[opendtv] Re: FCC rolls back net neutrality ISP transparency rules | InfoWorld
- From: Craig Birkmaier <brewmastercraig@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2017 09:00:20 -0500
On Feb 26, 2017, at 8:13 PM, Manfredi, Albert E <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Very good, Craig. That is certainly the appearance. Although of course,
wireless has a much harder time of becoming any sort of "natural monopoly."
Unlicensed spectrum is difficult to monopolize.
Auctioning spectrum tends to put this valuable resource into the hands of the
companies that have operated as natural monopolies for decades, a century for
the telcos.
Just winning a spectrum auction, however, is not an assurance of monopoly
profits. A few years back we saw a consortium of cable companies sell the
spectrum they won at auction to Verizon:
SpectrumCo, LLC, a joint venture between Comcast Corporation, Time Warner
Cable, and Bright House Networks, today announced it has entered into an
agreement pursuant to which Verizon Wireless will acquire its 122 Advanced
Wireless Services spectrum licenses covering 259 million POPs for $3.6
billion.
There is always a trade-off when it comes to the government sale/licensing of
natural resources. Allowing timber companies to harvest our forests, and
mineral/oil companies to mine natural resources on government lands makes good
sense. The average American does not have the ability to turn these resources
into products that pay for the leases.
Some might argue that we all enjoy the use of our forests and national parks,
but the reality is that both uses can co-exist.
But auctioning spectrum to big communications companies is little more than a
form of indirect taxation; Yes, it takes a great deal of capital to build the
broadcast or cellular infrastructure, but the experience with cordless
telephones and WiFI clearly demonstrate that the marketplace benefits when
spectrum is allocated for unlicensed use.
In short, when a chunk of spectrum is sold for $19 Billion, consumers pay for
it, as well as the capital and operating costs for the infrastructure; to make
things worse, the "natural monopolies" are then enabled to charge monopoly
rates for the service.
It's not so difficult for several carriers to compete in the same
neighborhoods. And it would be even better if they were actually sharing the
same channels, competing as service providers but not spectrum owners, as we
already discussed.
Great point! Our recent discussions about spectrum and infrastructure sharing
illustrate how a real marketplace can benefit consumers. The government
benefits too, as tax revenues are generate at every step along the way when
building the infrastructure, and when consumers buy the resulting products.
Unfortunately, taxes on the natural monopoly services are just more piling on
by the politicians. Taxing communication services would be more appropriate if
the spectrum they used was unlicensed; instead we pay twice, for the spectrum
and the service.
Wheeler was in cahoots (or under the influence) of President Obama,
Sorry, Craig. Wheeler had been head of the CTIA and NCTA, and therefore one
might legitimately have worried about where his priorities lay. Instead, he
was clearly working on behalf of consumers rather than the special interests.
And Comey - the FBI Director - was considered to have conservative/republican
leanings...
Just for the record, the Title II decision was a HUGE WINDFALL for the Cable
industry...
This time around, while I'm hopeful still, early goings have me wondering.
Ajit Pai has indicated an interest in maintaining net neutrality, even if not
through the use of Title II. He does seem aware of the fact that the special
interests could resort to blocking, throttling, or any other scheme, to
further their own self-interests, against the interests of their customers.
The Title II decision was a huge land grab by the government based on a false
premise - that companies were circumventing Net Neutrality, and the only
solution was FCC regulation of the Internet. Never mind that there were NO Net
Neutrality violations. Never mind that there are a variety of legal means to
deal with Net Neutrality violations through existing law.
And there is one more protection you always leave out of these discussions: the
marketplace can deal with these issues easily, IF a competitive marketplace is
allowed by the politicians and regulators. The TITLE II decision did just the
opposite - it assured that the entrenched natural monopolies - especially cable
- would be able to operate with minimal competition.
The LTE-U decision was simply wrong. WiFi offload solved the same problem,
while being far preferable to consumers and to WiFi users.
You keep missing the point here Bert. Cellular and WiFI are converging. The
ability to hand off a session to WiFI is a huge win for the consumer, who is
paying for cellular bits. And it's a huge win for spectral efficiency, reducing
the need for continuously scaling up the infrastructure for the natural
monopoly.
We have ALSO been discussing the development of standards for Cellular/WiFI
handoff. In addition to the obvious cost savings for the consumer, there is the
additional benefit of improved service.
You just noted that there could be benefits in unlicensed spectrum for cellular
service, with multiple service providers sharing the spectrum. There is a
natural order in making [ortions of the 5 GHz spectrum available for
differentiated services - both cellular and WiFi.
Thankfully it looks like the new FCC and Congress will end this
attempt to give the FCC authority to regulate the Internet.
The nonsensical slogans of bone-headed libertarians.
The truth hurts Bert...
Feel free to go talk with your representatives at their next town hall meetings
- if you can get your voice heard over the INDIVISIBLE protesters...
Regards
Craig
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at
FreeLists.org
- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
unsubscribe in the subject line.
Other related posts:
