4 ms·
The problem is shoehorning the internet into a regulatory scheme devised in the 1930s for telephone service that was modified pre-modern internet (in 1996). The
by rhino369 9y ago
The problem is shoehorning the internet into a regulatory scheme devised in the 1930s for telephone service that was modified pre-modern internet (in 1996). The regulatory scheme was designed to regulate Southern Bell, a telecommunication service, who used to dial into an "information service" like CompuServe, without harshly regulating CompuServe.
But broadband ISPs sort of operate as both and neither. You can call them either an information service or a telecommunication service depending on how you view them. But there are problems with both labels.
Which led the FCC labeling cable broadband an info service and DSL a telecommunication service. That ruined the DSL market in the USA until the FCC decided to label all ISPs as information services.
In 2015, the FCC switched back to telecommunication service because they lacked the power to apply net neutrality to an info service.
Really, we need a new regulatory scheme, but good luck getting that through congress.
- RandomInteger4 9y agoI'm going to need you to provide some sources, because that smells an awful lot like complete horse shit.
- magila 9y agoThe DSL market was doomed to failure not because it was classified as a telecommunication service, but because it is technically inferior to cable. DSL's limited range and bandwidth causes it to have spotty coverage and generally slower speeds than cable. Slower speed by itself might not have been fatal, but it also caused even more spotty availability of TV service over DSL. The inability to offer "triple play" service made DSL unattractive compared to cable even for people who didn't care too much about the speed of their internet service.
- rhino369 9y agoIn most of the world, DSL is more successful than cable. Title II also prevented telecoms from replacing DSL with fiber lines that could do all of that. After Title II ended, AT&T and Verizon suddenly poured money into Fiber. It's important to note that even the Obama era FCC didn't want Title II actually applied. They just used it to get net neutrality. They suspended almost all other Title II rules.
- magila 9y agoWhat? Verizon rolled out the bulk of its fiber service between 2005 and 2010 at which point it halted new roll outs. AT&T has been pretty miserly with it's fiber roll out until just the last year or so when they accelerated deployment as a condition of their merger with DirectTV.
- rhino369 9y agoTitle II was removed from Verizon's service in early 2005. Before then they had to do local loop unbundling and reselling. In 2015 it was added back, but with almost all Title II rules suspended. Like price controls, unbundling, reselling, etc.
- pseudalopex 9y agoThe problem is believing the economics of running wires to everyone's home has fundamentally changed since the 1990s. Vertically integrated broadband ISPs have elements of both telecommunications and information services. The FCC chose to allow vertical integration, supposedly believing it would increase competition. Other countries kept them separate and have more competitive markets as a result.