3 ms·

Comcast sells digital video services for hefty subscription fees to tens of millions of its customers. Those video services presumably use bandwidth that could

Comcast sells digital video services for hefty subscription fees to tens of millions of its customers. Those video services presumably use bandwidth that could be used by Google, Netflix or any of a dozen other competitors if the customer preferred. Under Title II, what stops the FCC from mandating that Comcast “open the box” and allow all competitors access to that bandwidth in a neutral fashion? That’s the argument. Title II is just a framework for regulations that could potentially turn ISPs into true “dumb pipes”. While many have convinced themselves that would be great for everyone, there’s not a lot of money in the dumb pipe business. To put it another way: 10 cent SMS messages built a lot of cell towers!

raverbashing 9y ago
Still, that's "last mile" bandwidth Owning the network it's much easier to cache at the boundary But apparently it's easier and cheaper to lobby instead of doing the smart thing
- twoodfin 9y ago
  What about Title II do you think makes boundary caching untouchable by regulators as well? Remember, this is the framework created to bring Ma Bell to heel. Why should Comcast be allowed to build “fast lanes” for their own NBC content and exclude Netflix, just because the delivery vector is an IP cable box instead of an IP WLAN hub?
  - jessaustin 9y ago
    Remember, this is the framework created to bring Ma Bell to heel. Is this irony? In what sense has Ma Bell been brought to heel? Do you mean that ATT and VZN haven't yet merged? Perhaps you mean that neither of them has yet consumed CenturyLink? notes: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15756334 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15756334
    - libertyEQ 9y ago
      It was the 1930's, and since that time the baby Bells have slowly re-merged. You mentioned CenturyLink (formerly USWest) ans Cincinnati Bell also still exists, as well as some other remnants elsewhere. Many people make the argument the the Communications act of '96 stifled DSL, which pushed data heavy users to cable internet as soon as it was available. Given how things stand, and who is in power, I think it would be best to be pushing for further deregulation in telecom, since that is the argument they are making. They need to put up or shut up.

raverbashing 9y ago

Still, that's "last mile" bandwidth Owning the network it's much easier to cache at the boundary But apparently it's easier and cheaper to lobby instead of doing the smart thing

twoodfin 9y ago
What about Title II do you think makes boundary caching untouchable by regulators as well? Remember, this is the framework created to bring Ma Bell to heel. Why should Comcast be allowed to build “fast lanes” for their own NBC content and exclude Netflix, just because the delivery vector is an IP cable box instead of an IP WLAN hub?
- jessaustin 9y ago
  Remember, this is the framework created to bring Ma Bell to heel. Is this irony? In what sense has Ma Bell been brought to heel? Do you mean that ATT and VZN haven't yet merged? Perhaps you mean that neither of them has yet consumed CenturyLink? notes: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15756334 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15756334
  - libertyEQ 9y ago
    It was the 1930's, and since that time the baby Bells have slowly re-merged. You mentioned CenturyLink (formerly USWest) ans Cincinnati Bell also still exists, as well as some other remnants elsewhere. Many people make the argument the the Communications act of '96 stifled DSL, which pushed data heavy users to cable internet as soon as it was available. Given how things stand, and who is in power, I think it would be best to be pushing for further deregulation in telecom, since that is the argument they are making. They need to put up or shut up.