.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Regulating profits does nothing to ensure an open internet. Its a separate issue, and should be kept separate. If you limit profits, you may also be limiting the chance of competition forming.
The FCC should focus on ensuring fair standards for access and content delivery, and set rules accordingly. Let local governments deal with monopolistic entities if the wish, as every situation is different.
Consumers would face less choice, and a less adaptive and responsive Internet.
As someone said when informed that Jerry Garcia was in a coma: "How could they tell?"
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
There is no competition now! That's the whole problem. My choices are slow but steady DSL, fast but unreliable cable, or slow AND unreliable dish network. The cable companies and the phone companies have zilch incentive to upgrade their lines to better support their Internet-only customers, since their primary phone and television customers are happy and don't realize what awful Internet service we're getting compared to all the other developed countries on the planet. If I want better service where I live, I have to pay several thousand dollars to the cable folks to run business class fiber to my house, for which I'll pay several hundred dollars a month... and the service will STILL cut out every hour, based on what I saw of the business service when I did third party tech support in town. The DSL company won't even consider giving us the business class package since we're not in a commercially developed area.
Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
Just separate each companies' hardware from its services and make two companies, the hardware side being a Title II Common Carrier. Then, anyone, including the former companies' services division can now buy wholesale access and sell their services.
The infrastructure is expensive and it isn't feasible for more than one or two companies to install lines to every home. Have one utility company install the lines and sell to the services companies. It should have been done years ago.
-SaNo
Oh, I think 99% of everyone would agree that it is way past time, but where are you going to find a Federal DA willing to indict, who wouldn't also be immediately fired? Well, in reality, in today's day and age, he'd be framed for child porn or proved to be an islamo-mole and buried in gitmo.
"Unheard of means only it's undreamed of yet,
Impossible means not yet done." ~~ Julia Ecklar
Sigh......
No your wrong.
What competition do we have? How many cable companies do you have to pick from? How many ISPs?
The simple answer is the more money the cable company makes the more they would have to invest in infrastructure or cut prices. They would also have to have a regulated level of service.
Of course the idea is not to make them a regulated utility but instead to use that as a threat to counter their threat.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
I’m going to open a big can of worms here, and I’ll admit up front that I haven’t fully thought it through. This more of a US-centric stream-of-consciousness kind of mind-dump.
I’ve lately come to hate the US telco industry with the angry passion of a thousand fiery suns. They enjoy a monopoly or near-monopoly in most areas of the United States. They also have a legal responsibility to maximize value to their shareholders. In the absence of competition, maximizing service and quality to their customers runs counter to maximizing that shareholder value. Our natural instinct is to shout the mantra of “increase competition!”, but even in the areas where there is competition, we see very little competitive behavior.
Why is that? Collusion? Well...maybe it’s because the Comcast CEO doesn’t have to pick up the phone and discretely call the AT&T CEO to find out what he’ll do if Comcast decides to lower rates and provide better service. He already knows it will start a price and service war that while benefiting the consumer, will hurt corporate profits. Nobody at this echelon wants to race to the bottom. All the big players have to do is find a happy medium of market share and slowly increase profits. The barriers to entry to be competitive/disruptive are enormous. It takes a Google to do it. Even if you could do it, you’d be forced to join the club and be a part of the same problem for the same reason the incumbant companies do.
But telecom isn’t the only industry that operates in this manner, even when competitors are present. The average prices in automobiles, new homes, health care, etc. have all outpaced increases in wage at a rate of roughly 2-to-1 over the last 45 years. The increases should be in line with wage increases to guarantee sustainability. These are competitive markets, so why the disparity? The reasons are many and varied. There are some easily justified increases like safety, R&D, and environmental concerns; but there are also offsets like increases in efficiency, automation, logistics and transport, overseas labor, etc. More often than not, these companies report quarterly and annual profits that measure in the billions and frankly defy belief. Which brings me to that can of worms.
There was a time when companies were reluctant to sell stock. They were literally selling a piece of their company to the public, and only did it because they needed the capital to bring new products and technologies to market. People bought stocks because they believed in that company, product, or technology; and handed over their money to help bring it to market and maybe make a little money in the process. Now, stocks are strictly investment vehicles for the buyer, and the seller often uses the capital to force stagnation instead of innovation. Look at Facebook. They are a titan in the tech industry, lighting cigars with $100 bills. Why the IPO? What new major advances in social media did the IPO make possible that they couldn’t make happen themselves? Likely none. But what it did do is allow Facebook to make some acquisitions. They are staying on top by removing the competition not rising to meet it.
Maximize shareholder value. That phrase is used to justify: higher prices, lower service, lower quality parts, environmental damage, damage to the long-term future of our nation, and general unethical corporate behavior (skimming, fleecing, shell corporations, tax loophole exploits). I’m not opposed to making money as a shareholder. But that money isn’t made out of thin air, and it doesn’t come from the seller. It comes from the American public. We pay that. When you get your dividend check or sell your stocks for a fat profit, that money came from me, from your neighbors, from your family and friends, from anyone that ever bought a product or service from that company. You paid for it too.
Similar to the underlying storyline in the movie The Matrix, I’m of the ever-increasing opinion tha
I'm sorry, but your opinion seems to be wrong.
You mean like the innovative way Verizon got New Jersey to fork over a boatload of cash for broadband access that Verizon never rolled out....
Senior VP Robert Quinn wrote: "For example, if broadband Internet access service is a telecommunications service, then broadband Internet access providers could be entitled to receive transport and termination fees under section 251(b)(5).15. The Commission could not avoid this occurrence by establishing a bill-and-keep regime because, unlike voice traffic, Internet traffic is asymmetric."
He appears to be talking about 47 US code section 251 Interconnection
(b)5 Reciprocal compensation
The duty to establish reciprocal compensation arrangements for the transport and termination of telecommunications.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/251
That rule seems fairly general. There are lots of ways to define who pays for what. An Internet payment plan could be similar to the way things work for telephony as he is suggesting, but I don't see where this rule says they have to be.
Common carrier status gives the FCC the power to regulate. Given this power, the FCC could certainly make a bigger mess. To expect this given the caution and restraint the FCC has shown to date seems far fetched. Balanced against the current state of affairs, this risk doesn't seem a good reason not to do common carrier. It seems a good reason to be carefully incremental with the regulatory path flowing from common carrier.
Thursday's vote should be interesting.
Except, of course, these ISPs are already PRISM compliant. Even the ISPs we have here in Canada generally make a point of sending all your traffic through the US to play ball as good ol' FIVEEYES members.
- chrish
I was referring to regulation of "limiting profits". Maybe you can explain how limiting profits will lead to more competition, but as I see it, it will simply ensure no competition arises.
Some regulation regarding pricing might make sense. That is, a big ISP much charge comparable rates to all customers for comparable services, and not simply cut rates in areas where there is competition.
Regulation for handling content, fast lanes and slow lanes, is a different matter. That should be kept separate, its the most important piece to ensuring ISPs don't gain domination of content.
What is funny is that nobody likes the politicians but the cable companies get their way.
I read it that way the first time. Eh, still seems right.
All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
Here are some pricing examples for Romania, a backwards country somewhere in Eastern Europe.
I pay about $25/month for 40 mbits on a so-called "bussiness" connection - at this price of course "bussiness" means no SLA, but it does mean unmetered traffic and the freedom to run any service i want on that wire.
I also pay about $30/month for 200 mbits on fiber, plus IPTV plus a voice line (not sure of the conditions on voice, I don't really use it). This is a home connection, but it's also unmetered. I think I can't do SMTP through it, but no other restrictions.
This is what happens when you have a little real competition. Everyone has access to at least two out of cable and DSL. Which are no longer cable and DSL, but fiber.
You're going to give me the age old argument that the US is much larger and more spread out, but we have residential suburbs as well, and they get... guess... ethernet and/or fiber :)
I apologize for the lack of a signature.
Would a TV cable company count as "media"?
What if the ISP *IS* also a cable company?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
They are not regulating profit, they would be regulating access and ensuring the privacy of end users by making all their traffic communications traffic, which factually it is and protected by existing telecommunications laws, which of course factually, historically, all the existing telecommunications companies were able to expand and profit. So, yeah, I have to call bullshit on your comment because it does not reflect historical accuracy of analogue copper communications, which are capable of only carrying a small percentage of the same traffic at a far higher capital investment cost.
People are only asking for what they had under copper, a direct full bandwidth connection, for the life of that connection, between the end users (we are all end users, regardless of size). We just want that in fibre optic which factually is cheaper to install than copper, especially with regard to distance and major trunk costs, also allowing for much greater bandwidth and sharing of each fibre, the ability of ISPs to cache and mirror major traffic items and reduce data costs with better performance for end users and data transmission savings for the ISP.
Divide and conquer by leaving it up to local governments, screw you.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
ISPs hold their collective breath until they turn purple and die, new ISPs take their place.
"Under Title II, new service offerings, options, and features would be delayed or altogether foregone. Consumers would face less choice, and a less adaptive and responsive Internet."
Yup, soon we'll have only two options, Telco & Cableco. We're gonna have low speeds and quotas for high prices and some services will be throttled due to compet^H^H^H^H congestion. Oh wait...
I've got better things to do tonight than die.
PRISM compliant as in custom ASICs mandatory to be stamped on all new logic boards (motherboards, routers, etc)?! That's next. They will be silent sentinels listening in on the bus. Speed and performance will be sacrificed for homeland security.
What? You actually think the heroes in office know anything about what they regulate?! Man, you haven't a fucking clue what those monkeys in office do.
How did we get from ISP's being regulated like utilities to government mandating what gets printed in circuits? Does the FCC mandate how electrical transformers are built?
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
The FCC should focus on ensuring fair standards for access and content delivery, and set rules accordingly. Let local governments deal with monopolistic entities if the wish, as every situation is different.
I think the point is that the FCC does not have that authority, unless the ISP's are declared common carriers like the phone companies.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
... we're going to pull up stakes and move to Galtville.
Innovation?! What innovation has AT&T come up with lately? Sure... they've come up with a web site that would make Franz Kafka run screaming into the night but beyond that, what innovation are they talking about?
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
I don't mean the ISPs, I mean the rest of us. Wheeler is a cable lobbyist; I suspect the court striking down the Open Internet Order was exactly the excuse to scuttle the net neutrality that all his buddies hate so much. Besides: the court has been very clear on this matter. The only way the FCC could force net neutrality would be by declaring ISPs common carriers. The Republican Party -- and Wheeler himself -- is adamantly opposed to such an action, and so it will not happen.
This smacks very much of the Obama administration responding to all the illegal wiretapping the NSA and FBI et al were doing not by arresting the perpetrators, but by writing the laws to give them authority to go right on doing it.
If you were genuinely so bored with the Internet that you couldn't care less whether you actually had it at all, it's unlikely you would have bothered to use such a system to express said belief. Really, what's stopping you from leaving already?
I'd say goodbye... it's the least I could do for a six-digit slashdot account holder, but I strongly suspect you'll be sticking around for a while.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
All of the major telco's have been scaling back their investment, especially in wireline services. Trying to dump copper, no longer building out new fiber (Verizon), and trying to convince people to switch to more profitable wireless.
They claim that Wireless is a perfectly acceptable alternative to cable/wire based broadband. Verizon used that exact claim to get out of paying New Jersey billions of dollars when they failed to meet the promise of broadband to the entire state.
At the same time, they then lobby the crap out of the regulators to explicitly exclude wireless from regulation, specifically the Net Neutrality rules.
They cannot have it both ways.
Here's the thing, if "broadband" was classified as Title II, would that not also include Wireless, which the telco's have lobbied hard to be excluded from pretty much any regulation that would protect consumers.
As for wired services, they can threaten all they want, as someone noted earlier, the scene from Blazing Saddles, threatening to shoot yourself in the head if the Feds don't leave them alone, is an empty threat. We already know they have scaled back capital expenditures. And sure, at the beginning, they might go through with their threats, but what will happen, is people will start to migrate from one crappy provider, to the next slightly less crappy provider, resulting in significant losses for the companies losing people. That will then spur the next upgrade wars, where they will have no choice but to upgrade to get customers back. It might be slow going to get to any speedy service like they have in pretty much every other country that has cheap quality broadband, but it will happen.
I came, I conquered, I coredumped
Why do we have to classify it under a law that is nearly 20 years old? Is no one in the FCC competent enough to amend, or scrap and remake, the Telecommunications Act of 1996? It's 2014. It's time for a Digital Telecommunications Act that tackles these issues and potential issues for the next 15-20 years, like VoIP, TV over IP, etc..
The FCC cannot make law, they can only work with the laws that Congress passes. Good luck getting the Oligarchs in Congress to do anything, the big telecoms spread their money around to both parties...
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Internet access outside of the major metropolitan areas sucks today. Will the ISPs threats make it worse? Maybe.
But since US internet access is far, far worse than the rest of the world, it matters not in the long run.
If all the ISP's are against it, then it's the right thing to do.
Dear ISP's, It's your own damn fault, you let Comcast act like pricks so now you get what you allowed to happen.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
There is no really way to have more competition unless you separate the fiber/copper from the data. You treat the transport as a utility and then allow different ISPs to use the utility to provide the data. It is both wasteful and impractical to expect Verizon, AT&T, Comcast, and so on to all run fiber. The "poles" and right of way along with the lines should be regulated as a utility. Any company that wants to and can afford to rent the lines could then offer services over the lines. Right now the ISPs have a lock on the poles.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
That's a nice Internet you got there. Would be a shame if anything happened to it.
If he explores all forms and substances Straight homeward to their symbol-essences; He shall not die.
They are not regulating profit.
You failed to read the post I was responding too, which suggested that profits should be regulated.
'Slow or halt network upgrades'? 'Consumers would face less choice'? How the actual fuck is that any different than things are right now, you retarded baboons!? We already have little to no choices when it comes to which ISP we can use, and while other countries of the world are regularly rolling out near-LAN speeds to their customers for the same amount of money or less, you're over-booking your network capacity like some shit-tier hotel or airline, extorting money out of content providers, giving shit-tier customer service, and all the while charging us a premium price for the 'privilege'! MEMO TO ISPs: How about you all go fuck yourselves!?
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
Don't forget the provisions -- that the telcos heavily lobbied for -- in the last major telecommunications act that made it legal for them to lock out all those smaller ISPs.
IMNSHO, the anti-trust actions should have started the day the first Baby Bell was being purchased to begin the reconstitution of Ma Bell. It's time to break up AT&T again.
And kudos to whoever it was who suggested that they (and the cable companies) need to divest themselves of any content creation companies they now own. Owning the pipe and the content seems like creation of a vertical monopoly to me. I don't need or want the ISP's "content". I'm struggling to think of any content that AT&T could provide to me that I would find valuable. In fact, I really don't want to deal with an internet service provider but, rather, an internet connection provider. That's what I have now through one of the companies that's managed to survive on the crumbs left over after AT&T started pricing access to their copper to the point that it killed off the little guys. It works fine although its tough to describe my connection as "broadband".
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
^what you are proposing is not too much different from when they "de-regulated" the long distance phone companies, but then required local carriers to allow access to their infrastructure. Its an interesting approach with a host of impacts, both good and bad, although it has nothing to do with the suggestion that profits be regulated, which was what my responses were about.
State and local governments generally are at the heart of regulation of utilities at the service level. Unfortunately, they've signed their souls away and the price to get them back is hefty.
I suspect it is the stock holders that like the cable companies.
As I have pointed out in many times before, and people continue to know nothing about the fact that NSA now decides most of the network grades for core routing etc, you do not get upgrades period.
Core routers in AT&T's internal network upgrades are mostly latteral (copper replaced with same speed fiber), for example.
Until the NSA is removed from internal infrastructure you are not going to get MEANINGFUL upgrades.
DEFINITION OF MEANGINGFUL:
1) Conversion of all upstream points to fiber. (There is a reason you know why asymetric networks suck it.) Most of the taps for NSA gear work on where the information is GOING TO, not where it is from, therefore the slower speeds for easier data collection on pretty old gear (circa 2009).
2) Faster switches for the upstream points.
3) Complete software stack upgrades to IPv6. If we do that, we can get SIGNIFICANT PERFORMANCE boosts on the internet.
None of this is going to happen though because collecting all of that data requires expensive investment in secret hardware and software, and such pieces of technology don't like change.
I wouldn't be surprised to find if this all isn't documented by companies such as AT&T who is an example I made recently and got modded to like -1 crazy person soon because internet performance in the USA compared to example the far east, is GLARINGLY bad.
USA=21st century CABLE MODEM speed, which is just as bad as 20th Century MODEM speed.
They have absolutely destroyed the potential of something that could have been a great liberator for educating people, commerce and making life generally better for all peoples.
It is so sad.
Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
There should be very little profit in telecom until we get AT LEAST Gigabit service and 1 TB transfer. Until the ISPs reach this bare minimum, they should get no breaks of any kind. Like how we force the electrical companies to provide standard 240/120 service.
Good-bye
The water pipe to my house doesnt need to be replaced because it was sized properly from day one. The only people with properly sized internet connections in the US are the ones with fiber to the house.
Good-bye
it sure seems as if the only time there is "competition" is when google threatens to put fiber in a city, anything else the cant be bothered
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
I wasn't aware that data caps are considered "innovation".
The real Sig captains the Northwestern. This one captains
Slow network upgrades?
That'd imply that there was actual forward momentum here!
Right now their networks are standing STILL!
So? What? They're going to start pulling current equipment out of their networks and replacing it with older stuff? Reversion?
This is an empty threat.
If they allow themselves to stagnate, new-market competitors like Google Fiber will eat them for dinner and they KNOW it.
Here's hoping the FCC realizes this.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Threaten to throttle innovation and slow network upgrades?
They've been doing this all along. I suppose they mean the innovation will be throttled more than it already is.
Wansu, th' chinese sailor
We'd take you less seriously if you didn't make statements saying Democrats are beholden to Big Coal. Yes. West Virginia is suuuuuch a blue state. :P And unionization amongst coal miners is soooo strong these days. :D
Really. make your point and keep out the ad hominem attacks. You could have skipped that entire second paragragh and made your point just as well. Our politicians are bought. We know. We get it.
If you do that, then I swear, we will stop trying to have customers, and then our competitors will eat us alive. See how happy you are then, paying a $16/month bill for your fast capless Internet. I dare you, FCC. I double-dog dare you!!
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
I'll repeat what I said earlier:
Appropriate regulation would be to restrict ISPs to only providing connectivity services to the end-user. No ownership of content or other services of any kind. Much like electricity providers cannot also run the grid unless they're a monopoly. No one can realistically compete with them since if the generation costs for the competition are undercutting the grid provider's price, they can merely up the access fees. Regulate them there, you say? There's far too many shenanigans going on with GAAP to have that come out any differently under regulation, and far more opportunity for corruption and fleecing.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
Don't they already throttle innovation?
Funny how regulation of ISPs doesn't affect their profit margin too much for the rest of the planet...
"Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
Actually, Comcast is severely undervalued right now, so their investors stand to profit either way.
Their EPS shows about a 5% return on market value, with near 20% annual earnings growth (geometric mean over five years, although mostly in the last three), but their market value is actually less than their equity. Now a lot of the equity is intangibles, but even if you take out fifty billion or so, they could still earn back their market value within three years.
(Pretax earnings are around 3B/quarter, total market cap is around 22B).
In addition to what spire3661 said, I've not increased the amount of water I'm using because there aren't new ways to use it as there were when the pipes were installed. Even if I added a hot tub or a pool, that would only significantly increase my water usage 1x, then it would go back to levels near what I was at before.
The same cannot be said about our internet usage. New applications have continuously come out that have increased our appetite for data. When I 1st got on the internet, 56k dial up was more than adequate for anything available. Later when I started college, 1.5Mbps was far faster than anything available at the time, and so provided speeds that were generally unnecessary for all but pirating movies. Now, anything less than about 15Mbps won't cut it. And to get that, even in a large city, you are going to pay almost $100/month.
The water pipe to my house doesn't need to be replaced because it was sized properly from day one
Water needs haven't changed that much over the last decade or so. A better comparison might be electricity In that case many homes are insufficient, which will be compounded as EV's etc become more popular.
Internet bandwidth consumption, OTOH, has grown from the days of 56k modems to require multi-MBPS connections. The problem is that the providers are even slower than utilities to upgrade.
Sounds like the leaders of the ISPs have been reading a lot of Ayn Rand lately...
-- Who am I? How did I get here? My God, what have I done?!
In my area the local government has set up a franchise agreement that guarantees a monopoly. Is that the ISP's fault, commie?
They should just allow others to access their infrastructure, the last mile infrastructure should be required to allow access to multiple ISPs at the same time. I should have a single fiber, maybe a second for redundancy, entering my house where port 1 is ISP A, port 2 is ISP B, etc etc. There is no reason I should have to choose between ISPs, I should be able to have multiple without additional wiring.
It's not a threat if you've already are doing it.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Sounds like a serious threat. Better cave.
It sounds to me like the CEOs have been eating their Wheaties and reading up on their Ayn Rand... Seriously, though, I love how the letter makes it sound like all the brouhaha is coming from a "concerted publicity campaign by some advocacy groups". I just looked at the FCC's public docket for response to Wheeler's previous proposal, and there are at least 10,000 responses. Even my state of Tennessee, not necessarily the most friendly to to Federal regulation, had 500 comments. I looked at a random sampling from TN, and couldn't find one posting with any particular love for the current regime of large ISPs. Words like "oligarchy" and "monopoly" were quite common.
-- Who am I? How did I get here? My God, what have I done?!
This is along the lines of what I was thinking. Yes, the internet can be used for telecommunications. Using morse code, so can my flashlight... should it be regulated too?
========
77 77 77 2e 6d 65 6c 76 69 6e 73 2e 63 6f 6d
The same fiber from 40 years ago that carried 1mb/s can now carry 100gb/s. Newer fiber is easier to work with, but fiber has a life span of about 50-100 years. Since it only takes about 1 year to pay off the cost of laying fiber infrastructure, I'm sure they can replace the fiber more often than 50 years. Modern fiber is good for about 32tb/s, next gen fiber is currently getting about 1pb/s. It's not like we need to replace this stuff often. These speeds are based on current tech. Future tech will probably enable current fiber to move more than 32tb/s.
Oh, you can't be profitable anymore without ripping off customers? The networking industry has already been completely optimized? So what you're saying is ISPs are logically a utility?
We already have a good idea of what happens when ISPs are treated like common carriers -- more competition; better and faster internet access. The UK is a perfect example.
This planet money podcast is great overview on how both the US and the UK arrived at their respective situations. It's a fascinating listen:
http://podcastdownload.npr.org/anon.npr-podcasts/podcast/510289/299232999/npr_299232999.mp3?_kip_ipx=1217487091-1400085519/
They are just making it easier for Google Fiber to take over.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
...nobody likes the cable companies but they politically get their way.
Nobody likes congress either, but they reelect 90% of them anyway. That right there is the very source of the problem. People are fickle.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Sounds like just another day at the office.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Currently an ISP is classified as an "information service", which is distinct from a telecommunications service.
"Properly" sounds like it is a matter of etiquette.
I think we have far too much of that already.
Actually, merely with the replacement of my key lightbulbs with warm LED's (the G7's at 3000k are indistinguishable from incandescent by the way) (the 3000k is the key - not the brand), my electricity usage and bills dropped enormously.
Meantime, when I replace my AC unit, it will drop more.
And my TV draws a fraction of the previous TV.
My electricity usage has consistently dropped since i moved into the house 15 years ago. In some months- my bills are lower than they were when I moved in despite price increases. During the summer, they are about the same- a little higher (10%) last august. I think I found the cause for that- a repair man broke one of the ducts so I was air conditioning the attic instead of one of the rooms.
I agree internet bandwidth consumption is growing and will continue to grow. However--
1) Whenever google enters an area, the ISP's have shown a pattern of being able to rapidly upgrade service while holding or even (!!!!) lowering their prices.
2) Many other countries have had better service at lower prices for close to a decade now.
---
To be fair, my $110 internet service from comcast has gone from 3mbps to 25mbps (and sometimes even higher- perhaps they are caching large files locally) as it increased from $70. But I suspect if google came around, I could get much more bandwidth for $70.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Bingo. "Mr. CEO, we'll push to have you removed if you waste your profits building out your infrastructure to be more modern. What you have now if making us huge profits. Mess with that at your own risk."
Someone needs to revisit this BS argument that -- as I currently understand it, came out of a controversial opinion in a state court proceeding that manage to make its way into business textbooks -- the only goal of a business it to make a profit for the shareholders. It's an important goal (or the company won't be around very long) but it shouldn't be the only goal. Making a quality product? Doing something for the community where you're based? Not polluting? It's all very nice if those things happen but don't you even think about spending one red cent of our profits on those activities. Heck, at one time, corporations had their charters revoked (the corporate death penalty) if their activities failed to provide for the public good. Remember the public? In theory, they're the ones who allow these legal fictions to even exist.
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
Of course all threats by corporations regarding regulation have proven to be true. Collapsible steering columns, air bags, anti-lock brakes and other government mandated technology standards have nearly destroyed the auto industry, as the American car companies promised they would.
This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
Ruin the internet that same way it has real life. The net is doomed to politics of th wealthy. And no matter what you have no say. Any say you do have is statically insignificant.
Only if you live in the USA. If you live in Europe cities you can get three times that spend for half that price. The simple fact is comcast and time warner are not upgrading their networks. They should be rolling out fiber to the home right now in every city. Instead we get more copper when they do physical upgrades at all. Fiber makes more sense instead Of using copper lines that are 30 years old. 90% of of coax runs to homes and buildings are RG59 and that should scare you.
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
How exactly do you "slow" something that is already at a dead stop? it's taken 10 years to go from 2mbit to 25mbit for a base subscription, meanwhile the rest of the world went from dial-up (or nothing at all) to 100mbit+ speeds.
I have no problem with the major ISPs coming to a "stop", as long as Google Fiber keeps going.
> Would a TV cable company count as "media"?
Does NBC count as "media". Comcast owns them.
> What if the ISP *IS* also a cable company?
And what if your cable company ISP also owns a major network with original programming and multiple cable channels?
Yoghurt
Hell as a holder of mutual funds myself (retirement investment, not instant fortune) I'd be happy if the companies would at least focus on long term profits rather than short term. But those with the real money in stocks are not looking for profits forty years down the road...
Why is this moderated 'Troll?' While I don't like his conclusion, I won't call him wrong. And his summary of the regulatory situation is generally informative.
If you don't agree with someone's point, don't downmod them (and if you absolutely must, certainly don't use Troll or Flambait unless they actually are trolling or flaming). Post a reply, or mod up a counterargument.
I can see the fnords!
Actually, merely with the replacement of my key lightbulbs with warm LED's (the G7's at 3000k are indistinguishable from incandescent by the way) (the 3000k is the key - not the brand), my electricity usage and bills dropped enormously.
Meantime, when I replace my AC unit, it will drop more. And my TV draws a fraction of the previous TV.
My electricity usage has consistently dropped since i moved into the house 15 years ago. In some months- my bills are lower than they were when I moved in despite price increases. During the summer, they are about the same- a little higher (10%) last august. I think I found the cause for that- a repair man broke one of the ducts so I was air conditioning the attic instead of one of the rooms.
I agree internet bandwidth consumption is growing and will continue to grow. However--
1) Whenever google enters an area, the ISP's have shown a pattern of being able to rapidly upgrade service while holding or even (!!!!) lowering their prices.
2) Many other countries have had better service at lower prices for close to a decade now.
---
To be fair, my $110 internet service from comcast has gone from 3mbps to 25mbps (and sometimes even higher- perhaps they are caching large files locally) as it increased from $70. But I suspect if google came around, I could get much more bandwidth for $70.
Why? I doubt you get 25 mb/s consistently anyways.
Seriously, when companies can threaten like this, it is time for us to disallow things like Comcast/Timewarner, ATT/Direct, but then also break up the monopoly. That means order that all network connections that are in place via limited-place monopolies (such as what cable and dsl providers have) should be regulated. If there is REAL competition, such as 2 or more fibers in place, then all regulations disappear.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Please the coal miners unions are not that weak. Why do you think even president Obama is talking about "clean coal".
You buy both sides of the isle and you get what you want.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
You bet and it is insane that the FCC and FTC let that happen.
If your cable company owns a network it would have to sell it off. If your cable company is your ISP then it has too sell.
Things get really iffy when talking about a "pure" ISP. Google as in Google Fiber owns YouTube and that could be an issue if not regulated correctly.
It might require Google to offer to supply a high speed link to any ISP that wants it... Which they honestly would be glad to do.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
"When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators."
-P.J. O'Rourke
If the ISP also owns content, they have a vested interest in making it as hard as possible to access outside content, and as easy as possible to access their own.
It would be far better if the ISP was wholly separate from the content owner, and was legally required to offer the same network access terms to everyone.
My power/water/gas/sewer utilities are reasonably priced and provide excellent service.
I'd be perfectly happy if internet were priced like a utility: a basic monthly rate for the simple fact of being a subscriber, and a low per-GB fee that actually reflects the incremental cost of more bandwidth.
It's a pretty safe bet that's not going to happen. If forced to by law, they'd probably just stop being an ISP... what obligation do they have to sell their ISP business to somebody else?
Of course, when the two largest ISP's in the area are both cable providers, and every other broadband ISP provider is ultimately dependant on one of them as their upstream provider, this creates a bit of a problem....
Good thing I still have my 56k modem.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
A better solution would be to run the last mile as a public utility. You pay the city to maintain a single fiber to the premises, and then all the various ISPs could hook in at defined network access points.
So your local connectivity would be within the utility, but anything beyond that would be routed through your chosen ISP...sort of like picking different long-distance providers for a phone subscription.
I think most of the time when an ISP eliminates the competition, they don't do it through underpricing (if they did, we would see cheaper internet services.) Rather, the way they do it is through corrupt politicians and unions. That is, they get the law changed so that they are the only one who can acquire the easement rights.
And of course, many voters often support it for very stupid reasons. A common argument I see (especially in areas like SF where everybody is hypersensitive to maintaining a "traditional" appearance) is that they don't want everybody who asks to be able to run fiber lines throughout the city, saying that one link is enough. As a network engineer myself, I disagree, and even think that idea is actually stupid. Multiple redundant links is a good thing, not just for competition, but to allow for robust networks. From a technical perspective, the advantages range from higher availability to higher bandwidth. Furthermore, if you run large conduit pipes then there are no aesthetic issues other than VRAD deployment, which isn't a big deal IMO because for electricity you already have to have transformers almost every bit as distributed.
The internet connection to the place I used to live in did have a properly sized internet connection from day one:
none.
Yep. no internet connection. Built in 1930.
The internet connection to my apartment complex was properly sized when the complex was constructed.
1970. Copper wire phone lines. They were suitable up to about 1995 too, covering 19.2k modems.
Think about how much your data consumption has increased in even the last 10 years. Comparing water usage to broadband usage is not apropos. Compare your broadband usage to the 1930's electrification projects instead.
Since it only takes about 1 year to pay off the cost of laying fiber infrastructure...
I was curious how you arrived at the conclusion that fiber would only take a year to pay off. I'd have guessed, given the amount of work I saw as fiber was being buried beneath my own street a number of years ago, that the costs probably ran a couple thousand dollars per house.
A quick search turned up this paper to give me an estimate of per-mile costs. Depending on the type of installation, laying fiber can range from $50K per mile (aerial lines) to $400,000 per mile max (installed underground via boring). My neighborhood was likely on the middle to high end, as they did indeed appear to be using boring techniques, and the neighborhood isn't super-dense.
Let's see... I'd guess that an average home in my neighborhood maybe takes up about 75 ft or so of street space on average, so fiber is reaching about 140 homes per linear mile (70 houses per linear mile x 2 sides of the street). Assuming a total installation cost of about $250K per mile, that would means each home cost a bit under $1800 to connect. With these costs, I think you're looking at more of a 10-15 years to recoup that investment.
Anyone with more real-world knowledge about this know if that's anywhere close to a reasonable estimate?
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
to tell them Google could be looking to come to their area...
And suddenly the improvements will magically appear...
You would think. But Time Warner was shitty up to the day that I switched over.
One of the problems is that the last mile is cost prohibitive and often not open. The cable companies and telecoms use their right of ways and infrastructure from their regulated side and with only a few exceptions, there is no incentive to allow others the same access.
Until the last mile is owned or a portion of it is owned by the people it serves, I doubt anything will change. Even if it becomes regulated or whatever.
Or like Spitzer where they will pitch in and buy a high priced hooker.
I seem too- at any time from 3pm to 3am, prime time, etc.
Here.. I just tested at http://www.speedtest.net/
29.3 Mbps down and 5.7 Mbps up. at 7:45pm on a Weeknight.
I seriously stopped testing after a half dozen times because it was always good (even for Netflix when I did those tests).
It's about $30 more than I think is fair but I can't complain about the performance. Uptime is also stellar-- probably 2 hours a month of unexpected downtime? Never for more than an hour so far.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Why couldn't the federal government regulate internet speeds similar to how they regulate automobile fuel economy? It couldn't be as straightforward, but perhaps they could stop the ISPs from listing max speeds (the whole "up to 20 Mbps" crap) and specifying percentages for speeds over time (e.g., customer must receive 95% of the bandwidth they are paying for 100% of the time). They could also force minimum bandwidth plans that must be provided and because of the lack of competition in certain geographical areas, even stipulate a maximum cost per Mbps of speed based on national averages of broadband fees.
CAFE has certainly forced auto manufacturers to invest in new technology in order to meet new standards (to varying degrees of success).
Mostly watching.
Seems to me like there must be something to it. If the ISP's are threatening to sit on their asses (believe me, they'll do it, those crazy bastards) then there's got to be something proper and fair about that bill.
The ensuing pity party will undoubtedly be called the thumb-up-the-ass-mageddon.
Either that, or face the rise of a Chart-warner-cox-cast abomination, sure to be renamed the Cable Operators Commision Kabal. The acronym should make it obvious.
This post © Copyrite Duggeek, all rights reversed.
I like your idea a LOT. I agree it is time. They have screwed the public long enough. My friends in other countries call my 24 meg connection "welfare internet" and that I pay 4 times too much for it. As funny as that is, it is also just as true. Now would be a good time to do something. They are FCC is deciding today. I personally have already signed a number of petition to try and save all our asses. I don't know if it will be enough. With everyone's help it might be.
I'm old, not dead. Well that's my 2 cents worth, your mileage may vary. I say what I think, not what you want to hear.
"A witty saying proves nothing." -Voltaire
.. This time they might be right? I know it's all too much like the "boy who cried wolf", in that almost every previous argument they have made has appeared entirely self serving and hardly straight up, but the complaints they make are valid this time. Some regulation IS essential, such as preventing them from gouging the consumer with restrictive and over the top data plans, considering the popularity of online video such as Netflix..