5 ms·

> Up until very recently, Title II was the "nuclear option." Up until recently (2005), ADSL was classified as Title II. Reclassifying it as an information serv

> Up until very recently, Title II was the "nuclear option." Up until recently (2005), ADSL was classified as Title II. Reclassifying it as an information service made it so much better that VDSL2 (which can provide 100Mbps!), defined in 2005, has .... hardly rolled out anywhere.

twoodfin 12y ago
I'd argue that Title II classification (along with competitive access requirements) was a huge handicap on the telcos ability to make money in DSL, so it was starved of investment, and that by 2005 they were already too far behind cable to compete. Why won't this happen with cable? What motivation does Comcast have to keep increasing the speed of their network? Especially since, believe you me, the calls for the FCC to mandate "open networks" (i.e. competitive access) could be right around the corner.
- frandroid 12y ago
  We have competitive access in Canada and that hasn't stopped telcos from making money or layout out new technology.
rhino369 12y ago
The original Title II classification which included local loop bundling killed DSL investment and allowed cable broadband to take over the market. Ever wonder why America has cable broadband and the rest of the world uses some version of DSL or fiber provided by the telephone company? Title II. As soon as it was deregulated, Verizon and AT&T began upgrades. But before then, they weren't going to build upgrades to networks that any competitor could borrow at wholesale value. The title II being proposed is a lot lighter than the old kind applied to the DSL, so it won't necessarily destroy invesment. But the fear is reasonable.
- r00fus 12y ago
  > As soon as it was deregulated, Verizon and AT&T began upgrades. But before then, they weren't going to build upgrades to networks that any competitor could borrow at wholesale value. Given the great intentions that such bastions of corporate ethics like AT&T and Verizon have, is it possible that they simple held out until the got what they wanted?
  - rhino369 12y ago
    If so, it was a massive mistake on their part. AT&T and Verizon lost the ISP market to cable companies in the mean time.
    - jpadkins 12y ago
      which is actually better than spending billions and then losing the ISP market to cable + other ISPs using wholesale. It's actually a rational move. Title II prevented them from competing effectively with the companies that were not under Title II, hence the rational decision not to invest in competing infrastructure.
  - rayiner 12y ago
    What exactly is "unethical" about not investing tons of money in something that isn't going to yield the kind of profit your investors want? People act like Verizon and AT&T have a moral obligation to spend money on telecom infrastructure as a public good at minimal price above cost.
    - MereInterest 12y ago
      Having agreed to make such an expansion, and having been paid for it, it is unethical to choose not to without returning the money.
    - throwaway150219 12y ago
      Well, investing tons of money in lobbyists to pass state laws to prevent the deployment of municipal broadband utilizing public tax monies and breaks, is considered unethical (at least to me). So, not investing in infrastructure is not the problem, but preventing others from doing so, is scummy. They do not want to invest AND they don't want to compete.
    - smutticus 12y ago
      They're given public rights of way and tax write offs to build their infrastructure. So yeah, they have a public duty.
- warfangle 12y ago
  > The original Title II classification which included local loop bundling killed DSL investment Then why, when reclassified as an information service, did it not get better? It got better from 1999 to 2005 (768kbps -> 1-6Mbps), but only in very select regions has it actually improved beyond that in the past ten years.
  - rhino369 12y ago
    That is mostly a technology issue. There is a maximum bitrate at which the transmission line can support for a given distance. To get past that, they have to start dragging fiberoptics to nodes they build closer to your house. Before you hit that speeds, protocol upgrades were giving you faster speed. And I wouldn't say "very select regions." At least a quarter of the country live in areas with FTTN or FTTP networks deployed by the telecoms.
  - maxsilver 12y ago
    By the monopoly phone provider's logic, it did "get better" after it was reclassified. (This is where AT&T switched to "Uverse" fiber-to-the-neighborhood network, with speeds up to 40+mbps. And since that's an "information service", no other companies are allowed to use it to sell internet, even though it's literally the same phone line as DSL, with almost identical technology and performance seen in other countries faster DSL services)
    - warfangle 12y ago
      I guess I'm a little confused. The last mile unbundling would have just been the node-to-home lines, would it not? A new ISP entering the market would be able to lease those, but not necessarily the fiber network? Or would that fiber network have been unbundled too?
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- warfangle 12y ago
  What's interesting, though, if you look at the published numbers... The number of new subscribers each year grew at about the same rate, with DSL in the lead (of growth, but not hard numbers), until 2005... When they both leveled off. DSL more sharply than cable. Most of the historic data only differentiates between greater and less than 200kbps, though, so it's difficult to know the impact that it did on bandwidth availability growth for the two connection mediums.

twoodfin 12y ago

I'd argue that Title II classification (along with competitive access requirements) was a huge handicap on the telcos ability to make money in DSL, so it was starved of investment, and that by 2005 they were already too far behind cable to compete. Why won't this happen with cable? What motivation does Comcast have to keep increasing the speed of their network? Especially since, believe you me, the calls for the FCC to mandate "open networks" (i.e. competitive access) could be right around the corner.

frandroid 12y ago
We have competitive access in Canada and that hasn't stopped telcos from making money or layout out new technology.

rhino369 12y ago

The original Title II classification which included local loop bundling killed DSL investment and allowed cable broadband to take over the market. Ever wonder why America has cable broadband and the rest of the world uses some version of DSL or fiber provided by the telephone company? Title II. As soon as it was deregulated, Verizon and AT&T began upgrades. But before then, they weren't going to build upgrades to networks that any competitor could borrow at wholesale value. The title II being proposed is a lot lighter than the old kind applied to the DSL, so it won't necessarily destroy invesment. But the fear is reasonable.

r00fus 12y ago
> As soon as it was deregulated, Verizon and AT&T began upgrades. But before then, they weren't going to build upgrades to networks that any competitor could borrow at wholesale value. Given the great intentions that such bastions of corporate ethics like AT&T and Verizon have, is it possible that they simple held out until the got what they wanted?
- rhino369 12y ago
  If so, it was a massive mistake on their part. AT&T and Verizon lost the ISP market to cable companies in the mean time.
  - jpadkins 12y ago
    which is actually better than spending billions and then losing the ISP market to cable + other ISPs using wholesale. It's actually a rational move. Title II prevented them from competing effectively with the companies that were not under Title II, hence the rational decision not to invest in competing infrastructure.
- rayiner 12y ago
  What exactly is "unethical" about not investing tons of money in something that isn't going to yield the kind of profit your investors want? People act like Verizon and AT&T have a moral obligation to spend money on telecom infrastructure as a public good at minimal price above cost.
  - MereInterest 12y ago
    Having agreed to make such an expansion, and having been paid for it, it is unethical to choose not to without returning the money.
  - throwaway150219 12y ago
    Well, investing tons of money in lobbyists to pass state laws to prevent the deployment of municipal broadband utilizing public tax monies and breaks, is considered unethical (at least to me). So, not investing in infrastructure is not the problem, but preventing others from doing so, is scummy. They do not want to invest AND they don't want to compete.
  - smutticus 12y ago
    They're given public rights of way and tax write offs to build their infrastructure. So yeah, they have a public duty.
warfangle 12y ago
> The original Title II classification which included local loop bundling killed DSL investment Then why, when reclassified as an information service, did it not get better? It got better from 1999 to 2005 (768kbps -> 1-6Mbps), but only in very select regions has it actually improved beyond that in the past ten years.
- rhino369 12y ago
  That is mostly a technology issue. There is a maximum bitrate at which the transmission line can support for a given distance. To get past that, they have to start dragging fiberoptics to nodes they build closer to your house. Before you hit that speeds, protocol upgrades were giving you faster speed. And I wouldn't say "very select regions." At least a quarter of the country live in areas with FTTN or FTTP networks deployed by the telecoms.
- maxsilver 12y ago
  By the monopoly phone provider's logic, it did "get better" after it was reclassified. (This is where AT&T switched to "Uverse" fiber-to-the-neighborhood network, with speeds up to 40+mbps. And since that's an "information service", no other companies are allowed to use it to sell internet, even though it's literally the same phone line as DSL, with almost identical technology and performance seen in other countries faster DSL services)
  - warfangle 12y ago
    I guess I'm a little confused. The last mile unbundling would have just been the node-to-home lines, would it not? A new ISP entering the market would be able to lease those, but not necessarily the fiber network? Or would that fiber network have been unbundled too?
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
warfangle 12y ago
What's interesting, though, if you look at the published numbers... The number of new subscribers each year grew at about the same rate, with DSL in the lead (of growth, but not hard numbers), until 2005... When they both leveled off. DSL more sharply than cable. Most of the historic data only differentiates between greater and less than 200kbps, though, so it's difficult to know the impact that it did on bandwidth availability growth for the two connection mediums.