& cplSiteName &
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View        ADD A COMMENT
Page 1 / 3   >   >>
kq4ym
50%
50%
kq4ym,
User Rank: Light Sabre
11/14/2014 | 8:27:31 AM
Re: Please regulate it
The industry of course is going to protest any change and the standard response might well be "...that just talking about Title II is likely to slow down carrier spending." I don't think in the end net neutrality will have much effect on carriers other than forcing new innovations and marketing to capture customer's loyaty with better service and products.
DHagar
50%
50%
DHagar,
User Rank: Light Sabre
11/13/2014 | 6:22:55 PM
Re: Wow, just what the industry needs: regulatory uncertainty
Mitch Wagner, I would agree with your clarification.  To be "more correct", he uses his populist image and sells as a pretext for his real goals; greater regulation and control.
Mitch Wagner
50%
50%
Mitch Wagner,
User Rank: Lightning
11/13/2014 | 5:52:37 PM
Re: Wow, just what the industry needs: regulatory uncertainty
Obama is no populist. He's an establishmentarian. He trusts big, institutional solutions. In net neutrality, that means big Internet companies run things regulated by big government. 
TomNolle
50%
50%
TomNolle,
User Rank: Light Sabre
11/13/2014 | 5:51:26 PM
Re: Wow, just what the industry needs: regulatory uncertainty
It may stand in that it wasn't overturned, but once the FCC decides the ISPs are Title II then all bets are off.  The FCC is not bound by its own precedent.  But as I said, I'm not sure of the current state.
brooks7
50%
50%
brooks7,
User Rank: Light Sabre
11/13/2014 | 5:31:47 PM
Re: Wow, just what the industry needs: regulatory uncertainty
Tom,

This is WAY different than the Net Neutrality regulation and the Trienniel Order stands.  

 

http://transition.fcc.gov/wcb/cpd/triennial_review/

 

As far as I know, it has never even been challenged.

seven

PS - I looked and it was challenged.  In 2006, the Courts agreed with this order and it stands today.  The reasonI bring it up was the commentary on Gigapower being put on hold.  One of the reasons that FTTH and later FTTC were exempted was to encourage investment.  Seems like nobody cares about UNE-L at this point.
TomNolle
50%
50%
TomNolle,
User Rank: Light Sabre
11/13/2014 | 5:12:15 PM
Re: Wow, just what the industry needs: regulatory uncertainty
My concern is that all of that stuff predates the "seminal shift" in policy that allowed the FCC positions to pass the court review.  Just because the FCC said something doesn't make it so.  In regards to the loop plant for example, they could not (and would not need to) exempt broadband if the ISPs weren't common carriers.  It would take some digging to see where we stand, but the inference of the DC Court of Appeals ruling on the Neutrality Order was that the FCC's position that ISPs were NOT Title II was what was in force.  That would mean that prior FCC comment on the state of fiber regulation was obsolete.
brooks7
50%
50%
brooks7,
User Rank: Light Sabre
11/13/2014 | 4:51:14 PM
Re: Wow, just what the industry needs: regulatory uncertainty
Tom,

From the Trienniel Reveiw Order in 8/21/03 (Page 115)....

1.      In addition, we find that different policy considerations, as well as different technical considerations, are associated with copper loops, hybrid copper/fiber loops, and FTTH loops.  For example, we decline to require incumbent LECs to provide unbundled access to their hybrid loops for the provision of broadband services.[1]  Similarly, we decline to unbundle loops that consist of FTTH facilities for broadband services.  As explained more fully below, this unbundling approach – i.e., greater unbundling for legacy copper facilities and more limited unbundling for next-generation network facilities – appropriately balances our goals of promoting facilities-based investment and innovation against our goal of stimulating competition in the market for local telecommunications services.  




[1]       Incumbent LECs must continue to provide unbundled access to the TDM features, functions, and capabilities of their hybrid loops.  This will allow competitive LECs to continue providing both traditional narrowband services (e.g., voice, fax, dial-up Internet access) and high-capacity services like DS1 and DS3 circuits.

 

 

Note this was extended later to FTTC @ 500' loop length in 8/04.

 

seven

PS - In case you are unclear about the TDM features what it means in practice is that you might still have to hand off a phone line at a consumer, but no more UNE-L or partial UNE-L by renting the high frequency bandwidth.  Also, in practice nobody cares about unbundling POTS.
DHagar
50%
50%
DHagar,
User Rank: Light Sabre
11/13/2014 | 3:01:44 PM
Re: Wow, just what the industry needs: regulatory uncertainty
Gabriel Brown, I agree with you and Tom, that "do no harm" may be the best position at this time.

It appears that the evolution of the internet to the new communications and network use (especially with mobile) has expanded the uses and mixed the lines from infrastructure access to multiple commercial uses and new partnerships and systems.  Any future regulation needs to be thoughtful and/or a mix of regulations (ie Communications, Commerce, etc.)
burn0050
50%
50%
burn0050,
User Rank: Light Bulb
11/13/2014 | 2:53:54 PM
Please regulate it
Ma Bell was broken up because of a monopoly, and now we have been reduced to 2 or 3 carriers once again. And now they own more than just phone lines, they own television networks.

Let the carriers whine about regulation. Verizon STILL hasn't fixed phone lines that have been down since hurricane Sandy - and won't. A 2 tiered network will stifle just as much innovation as imposing Title II.

I have no love or sympathy for the carriers. They have overcharged and under-delivered for years, taken money from states and cities, received tax breaks, and haven't fulfilled their promises for providing fiber.

Perhaps when they can act honestly we can trust them not to screw up the internet, but I'm not holding my breath. This will be one more avenue for them to screw people over for money. Wheeler has a direct conflict of interest in this matter.

Our internet costs more and is slower than every other developed nation.
James_B_Crawshaw
50%
50%
James_B_Crawshaw,
User Rank: Blogger
11/13/2014 | 2:25:12 PM
Proper gander (sic)
Chambers said service provider orders fell 10% during the quarter due principally to cutbacks by 3 US operators given regulatory uncertainty over net neutrality. But Cisco's quarter ended on 25 October. And the only major news on net neutrality of late is Obama's speech on 10 November. 
Page 1 / 3   >   >>


Featured Video
Upcoming Live Events
September 17-19, 2019, Dallas, Texas
October 1-2, 2019, New Orleans, Louisiana
October 10, 2019, New York, New York
October 22, 2019, Los Angeles, CA
November 5, 2019, London, England
November 7, 2019, London, UK
November 14, 2019, Maritim Hotel, Berlin
December 3-5, 2019, Vienna, Austria
December 3, 2019, New York, New York
March 16-18, 2020, Embassy Suites, Denver, Colorado
May 18-20, 2020, Irving Convention Center, Dallas, TX
All Upcoming Live Events