& cplSiteName &
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View        ADD A COMMENT
Page 1 / 2   >   >>
kq4ym
50%
50%
kq4ym,
User Rank: Light Sabre
12/15/2017 | 10:49:35 AM
Re: Re: Too Much Hype
The arguments will certainly not end anytime soon. Whether it's good, bad, or of no concern, we'll not know now for some time to come what results will issue forth after the Dec. 14 FCC decision.
danielcawrey
50%
50%
danielcawrey,
User Rank: Light Sabre
12/9/2017 | 11:11:07 PM
Re: Who do you trust
No one wants a forum for corporate giants. We had that. Remember CompuServe, Prodigy and AOL?

Corporate Internet. And it was very poor. 
mendyk
50%
50%
mendyk,
User Rank: Light Sabre
12/7/2017 | 3:55:31 PM
Re: Who do you trust
And Iain said this isn't a rational debate...
lcw
50%
50%
lcw,
User Rank: Light Beer
12/7/2017 | 3:40:18 PM
Who do you trust
If carriers are against Net Neutrality, then we should be for it. The carriers are inherently untrustworthy, a fact proven over decades. They choose to lobby & legislate rather than compete. They collude with and profit from the FTC. They invest only when forced to. They crush independents for sport. And in areas where they do compete like wireless, they price-fix. If carriers had their druthers, you'd be paying tariffed rates for broadband.

Removing Net Neutrality would also bring the FTC back into the equation. You remember them, the ones who spent 20 years passively watching the Internet be reduced to a few massive providers. Oh yes, they also gave us "Do Not Track".

Yes, broadband isn't exactly analogous to a common carrier, but it's the best tool we have right now. I'd welcome far more nuanced regulation that could come with an overhaul of the Telecommuncations Act of 1996, but that requires our legislators get off their dysfunctional butts.
JamesCMaxwell
50%
50%
JamesCMaxwell,
User Rank: Light Beer
12/6/2017 | 8:52:42 PM
All things in moderation
While it is absolutely true that there is a lot of sunk cost in bring the pipes to the homes, it is equally true that in most places there is one dominant player who does this. Hence in my view the truth much more lies on the side of the content providers, than on the side of the carriers. The "market" simply doesnt exist. 

Trying to lay the blame at the feet of Amazon/Netflix/Google/Microsoft is completely falacious. None of them ask you to do anything. And all of them can be supplanted with options. That is not the case when you have only Comcast in your neighborhood.

I am reminded of the debates about Microsoft in the 90s, when it was to be regulated as utility because it was the only viable option. That situation exists much more on the carrier side. On the content side, the competiion is absolutely fierce (Amazon/Walmort/NewEgg/Costco, Netflix/Hulu,.....). 
lightreceding
100%
0%
lightreceding,
User Rank: Light Sabre
12/6/2017 | 8:30:42 PM
Net Neutrality only when it's for me.
Web monsters like Google and Amazon are hypocrites and the same goes for Facebook and Youtube and a host of others. They don't care about the end users or about being fair. They just care about making as much money as they can and using the populist sounding Net Nutrality argument to their benefit.  

I just read that Google is preventing YouTube from working on Amazon products like the FireTV and the Echo Show and that Google said it took action because Amazon doesn't carry Google hardware or let Google hardware stream Amazon Prime Video.

Originally the telco argument was that since these web monsters were running over their networks they should pay the telcos for use of the network that the telcos built and owned.

The web monsters lobbied congress for Net Nutrality so that they would not have to pay and in response the telcos started rate limiting sites like Youtube and NetFlix and Amazon video.

Customers then were forced to pay the telco for a premimum package with more bandwidth than what was really needed for the promise of getting reliable access to these sites. 

I don't agree with the rate limiting and I don't like having to pay for more bandwidth than I need, but I do see some merit to the telco argument that the web monsters should be paying for some of the costs running their data over of the telco network.

I don't think that the Internet is a public property like the highways and there isn't much profit in moving bits. Not like there is in being a big web property. 

 
donald.e
100%
0%
donald.e,
User Rank: Light Beer
12/6/2017 | 11:09:53 AM
Re: Too Much Hype
The irony is that Americans have now got the no-holds-barred system the giant telcos have long craved, while Europe, with its bustling broadband markets, seems keen to bind itself in more red tape.
brooks7
50%
50%
brooks7,
User Rank: Light Sabre
12/5/2017 | 12:11:50 PM
Re: Too Much Hype
Religion and the world of broadband access just do not mix.  There is a lot of great theory out there, but this is not a blank slate.  It is not homogeneous.  There is not a one size fits all thing.  I remember maybe 20 years ago being on a panel with a guy from MCI.  He wanted the copper network replaced with Ethernet drops.  Wonderful idea that can never be funded or justified.  

There was a symposium hosted by the FCC about how to deal with unbundling cabinets.  People had all kinds of crazy thoughts.  But the problem is that what he had and have is not build with these concepts in mind.  You can wish they did, bu they don't.  So we end up with a natutal duopoly - headed to a cable monopoly in many places.   This is not something that can be legislated or regulated easily.  So why has there never been a push to unbundle cable?  

seven

 
Duh!
50%
50%
Duh!,
User Rank: Blogger
12/5/2017 | 11:50:17 AM
Re: Too Much Hype
In a complex world, Congress can't be in the business of managing the details. Few human minds can get their heads wrapped around the subtleties of every important issue. Congress has to legislate policy, and rely on expert agencies to make the rules, subject to oversight.

The problem that I see is that Congress hasn't revisited Telecom policy since 1996. Subsequent Commisions have had to fit the Internet to a Bed of Procrustes; the  Computer II rules enshrined in the 1996 Act. We need a new legal framework, one that will calibrate degree of regulation to degree of actual competition. 

You are right that partisan dysfunction, along with pay-to-play, prevents meaningful policy debates.
Carol Wilson
50%
50%
Carol Wilson,
User Rank: Blogger
12/5/2017 | 3:20:20 AM
Re: Too Much Hype
If we had a functional national legislative body, it shouldn't be that hard to implement rational rules for broadband access.  That would take the whole debate out of the hands of the FCC, where the rules can go back and forth, depending on who is in charge. But in this realm, as in so many, the inability of Congress to create rational, bipartisan standards for something as critical as broadband infrastructure - and it is a national economic issue - means this near-religious debate will continue ad nauseum. 
Page 1 / 2   >   >>


Featured Video
From The Founder
John Chambers is still as passionate about business and innovation as he ever was at Cisco, finds Steve Saunders.
Flash Poll
Upcoming Live Events
June 26, 2018, Nice, France
September 12, 2018, Los Angeles, CA
September 24-26, 2018, Westin Westminster, Denver
October 9, 2018, The Westin Times Square, New York
October 17, 2018, Chicago, Illinois
October 23, 2018, Georgia World Congress Centre, Atlanta, GA
November 7-8, 2018, London, United Kingdom
November 8, 2018, The Montcalm by Marble Arch, London
November 15, 2018, The Westin Times Square, New York
December 4-6, 2018, Lisbon, Portugal
All Upcoming Live Events
Hot Topics
NFV Is Down but Not Out
Iain Morris, News Editor, 5/22/2018
Trump Denies ZTE Deal, Faces Senate Backlash
Dan Jones, Mobile Editor, 5/22/2018
What VeloCloud Cost VMware
Phil Harvey, US News Editor, 5/21/2018
5G in the USA: A Post-BCE Update
Dan Jones, Mobile Editor, 5/23/2018
Vanquished in Video, Verizon Admits OTT Defeat
Mari Silbey, Senior Editor, Cable/Video, 5/23/2018
Animals with Phones
Live Digital Audio

A CSP's digital transformation involves so much more than technology. Crucial – and often most challenging – is the cultural transformation that goes along with it. As Sigma's Chief Technology Officer, Catherine Michel has extensive experience with technology as she leads the company's entire product portfolio and strategy. But she's also no stranger to merging technology and culture, having taken a company — Tribold — from inception to acquisition (by Sigma in 2013), and she continues to advise service providers on how to drive their own transformations. This impressive female leader and vocal advocate for other women in the industry will join Women in Comms for a live radio show to discuss all things digital transformation, including the cultural transformation that goes along with it.

Like Us on Facebook
Twitter Feed