x
Gigabit

Net Neutrality & Broadband Adoption

10:00 AM -- Some final thoughts from last week's The Cable Show:



— Phil Harvey, Editor-in-Chief, Light Reading

Page 1 / 2   >   >>
kaps 12/5/2012 | 4:35:58 PM
re: Net Neutrality & Broadband Adoption

A quiet FCC chairman? Like "silent Kev" Martin?


He wouldn't trouble you with initiatives to spur adoption, to find more spectrum or to do anything that would make AT&T mad.


Think he's available, if that's what you want.

kaps 12/5/2012 | 4:35:58 PM
re: Net Neutrality & Broadband Adoption

A quiet FCC chairman? Like "silent Kev" Martin?


He wouldn't trouble you with initiatives to spur adoption, to find more spectrum or to do anything that would make AT&T mad.


Think he's available, if that's what you want.

DCITDave 12/5/2012 | 4:35:55 PM
re: Net Neutrality & Broadband Adoption

I don't get your post. Are you saying he has a valid point with the US vs. Singapore comparisons in broadband adoption? Or should he be focused on AllVid and other issues that might actually improve consumer communications?

kaps 12/5/2012 | 4:35:55 PM
re: Net Neutrality & Broadband Adoption

I think the broadband plan has some valid points and proposals; it's commendable at the very least that there is discussion and ideas about moving forward, as opposed to the faith-based "let the market control the future" that was the hallmark of past agency heads.


Not sure I agree with U.S. vs Singapore comparisons any more than I believe that we currently have a truly competitive market. Or that investors will be somehow scared away from investing in the telecom market because of some light regulations. So if he's guilty of blather, he's low on the totem pole of his industry companions when it comes to meaningless arguments, no?


I say let him keep talking.

kaps 12/5/2012 | 4:35:55 PM
re: Net Neutrality & Broadband Adoption

I think the broadband plan has some valid points and proposals; it's commendable at the very least that there is discussion and ideas about moving forward, as opposed to the faith-based "let the market control the future" that was the hallmark of past agency heads.


Not sure I agree with U.S. vs Singapore comparisons any more than I believe that we currently have a truly competitive market. Or that investors will be somehow scared away from investing in the telecom market because of some light regulations. So if he's guilty of blather, he's low on the totem pole of his industry companions when it comes to meaningless arguments, no?


I say let him keep talking.

DCITDave 12/5/2012 | 4:35:54 PM
re: Net Neutrality & Broadband Adoption

Indeed, he is a better FCC chairman than the last two or three. Is that a compliment?


Look I'm not here to argue everything about every issue on the FCC's plate. My point was simply that he should stop whining that we're lagging the world in broadband penetration. It just sounds silly use that as a success metric -- or as a reason to tell service providers how to run their networks -- when we are already have 10s of millions more broadband users than any other country.

rjmcmahon 12/5/2012 | 4:35:53 PM
re: Net Neutrality & Broadband Adoption

Actually I'd agree that the number of subs is not all that great of a metric.  The metrics I'd use probably would measure for how well we were doing at the following in the instantiation of our communications infrastructures: 

<ul>
<li>Support and promote technological innovation</li>
<li>Support diversity and openness of speech</li>
<li>Prevent communications from being monopolized and censored</li>
<li>Enable innovated application development</li>
</ul>

Number of subs might apply to the second item but not necessarily so.&nbsp; And as Seven says China has more subs but they also fail on two and three.

paolo.franzoi 12/5/2012 | 4:35:53 PM
re: Net Neutrality & Broadband Adoption

&nbsp;


Hey Phil,


Not to nit pick, but I will.&nbsp; I thought China had more broadband subs.&nbsp; I looked at the OECD report and found China missing.


Odd.


seven


&nbsp;

rjmcmahon 12/5/2012 | 4:35:52 PM
re: Net Neutrality & Broadband Adoption

re: "But I will say that a country is not going to invest money to promote diversity.&nbsp; It might to promote economic growth."


I'd agree that most folks focus on money as the sole aspect of "growth" and this plays into the typical political argument.&nbsp; I also think many people are afraid of diversity and constantly seek self similiarity.&nbsp;&nbsp; And to make matters more challenging, most people think the world consists of me, myself, and I and that we have no group responsibilities (other than to maybe find and join a group that looks like me, myself, and I.)&nbsp; Hence selling diversity is a political challenge for any broadband pitch.&nbsp;


With that said, the reality I've experienced is that diversity is actually extremely benefical to us, both individually and as a group.&nbsp; That's why things like freedom of speech, which really is about the freedom to dissent and to express differences, is integral to fulfilling our potentials.&nbsp; My thoughts are that anybody tasked with serving the "public interests" (note the plural as there is no singular public interest) should place group responsibility high on the list and that diversity, amongst other things, is of utmost importance.



It's pretty obvious it's not in the public interests to pander to the incumbents' interests, though that's basically what the FCC has been doing for decades it seems to me.

paolo.franzoi 12/5/2012 | 4:35:52 PM
re: Net Neutrality & Broadband Adoption

&nbsp;


I think the issue is that it used to be quite easy to measure gains in GDP from teledensity.&nbsp; These were highly coorelated.&nbsp; So that it was clear that investements in the "phone network" were good long term investments for countries.&nbsp; The question is what highly coorelated metric can be applied to broadband?&nbsp; The technology is too new for there to be any effective data to make a direct metric from.


However, this is why the FCC is looking at take rate.&nbsp; Teledensity was basically narrowband take rate.&nbsp; I am not arguing for it or against it either way.


But I will say that a country is not going to invest money to promote diversity.&nbsp; It might to promote economic growth.


seven


&nbsp;

Page 1 / 2   >   >>
HOME
Sign In
SEARCH
CLOSE
MORE
CLOSE