9 ms·

Ok. That's 120 days to make Title II a household word. Broadband's current classification as an information service, as if it's some sort of MovieFone for the

Ok. That's 120 days to make Title II a household word. Broadband's current classification as an information service, as if it's some sort of MovieFone for the 21st century, is so far removed from reality that the public should be in an uproar about it. Verizon itself has sought to classify its fiber buildouts under Title II so it can get fixed-rate access to existing right-of-way infrastructure, [1] on the technicality that its VOIP service running across those lines is regulated under Title II. Yet the main reason for building it is, of course, broadband, which dodged Title II on the even flimsier grounds of those ISP email and start pages you never use. People should be holding signs outside the FCC building with "Title II" on them. The chair of the National Cable and Telecommunications Association, Michael Powell, has ominously said attempts to reclassify broadband as Title II would be "World War III"[2] – but if he wants a fight, the FCC really should oblige him, and consumers should be beating the drums. [1] http://www.theverge.com/2014/5/14/5716802/game-of-phones-how-verizon-is-playing-the-fcc-and-its-customers http://www.theverge.com/2014/5/14/5716802/game-of-phones-how... [2] http://www.theverge.com/2014/1/15/5311948/net-neutrality-and-the-death-of-the-internet http://www.theverge.com/2014/1/15/5311948/net-neutrality-and...

dragonwriter 12y ago
> People should be holding signs outside the FCC building with "Title II" on them. Or, you know, submitting comments to the FCC answering the question explicitly raised in the call for comments as to whether Title II or Section 706 is the most appropriate authority for Open Internet regulations with clear, specific, and coherent reasons why Title II is the right answer and how it should be applied. The battle over getting Title II into consideration has already been won. The front has moved on to the details.
- dllthomas 12y ago
  Or both and more!
cookiecaper 12y ago
Michael Powell was himself the chairperson of the FCC not so long ago. I don't think there'd be much success waging a war against him.
rayiner 12y ago
You really do not want broadband classified under Title II. You will get the war you want, but it will be a war everyone loses. Why do you think DSL is such a ghetto? It's because it's subject to a higher level of regulations, and nobody wants to invest money in such a highly-regulated industry: http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Goldman-Sachs-Wants-Verizon-to-Sell-All-Landline-Assets-117774 http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Goldman-Sachs-Wants-Veriz.... Classifying cable broadband under Title II will definitely have the effect of killing Comcast and Time Warner's profit margins. Hooray! Your tribe wins, and the big evil telecom companies will be cut down to size! Except the telecom companies make up 6 of the top 25 companies with the highest U.S. capital expenditures: http://news.investors.com/technology/091913-671712-institute-ranks-highest-us-corporate-capital-spending.htm http://news.investors.com/technology/091913-671712-institute.... You think they're going to keep pouring all that money into low-margin heavily-regulated infrastructure? No, they'll do what Goldman wants and divest themselves of regulated business lines, and take that money and put it into a profitable business sector.
- IanDrake 12y ago
  This is something most people don't seem to get. Government control == stagnation.
  - gph 12y ago
    In America. Looks like most of Europe doesn't have this problem...
    - briandear 12y ago
      Au contraire. Europe has enormous problems. In places like France, cellular service has been getting faster and cheaper because of competition. For example, Free joined the "big three" in France for cell service and suddenly prices have fallen and quality has greatly improved compared the the days when France Telecom controlled everything. That's the opposite of your theory that nationalization "improves" things. Mexico is another outstanding example of what happens when you deregulate telecoms. When Carlos Slim had his nationally-endorsed monopoly with TelCel/TelMex, prices were exceptionally high however, once his guaranteed monopoly period expired and other companies could begin to compete, the prices dropped dramatically. Although Slim's company has a huge 10 year head start over other companies in terms of infrastructure -- so the monopoly effects are still prevalent. For example, a cell plan that costs me $100 in the US, costs me over $125 in Mexico. In terms of purchasing power, that's a massively expensive difference, considering many other things in Mexico are substantially less expensive than the US -- except electricity and telcoms, which are far more expensive because of de facto and de jure nationalization. There's a perception that "Europe is better" that seems to be almost a stereotype. I happen to live in Avignon and have a close-up view of things that are better in Europe versus the US and some things ARE better, but there is a tradeoff. Avignon has 20% unemployment for example. It has traditionally been very expensive to start a business in France as well. The labor rules and bureaucracy makes it exceptionally difficult to hire and fire employees. Public transport in Europe isn't universally better than the US. Most people only visit places like Paris, Berlin, London, etc. However, when compared to New York, Chicago and San Francisco, europe's transport isn't that much better. Spend a few minutes in the Paris CDG airport and compare that to JFK.. not much difference. In the less famous cities and regions of Europe, public transport consists of possibly a train station and some buses. When I was in Wilstedt, German (near Hamburg) there was a bus, but it was so infrequent that it was useless. In Provence, the big cities have public transport, but if you're in Salon de Provence, there isn't much. I wouldn't want to live anywhere else, but the rose-colored view of Europe is often not based in reality, but on an idealized view. La vie en rose to be sure. The "Better in Europe" meme isn't always true. Ask some of the people actually running businesses in France. Here's an interview with a French CEO that's interesting. http://www.cnbc.com/id/101608867 http://www.cnbc.com/id/101608867 And then you have this nonsense: http://www.france24.com/en/20130501-france-minister-montebourg-blocks-meyer-yahoo-dailymotion-deal-usa/ http://www.france24.com/en/20130501-france-minister-montebou... (A French Minister blocked the sale of Dailymotion to Yahoo.) I am not an expert on Europe (or anything really,) however I did have to say something about the "Europe is better" implication.
grumpypants666 12y ago
Ha - you mean Former FCC Commissioner and now chair of industry lobby National Cable and Telecommunications Association, and obviously not corrupt, Michael Powell, ....
rcraft 12y ago
Thoughts on what effect title II designation would have on innovative ISPs such as Google fiber and webpass? Would Google still be inclined to invest money in Fiber?
- kumbasha 12y ago
  Google is generally capable of thinking long term. The major broadband providers in America are incapable of thinking beyond the next few quarterly statements--otherwise they would not have gotten themselves into this mess.
  - rayiner 12y ago
    The fact is that Google is only deploying fiber in cities that give massive regulatory concessions: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/09/how-kansas-city-taxpayers-support-google-fiber http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/09/how-kansas-city-t.... It's very legitimate to ask whether Google would invest in fiber were it regulated under Title II, because to date they have expressed the distinct unwillingness to enter municipal markets with heavy telecom regulation. They won't even agree to build-out requirements, which are pretty much standard for cable franchises.
BryanCrow 12y ago
Before we all jump on the idea of Title II, let's consider the implications. Specifically Terrifs. If last-mile ISPs can start charging Terrifs for use of their lines (like the telcos do), this will have the opposite of the desired effect on pricing and will lead to arbitrage like we've seen with the Telcos (these Terrifs allowed NetZero to make money by keeping your modem connected... essentially billing everyone in the country through the FCC's "Federal Universal Service Charge" on your phone bill instead of their users). This is also where the "Family Plan" came from. Honestly, it's shocking how ill informed most people in the tech industry are on what they're asking for here... Why do we need any regulation in the first place? Net Neutrality has never truly existed. Netflix has the cheapest bandwidth deal of anyone... And they're trying to fool their users into lobbying the gov't for them to keep in that way. Small start-ups have always payed more per Megabit. That's the free market at work. You pay less for bulk. It makes sense. Every content provider (website, video service, shared host, VoIP provider, etc) has always been able to pay for priority at some level (be it through exclusive private fiber channels, faster DNS, the use of CDNs, or even QoS for latency-critical services like VoIP & gaming). This has generally been a good thing. Yes, some local monopolistic ISPs are acting up and something has to be done about that. But calling them utilities will only give them the power to impose terrifs and charge more... the opposite of what we want.

dragonwriter 12y ago

> People should be holding signs outside the FCC building with "Title II" on them. Or, you know, submitting comments to the FCC answering the question explicitly raised in the call for comments as to whether Title II or Section 706 is the most appropriate authority for Open Internet regulations with clear, specific, and coherent reasons why Title II is the right answer and how it should be applied. The battle over getting Title II into consideration has already been won. The front has moved on to the details.

dllthomas 12y ago
Or both and more!

cookiecaper 12y ago

Michael Powell was himself the chairperson of the FCC not so long ago. I don't think there'd be much success waging a war against him.

rayiner 12y ago

You really do not want broadband classified under Title II. You will get the war you want, but it will be a war everyone loses. Why do you think DSL is such a ghetto? It's because it's subject to a higher level of regulations, and nobody wants to invest money in such a highly-regulated industry: http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Goldman-Sachs-Wants-Verizon-to-Sell-All-Landline-Assets-117774 http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Goldman-Sachs-Wants-Veriz.... Classifying cable broadband under Title II will definitely have the effect of killing Comcast and Time Warner's profit margins. Hooray! Your tribe wins, and the big evil telecom companies will be cut down to size! Except the telecom companies make up 6 of the top 25 companies with the highest U.S. capital expenditures: http://news.investors.com/technology/091913-671712-institute-ranks-highest-us-corporate-capital-spending.htm http://news.investors.com/technology/091913-671712-institute.... You think they're going to keep pouring all that money into low-margin heavily-regulated infrastructure? No, they'll do what Goldman wants and divest themselves of regulated business lines, and take that money and put it into a profitable business sector.

IanDrake 12y ago
This is something most people don't seem to get. Government control == stagnation.
- gph 12y ago
  In America. Looks like most of Europe doesn't have this problem...
  - briandear 12y ago
    Au contraire. Europe has enormous problems. In places like France, cellular service has been getting faster and cheaper because of competition. For example, Free joined the "big three" in France for cell service and suddenly prices have fallen and quality has greatly improved compared the the days when France Telecom controlled everything. That's the opposite of your theory that nationalization "improves" things. Mexico is another outstanding example of what happens when you deregulate telecoms. When Carlos Slim had his nationally-endorsed monopoly with TelCel/TelMex, prices were exceptionally high however, once his guaranteed monopoly period expired and other companies could begin to compete, the prices dropped dramatically. Although Slim's company has a huge 10 year head start over other companies in terms of infrastructure -- so the monopoly effects are still prevalent. For example, a cell plan that costs me $100 in the US, costs me over $125 in Mexico. In terms of purchasing power, that's a massively expensive difference, considering many other things in Mexico are substantially less expensive than the US -- except electricity and telcoms, which are far more expensive because of de facto and de jure nationalization. There's a perception that "Europe is better" that seems to be almost a stereotype. I happen to live in Avignon and have a close-up view of things that are better in Europe versus the US and some things ARE better, but there is a tradeoff. Avignon has 20% unemployment for example. It has traditionally been very expensive to start a business in France as well. The labor rules and bureaucracy makes it exceptionally difficult to hire and fire employees. Public transport in Europe isn't universally better than the US. Most people only visit places like Paris, Berlin, London, etc. However, when compared to New York, Chicago and San Francisco, europe's transport isn't that much better. Spend a few minutes in the Paris CDG airport and compare that to JFK.. not much difference. In the less famous cities and regions of Europe, public transport consists of possibly a train station and some buses. When I was in Wilstedt, German (near Hamburg) there was a bus, but it was so infrequent that it was useless. In Provence, the big cities have public transport, but if you're in Salon de Provence, there isn't much. I wouldn't want to live anywhere else, but the rose-colored view of Europe is often not based in reality, but on an idealized view. La vie en rose to be sure. The "Better in Europe" meme isn't always true. Ask some of the people actually running businesses in France. Here's an interview with a French CEO that's interesting. http://www.cnbc.com/id/101608867 http://www.cnbc.com/id/101608867 And then you have this nonsense: http://www.france24.com/en/20130501-france-minister-montebourg-blocks-meyer-yahoo-dailymotion-deal-usa/ http://www.france24.com/en/20130501-france-minister-montebou... (A French Minister blocked the sale of Dailymotion to Yahoo.) I am not an expert on Europe (or anything really,) however I did have to say something about the "Europe is better" implication.

grumpypants666 12y ago

Ha - you mean Former FCC Commissioner and now chair of industry lobby National Cable and Telecommunications Association, and obviously not corrupt, Michael Powell, ....

rcraft 12y ago

Thoughts on what effect title II designation would have on innovative ISPs such as Google fiber and webpass? Would Google still be inclined to invest money in Fiber?

kumbasha 12y ago
Google is generally capable of thinking long term. The major broadband providers in America are incapable of thinking beyond the next few quarterly statements--otherwise they would not have gotten themselves into this mess.
- rayiner 12y ago
  The fact is that Google is only deploying fiber in cities that give massive regulatory concessions: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/09/how-kansas-city-taxpayers-support-google-fiber http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/09/how-kansas-city-t.... It's very legitimate to ask whether Google would invest in fiber were it regulated under Title II, because to date they have expressed the distinct unwillingness to enter municipal markets with heavy telecom regulation. They won't even agree to build-out requirements, which are pretty much standard for cable franchises.

BryanCrow 12y ago

Before we all jump on the idea of Title II, let's consider the implications. Specifically Terrifs. If last-mile ISPs can start charging Terrifs for use of their lines (like the telcos do), this will have the opposite of the desired effect on pricing and will lead to arbitrage like we've seen with the Telcos (these Terrifs allowed NetZero to make money by keeping your modem connected... essentially billing everyone in the country through the FCC's "Federal Universal Service Charge" on your phone bill instead of their users). This is also where the "Family Plan" came from. Honestly, it's shocking how ill informed most people in the tech industry are on what they're asking for here... Why do we need any regulation in the first place? Net Neutrality has never truly existed. Netflix has the cheapest bandwidth deal of anyone... And they're trying to fool their users into lobbying the gov't for them to keep in that way. Small start-ups have always payed more per Megabit. That's the free market at work. You pay less for bulk. It makes sense. Every content provider (website, video service, shared host, VoIP provider, etc) has always been able to pay for priority at some level (be it through exclusive private fiber channels, faster DNS, the use of CDNs, or even QoS for latency-critical services like VoIP & gaming). This has generally been a good thing. Yes, some local monopolistic ISPs are acting up and something has to be done about that. But calling them utilities will only give them the power to impose terrifs and charge more... the opposite of what we want.