We Have Net Neutrality
The BBC reports that Net neutrality rules passed by US regulator.
By a 3-2 vote the FCC has declared the Internet backbone to be a common carrier, and subject to FCC regulation. This was brought about by a legal action against the FCC by the telecoms which they won overturning less stringent regulations.
The telecoms have already said they will go back to court to overturn a decision that the judge in their last law suit suggested – declaring them a common carrier, so good luck with that 😈
Of course they will start lobbying Congress for new laws that Obama will probably veto.
They are complaining that they need to be certain of making a profit before they will expand or improve their system. News flash! That would require the US to stop pretending to have an economic system based on capitalism. No one is guaranteed a profit, they have to earn it.
5 comments
Today’s corp’s, and especially today’s telecoms, seem utterly incapable of knowing when to quit. That the outcome to this point is as good as it is does not assure that future outcomes will be beneficial to internet users. Keep your eyes peeled (is that an odd expression or what!) and expect additional battles more or less immediately.
As for “common carrier,” the mofo’s are about as common as it gets…
They are de facto monopolies and don’t want any restrictions on how they profit. The cable companies have priced themselves out of the lives of a lot of US households and keep flailing around looking for a way to suck people back without even considering reducing their prices.
We pay more and receive less for Internet access than any other developed nation, and that’s the ways they want it. If they hadn’t gone to court, they wouldn’t face all of the additional restrictions they now face.
“The cable companies have priced themselves out of the lives of a lot of US households”
Our House, for instance…
Before the great TV technology migration, we had begun thinking about getting cable or dish, not because of any particular channel, but just out of a perceived need for more programming variety. Then the converter boxes came in, and a setup scan revealed something just under or over 100 channels (we’re inside the Loop in Houston). It didn’t take long for us to decide that there was plenty of entertainment even if reception was sometimes imperfect.
If that wasn’t enough, some friends of Stella’s gave her a Roku for Christmas; we seldom use it, but it’s nice to be able to watch YouTube videos on a nice big TV (one of Stella’s purchases; I thought I wouldn’t care, but I see the point now).
The short version: WTF do we need cable for? All we’re after is entertainment when one or both of us are too tired to do anything more active. The cable companies need to rethink their business model and not feature Ms. Rosie Scenario so often at their board meetings!
As to the price of high-speed internet, I think somebody in the gummint is getting paid off to make sure there’s no competition. But that’s just my guess; how could I possibly know? 😈
Steve, competition in high speed Internet is pretty much like competition between multiple electric companies to hook up to your meter and sell you electricity. It sounds good on paper, but building all-new infrastructure that duplicates already-existing long-amortized infrastructure (the already-existing cable TV and telephone wire infrastructure) is a recipe for losing money. Nobody sane wants to do it. There’s simply no way to win a price war (which is what will happen) if you are having to pay for all-new infrastructure, the cable and phone monopolies will keep cutting their prices until you’re out of money, then raise their prices right back up again (call it the Wal-Mart model, where Wal-Mart comes to a town, cuts prices to below costs to drive out local competition, then raises prices to above what the now out-of-business locals used to charge).
Yes, Google has deployed a couple of money-losing Google Fiber test implementations. But they can only do that because they’re subsidizing it with their vast advertising near-monopoly. It seems like only monopolies can afford to compete in telecommunications (including the Internet). As such, they should be treated as such.
Municipal fiber to me is the only long-term competition that can keep the cable and phone companies honest, which is why municipal fiber has been outlawed by bought-and-paid-for state legislatures in a number of states. Yet municipal fiber also gives cities a head start on attracting new businesses to their city, much like we have data centers relocating here to Santa Clara because our municipal power plant provides electricity for 60% of the price of the surrounding areas. So we’ll see what happens. One thing that’s clear is that in a lot of red states, ideology and corruption will keep municipal fiber from happening. Just one more thing that’s going to keep them backwards in the future…
Before they swapped some markets and Cox took over from Time-Warner in this area, Time-Warner had begun replacing copper with fiber. One of the first things Cox did was pull out all of the fiber because they had no intention of upgrading the system, only in milking it for all it’s worth.
Since arriving in 1991 the cable bill for my Mother’s TV has gone from $11/month to over $30/month. There have been no channels added. Health care is the only thing that has risen at a comparable rate and they have been cutting their service. If something breaks, you have to take it to a ‘solutions store’ and stand in line to swap it out. They have a monopoly.
They are enriching the satellite companies whose pricing is now reasonable compared to cable, especially if you have an HD TV. Since the switch to digital, there is no over-the-air TV available in this area, so people are using the ‘Net, which is why they have been freaking out over the FCC regulation that they have forced on themselves.
I expect a lot of telecom ‘donations’ to political parties in the near future.