Slashdot Mirror
T-Mobile CFO: Less Regulation, Repeal of Net Neutrality By Trump Would Be 'Positive For My Industry' (tmonews.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from TmoNews: T-Mobile CFO Braxton Carter spoke at the UBS Global Media and Communications Conference in New York City, and he touched a bit on President-elect Donald Trump and what his election could mean for the mobile industry. Carter expects that a Trump presidency will foster an environment that'll be more positive for wireless. "It's hard to imagine, with the way the election turned out, that we're not going to have an environment, from several aspects, that is not going to be more positive for my industry," the CFO said. He went on to explain that there will likely be less regulation, something that he feels "destroys innovation and value creation." Speaking of innovation, Carter also feels that a reversal of net neutrality and the FCC's Open Internet rules would be good for innovation in the industry, saying that it "would provide opportunity for significant innovation and differentiation" and that it'd enable you to "do some very interesting things."
Can you name one thing that your customers actually want that is actually being prevented by network neutrality regulations? Or is this more of the same big business "we'll tell you what you want and you'll like it!" bullshit we've gotten for years and years?
So brave of Mr. Carter to talk about deregulation at a banking conference. I'm sure his notions were vigorously challenged.
As a consumer; however, it would be painful for both my wallet and my rectum. And they don't even have the goddamn common courtesy to give a reach around.
But bad for everyone else. The ISPs control a bottleneck of the usually meshed internet: the last mile. Everywhere else one can route around a bad actor, but there leads only one line to the end users, and it goes through the ISPs.
By that same standard, the Sherman Antitrust Act, which was designed to prevent precisely the same sorts of abuse that Net Neutrality laws prevent, is also an impediment to innovation and doing interesting things, if by interesting things, you mean using bundling to drive your competition out of the market and creating an oligopoly of content providers owned by the same folks who own the pipes (i.e. the exact opposite of what the Internet was intended to be).
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Wells Fargo says the same thing... Well, minus the 'net neutrality' thing...
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Definition of innovation (merriam-webster) 1 : the introduction of something new 2 : a new idea, method, or device : novelty So new idea's on how to rip off your customers are technically "innovation," just not the sort of Innovation we are looking for in the field
In this case, the FCC is the rulesmaking body that started this particular fight. This makes the answer: Excutive.
Now, the Legislative branch could get involved by writing up a new law outlining the FCC's authority or amending the FCC's charter. But right now, thanks to the Chevron decision and several decisions since this is clearly in the Executive's bailiwick.
The reason we need regulation like net neutrality is because of regulation preventing new players to enter the market. I am all for deregulation IF you deregulate completely, not selectively. T-Mobile would love deregulation of net neutrality and the current "rules" don't have teeth to them anyway so I don't see why, they're still happily violating it. I would also love deregulation of the entire wireless market and the government to open the lines the tax payer has paid for. Pretty much all copper, fiber and antennae are heavily subsidized if not completely paid for by the tax payer. Sure let's deregulate those usage rights on federally, state and local levels and give them back to the tax payer.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Comment removed based on user account deletion
How about we give him exactly what he wants.
And remove the regulations that forbid or make difficult municipal internet & Wifi?
And remove the regulations that make it harder for groups to even attempt to enter the last mile to compete?
I mean, if we're gonna roll back regulations, lets roll them back!
Why aren't you encrypting your e-mail?
Are we talking interesting things like Enron? Or interesting things like Fanny Mae?
The only interesting thing I'm sure will NOT come from this is what the FCC were doing until Trump, - adding consumer protections in a geographical monopoly trying to break into a full-on walled garden monopoly.
They want to be closed worlds, revenue generating from everything you do on their network and with their business partners only.
They want perpetual customer lock-in, because each "carrier's" dog's breakfast of apps and locked-content portals would be so different from other carriers' offerings that it would be too confusing and too much work to ever change the "Carrier-net" (as opposed to Internet) that you belong to.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
Can you name one thing that your customers actually want that is actually being prevented by network neutrality regulations?
Glitchless streaming.
Streaming (things like audio, video, phone calls) requires relatively small and constant bandwidth (though compression adds variability) but isn't good at tolerating dropouts or variations in transit time. When it does get dropouts it's better to NOT send a retry correction (and have the retry packet risk delaying and/or forcing the drop of another packet).
TCP connections (things like big file transfers) error check and retry, fixing dropouts and errors so the data arrives intact, though with no guarantee exactly when. But they achieve high bandwidth and evenly divide the bandwidth at a bottleneck by deliberately speeding up until they super-saturate the bottleneck and force dropouts. The dropouts tell them they've hit the limit, so they slow down and track the bleeding edge.
Put them both on a link and treat the packets equally and TCP causes streaming to break up, stutter, etc. Overbuilding the net helps, but if the data to be tranferred is big enough TCP will ALWAYS saturate a link somewhere along the way.
Identify the traffic type and treat their packets differently - giving higher priority to stream packets (up to a limit, so applications can't gain by cheating, claiming to be a stream when they're not) - and then they play together just fine. Stream packets zip through, up to an allocation limit at some fraction of the available bandwidth, and TCP transfers evenly divide what's left - including the unused part of the streams' allocation.
But the tools for doing this also enable the ISPs to do other, not so good for customers, things. Provided they chose to do so, of course.
IMHO the bad behavior can be dealt with best, not by attempting to enforce "Network Neutrality" as a technical hack at an FCC regulation level, but as a consumer protection issue, by an agency like the FTC. Some high points:
- Break up the vertical integration of ISPs into "content provider" conglomerates, so there's no incentive to penalize the packets of competitors to the mother-ship's services.
- Treat things like throttling high-volume users and high-bandwidth services as consumer fraud: "You sold 'internet service'". Internet service doesn't work that way. Ditto "pay for better treatment of your packets" (but not "pay to sublet a fixed fraction of the pipe").
- Extra scrutiny for possible monopolistic behavior anywhere there are less than four viable broadband competitors, making it impractical for customers to "vote with their feet".
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Indeed that is true. Crony capitalism.
Table-ized A.I.
This was called AOHell back in the mid 90s. Or Fraudigy. Or Compu$$$erve. The bad old days are (comming) here again!
A lot of those folks went to the poll for Trump
The working class has lost solidarity
Not sure those two add up.
a lot who didn't stayed home instead of throwing in for Hilary
Unless there's some evidence that only Hilary supporters were too lazy to go out and vote, this doesn't really modify your initial statement to any interesting degree.
And without that we're getting picked apart
In what way? Trump was talking up bringing jobs back to America and killing NAFTA and raising import tariffs and yadayadayada. I mean there's little chance he'll manage most of that but if you're living in a factory town that no longer has a factory, the rhetoric sounds a lot better than Clinton's promising to raise minimum wage. Minimum wage is a pretty meaningless concept when you don't have a job.
Honestly I'm not surprised Trump won. I pretty much expected it when I first heard that he'd gone for the RNC nomination. He says what you want to hear and he says it loudly, no matter how impractical or politically incorrect it is. That's a strong draw after decades of presidents who seem to ignore public opinion.
Of course whether or not Trump can actually accomplish anything remains to be seen. Obama sounded good in 2008 and spent his first few months trying his damnedest to implement some of the promises he made.. but after being continually blocked and denied his legacy is a healthcare act that got so compromised by private interests that its entire purpose is constantly questioned, even by people who believe in socialized health care as a concept.
Will Trump repeat Obama's failure? Or will he actually succeed in fulfilling some of his campaign promises? Only time will tell. Some things are almost certainly out -- he can't easily build a wall (never mind making Mexico pay for it.) That's the kind of project that might get started just for the sake of saving face, go 20 miles and then get dropped because its incredibly expensive and relatively pointless.
Killing NAFTA is perhaps a bit more likely, but it still would require an enormous amount of support in both government and private business. Sure, lots of factory jobs got moved to Mexico after NAFTA but the economy as a whole benefits in other ways (like being able to buy cheaper goods because the companies only have to pay Mexican's 1/2 of what they were previously paying their American workers.) So yeah Flint might get its car factory back, but everyone in the country now has to pay an extra $5000 for a new car. That's an easy sell to the residents of Flint but a lot harder to sell to the rest of the country.
Raising import tariffs? What, are you going to prevent Walmart from importing 99% of their products from China? How do you propose that all of those low- and even middle-income families that currently rely on cheap goods be able to make ends meet when everything is two or three times the current price? Even if you kill NAFTA, wages won't go up significantly, especially not in the short term.
Reducing environmental restrictions because he "doesn't believe" in climate change? Obama already ratified the Paris Agreement so unless Trump's willing to break UN protocol, you're stuck with a minimal level of environmental protections. Even the US would have trouble saving face after that kind of turnabout.
And so on and so on. Turns out that even when you're president, you can't just say something and have it be made so.
Wow I really ranted well off topic there didn't I? Oh well I'll make up for it by failing to use the Preview button!
There is honestly nothing in your post that is factual.
So elect him president...oh, never mind.