5 ms·

I know several people who are highly involved with the FCC, telecom industry, and telecom law that think that "network neutrality" is just 2 words. Until 1970,

by seibelj 10y ago

I know several people who are highly involved with the FCC, telecom industry, and telecom law that think that "network neutrality" is just 2 words. Until 1970, and only because of lawsuits, it was illegal to connect anything to your phone line. You could get any phone you wanted from Ma Bell as long as it was black.[0] If you wanted a different color you had to pay extra. It took force to make Ma Bell and the FCC allow you to plug in your own phone, your own computer, etc. The FCC supports monopolies, if you want competition you should applaud the deregulation of telecom. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_500_telephone#Ownership_and_AT.26T_divestiture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_500_telephone#Ownership_...

frgtpsswrdlame 10y ago
How do you imagine the deregulation in this article will help competition? Specifically, that is.
- seibelj 10y ago
  By allowing upstart MVNO's to avoid arduous regulation processes. I am involved with 2 MVNO's that have been trying to merge for over a year, they don't have that many customers, and no one opposes it. Yet the FCC dragged their feet with no updates and no reason for the delay. This has real world, multi-million dollar consequences. The process is moving forward now since Ajit got hired. Armchair technologists read an article about net neutrality on arstechnica and think it's black and white. News flash - telecom and ISP's have been shaping traffic since the beginning! You think NetFlix has high quality video on shitty connections because they are nice? Wrong! They pay for the privilege.[0] I say, let the free market decide. The history of telecom is beyond insane. If you actually care about this stuff maybe you should learn more. This book is pretty esoteric but it gives the true history https://www.amazon.com/Great-Telecom-Meltdown-Fred-Goldstein/dp/1580539394 https://www.amazon.com/Great-Telecom-Meltdown-Fred-Goldstein... [0]https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304834704579401071892041790 https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304834704579401...
  - frgtpsswrdlame 10y ago
    >By allowing upstart MVNO's to avoid arduous regulation processes. This doesn't seem that arduous to me. The article estimates regulatory compliance will only take 6.8 hours. >I say, let the free market decide. Is that not the point of this regulation? It provides more information to consumers so they are better able to decide. Free markets only work when there is transparency about what is being bought and sold. >I am involved with 2 MVNO's that have been trying to merge for over a year... This has nothing to do with the regulatory rollback in the article. >Armchair technologists... We can discuss without getting bent out of shape.
badsock 10y ago
Telecoms are a classic example of a natural monopoly - which is to say it would be monopoly whether there's regulation or not. How do you imagine there would be competition in, say, fibre? A bunch of companies all running their own last mile? That's incredibly inefficient.
- asciimo 10y ago
  The whole thing should be a public utility like water, electricity, and sewer.
  - rayiner 10y ago
    Yes, just like sewers: http://www.ajc.com/news/local-govt--politics/atlanta-area-still-trying-stop-sewage-spills/VqIGSuNOsCDJjXLZCJZ7ZN http://www.ajc.com/news/local-govt--politics/atlanta-area-st.... Also, nobody advocating for "treating telecom like a utility" is actually advocating for that. Try looking up the cost of a county water/sewer hookup sometime. It's not free, and your $50/month water bill doesn't pay for it. I'm paying off a $30,000 bill to get "public utility" water and sewer access. That's pretty typical. If we required every house builder to pay thousands of dollars up front to install fiber people would be frothing at the mouth.
    - bumblebeard 10y ago
      $30,000 seems like a lot unless you live in a very rural area. Where I live in Michigan it's $1,410 for a hookup within 500 feet of a road. Why is it so expensive where you are? Also, fiber would probably be pretty cheap once the infrastructure was already in place. A single phase overhead power line is often provided for free to new homes and underground service runs about $3.50/foot so I imagine fiber would be similarly cheap.
      - rayiner 10y ago
        Where in Michigan? Here's the fee schedule in my county: http://www.aacounty.org/departments/inspections-and-permits/permit-center/utility-and-impact-fees http://www.aacounty.org/departments/inspections-and-permits/.... Fairfax County, where my parents live is similarly expensive: about $25,000 for a smallish house.
JediWing 10y ago
Huh? The only reason you could connect "any lawful device" after 1968 was because of the FCC "Carterphone" rulemaking. In its absence, Ma Bell would have kept forced leasing of standard phones as long as possible. Perhaps I'm misunderstand you (or missing sarcasm?).
- seibelj 10y ago
  The FCC was regulating the monopoly! And why would anyone want a monopoly to exist? "Cheap phone service for grandma". That's always been the justification for all the insanity. It took years to deregulate and allow true competition, and it always came through because of lawsuits. Telecom is an industry run by lawyers.

by seibelj 10y ago

frgtpsswrdlame 10y ago

How do you imagine the deregulation in this article will help competition? Specifically, that is.

seibelj 10y ago
By allowing upstart MVNO's to avoid arduous regulation processes. I am involved with 2 MVNO's that have been trying to merge for over a year, they don't have that many customers, and no one opposes it. Yet the FCC dragged their feet with no updates and no reason for the delay. This has real world, multi-million dollar consequences. The process is moving forward now since Ajit got hired. Armchair technologists read an article about net neutrality on arstechnica and think it's black and white. News flash - telecom and ISP's have been shaping traffic since the beginning! You think NetFlix has high quality video on shitty connections because they are nice? Wrong! They pay for the privilege.[0] I say, let the free market decide. The history of telecom is beyond insane. If you actually care about this stuff maybe you should learn more. This book is pretty esoteric but it gives the true history https://www.amazon.com/Great-Telecom-Meltdown-Fred-Goldstein/dp/1580539394 https://www.amazon.com/Great-Telecom-Meltdown-Fred-Goldstein... [0]https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304834704579401071892041790 https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304834704579401...
- frgtpsswrdlame 10y ago
  >By allowing upstart MVNO's to avoid arduous regulation processes. This doesn't seem that arduous to me. The article estimates regulatory compliance will only take 6.8 hours. >I say, let the free market decide. Is that not the point of this regulation? It provides more information to consumers so they are better able to decide. Free markets only work when there is transparency about what is being bought and sold. >I am involved with 2 MVNO's that have been trying to merge for over a year... This has nothing to do with the regulatory rollback in the article. >Armchair technologists... We can discuss without getting bent out of shape.

badsock 10y ago

Telecoms are a classic example of a natural monopoly - which is to say it would be monopoly whether there's regulation or not. How do you imagine there would be competition in, say, fibre? A bunch of companies all running their own last mile? That's incredibly inefficient.

asciimo 10y ago
The whole thing should be a public utility like water, electricity, and sewer.
- rayiner 10y ago
  Yes, just like sewers: http://www.ajc.com/news/local-govt--politics/atlanta-area-still-trying-stop-sewage-spills/VqIGSuNOsCDJjXLZCJZ7ZN http://www.ajc.com/news/local-govt--politics/atlanta-area-st.... Also, nobody advocating for "treating telecom like a utility" is actually advocating for that. Try looking up the cost of a county water/sewer hookup sometime. It's not free, and your $50/month water bill doesn't pay for it. I'm paying off a $30,000 bill to get "public utility" water and sewer access. That's pretty typical. If we required every house builder to pay thousands of dollars up front to install fiber people would be frothing at the mouth.
  - bumblebeard 10y ago
    $30,000 seems like a lot unless you live in a very rural area. Where I live in Michigan it's $1,410 for a hookup within 500 feet of a road. Why is it so expensive where you are? Also, fiber would probably be pretty cheap once the infrastructure was already in place. A single phase overhead power line is often provided for free to new homes and underground service runs about $3.50/foot so I imagine fiber would be similarly cheap.
    - rayiner 10y ago
      Where in Michigan? Here's the fee schedule in my county: http://www.aacounty.org/departments/inspections-and-permits/permit-center/utility-and-impact-fees http://www.aacounty.org/departments/inspections-and-permits/.... Fairfax County, where my parents live is similarly expensive: about $25,000 for a smallish house.

JediWing 10y ago

Huh? The only reason you could connect "any lawful device" after 1968 was because of the FCC "Carterphone" rulemaking. In its absence, Ma Bell would have kept forced leasing of standard phones as long as possible. Perhaps I'm misunderstand you (or missing sarcasm?).

seibelj 10y ago
The FCC was regulating the monopoly! And why would anyone want a monopoly to exist? "Cheap phone service for grandma". That's always been the justification for all the insanity. It took years to deregulate and allow true competition, and it always came through because of lawsuits. Telecom is an industry run by lawyers.