FCC Considers Opening Up US Broadband Access 253
An anonymous reader writes On October 14, the FCC issued a call for public comments on a study (PDF) done by Harvard's Berkman Center for Internet and Society about whether the US should require the telephone and cable companies to open their networks to competitors so that independent ISPs could begin offering broadband, much in the way it was done back in the days of dialup access. The study found that open-access in virtually every other country 'is playing a central role in current planning exercises throughout the highest performing countries,' noting: 'While Congress adopted various open access provisions in the almost unanimously-approved Telecommunications Act of 1996, the FCC decided to abandon this mode of regulation for broadband in a series of decisions in 2001 and 2002. Open access has been largely treated as a closed issue in US policy debates ever since. We find that in countries where an engaged regulator enforced open access obligations, competitors that entered using these open access facilities provided an important catalyst for the development of robust competition which, in most cases, contributed to strong broadband performance across a range of metrics.'"
Re:Not sure (Score:5, Interesting)
Cell phones? (Score:5, Interesting)
Just wonderin'
So, let me get this straight... (Score:5, Interesting)
Open access already is required by law, but the FCC isn't enforcing it. Why? Well, getting past the "It's all Bush's fault" crowd, the law was so poorly written that it was practically unenforceable. The ILECs "opened" their lines to competitors, and then used paperwork, "reasonable" delays, and low level sabotage to ensure that their competitors didn't keep the clients they could get.
The problem isn't the FCC; the problem is a Congress that writes laws consist of
1) broad but vague edicts that are left to the Executive branch to complete ("Stimulus" Plan), and
2) "Disease of the Week" laws that are extremely narrow in response to whatever is in the news right now (banning ANY lead in childrens' items, no matter the exposure risk).
Yes! PLEASE (Score:5, Interesting)
To make matters worse, I cannot use my preferred ISP (Speakeasy) because of the infrastructure hurdle mentioned above.
In my mind, this is anti-competitive behavior by a monopoly (Verizon, obviously) to prevent me from choosing a different ISP. I really wish I could because Verizon's service and reliability is absolutely horrible.
One point of irony in all of this is that when the Verizon tech tested the copper line, the automated voice is still "Welcome to Bell Atlantic", the PREVIOUS established monopoly. (and it was James Earl Jones' voice no less.)
As Nobel Laureate Dr. Paul Krugman noted today in his column, competition is always a good thing [nytimes.com].
Re:I wonder if it'll work as well as before... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Wow (Score:2, Interesting)
This is a great idea, implemented badly. So badly that I suspect we would be better off doing nothing. This is, unfortunately, the problem I have with a lot of Obama's agenda, which is incredibly frustrating.
The correct solution, in my mind, is for the government to become the infrastructure owner for, at the very least, the last mile. The government needs to build an adequate pipe to every single house and run them all back to regional colos owned and operated by the government. In cases where there already are adequate pipes, the government can buy them from their current owners. "Buy" in the literal sense, meaning a transfer of legal ownership of the physical wires. Not the usual government sense, which typically means to buy access, or contract out, or whatever.
Once this is all done, ISPs pay a monthly rate for subscribers they have which works out to cover the government's costs of building, maintaining, and upgrading the infrastructure. They also pay a monthly rate to lease space in the government's colo facilities which, again, covers the costs of the colo. These costs are averaged out over the entire country, so ISPs pay the exact same rates in New York City as they do in some no-name village in the Alaska Interior. This helps to ensure that Internet access is affordable regardless of the location. It also should make the program self-sufficient, which is crucial. It would likely make the program profitable after ten years or so as well, so we'd need to make an effort to keep the government from "borrowing" the surplus before it can be re-invested in infrastructure improvements.
The government would have a mandate to ensure 100% coverage. Obviously some areas would get it later than others; the initial focus should probably be on big cities so the program gets some revenue going almost right out of the gate. That would make later growth faster and more stable, and additionally it would give some crucial information as to what actual costs and revenues are going to be like.
Once this is all set up, ISPs are free to do whatever they want. This is crucial: they are essentially unregulated. They can charge whatever they want. They can be net-neutral, or they can be net-biased. They can offer 1Mb/s, 20Mb/s, or 100Mb/s. Regardless of their business plan (or lack thereof), they pay the exact same rate to the government as everyone else. Comcast wants to offer 5Mb/s, filtered, shaped, overcommitted Internet access for $75/mo? Fine. I'll get a couple of my friends together and we'll set up our own ISP and charge ourselves cost. The cost of entry is so low that it'll actually be practical to do this, which obviously means that smaller ISPs will have a chance at competing again.
Unfortunately, this will never happen. As you mentioned, the telecom giants will put a stop to it. I can hate them for it, but I can't blame them: Comcast, for example, would lose 5% of its subscribers literally overnight. And probably another 10-20% that year. It would ruin them. They deserve to be ruined, but I can't blame them for not wanting it to happen any more than I can blame an admitted murderer-rapist for trying to get himself released from prison on a technicality.
Re:Not sure (Score:5, Interesting)
Meanwhile I am shopping for internet in Southern NJ and haven't been able to find anything close to that price range. Sure I can get 30MB access for $65, but that's like buying a 40 seat bus to carry your family of 4. More than you need is great if you don't have to pay for the extra.
And for those who are wondering why an old Slashdoter would ever think he doesn't need more than 2MB. I work at an ISP, I have a pretty good idea about internet usage patterns and I know that my own pattern is such that I stop using the extra speed once I get past 768K. There was a time when I needed more. Not now.
Re:"Balkanization"? B.S. (Score:3, Interesting)
and when the people and the government work together (yes it can happen) this is what happens
http://www.itworld.com/business/66863/time-warner-cable-wants-legislation-eliminate-competition [itworld.com]
read it through..
Re:Not sure (Score:4, Interesting)
Yet during the time when we did do that, they were upgrading, consumers were getting more options and more services, and costs were competitive. Since they closed out that requirement, we've receded back to the point where we're only able to get the service the telco chooses to offer, and they have absolutely no incentive to upgrade because there's no reason to.
Re:Not sure (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Not sure (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Often they won't sell you the best they can do. (Score:2, Interesting)
The problem I have with allowing this competition is the competition (if it works like the old dial-up) will get to use the infrastructure for very little or no cost. With dial up, phone lines were everywhere. The system was built out. Now some switches and lines couldn't do full 56k but the platform was for the most part built out and somewhat paid for. Broadband is not available everywhere. The telcos and cable companies are still building out this access.
Now you want to let other companies come in and use what is still being built before the telcos and cable companies have recouped their expenses on building the platform out? If they open it up, fine, but they better allow for the competition to be charged enough for using the infrastructure so that the telco/cable companies can earn money back on their infrastructure investment to continue building it out.
Re:Not sure (Score:3, Interesting)
The cities could get revenue through rent, Consumers would get choice of providers, providers could enter markets that are currently barred to them, citizens wouldn't have to have deal with an pay for their streets to be dug up any time someone wants to increase bandwidth, business could get honest to goodness dedicated lines between separate buildings within a city, and cities would be able to stick with providing a low tech solution that they are highly experienced in.
Re:Not sure (Score:3, Interesting)
Jamaica though is about as large as some of the USs smaller states, say Rhode Island.
So why can't you get the access he describes in Rhode Island?
The scalability excuse looses any meaning when you stop considering the country as a whole and start looking at individual regions where that level of service isn't available. The city I live in is smaller than Jamaica, why can't I get the deal that he does?