Live Blog with Durbin Staff, Ben Scott, and Mark Rotenberg at 7pm (and AT&T)

by: Matt Stoller

Wed Jul 25, 2007 at 19:05


Free Press lobbyist Ben Scott, Senator Durbin staffers, and EPIC director Mark Rotenberg are going to be here to discuss national broadband at 7pm.  Senator Durbin's staff invited company representatives from several large telecommunications companies, but they declined to participate tonight.  Hopefully they will be in the conversation later this week. [UPDATE: Christopher Wolf of Hands Off the Internet is in the comments]

Mark's piece focuses on broad principles of openness and democratic governance in internet governance and architecture, while Ben goes into a pretty detailed description of what a real strategy for a broadband infrastructure looks like.

I'd also like to draw your attention to Micah Sifry at Personal Democracy Forum:

Our second suggestion is to take a careful look at the arguments of Susan Crawford, David Isenberg, and David Weinberger, who have all made the strong case that simply enacting network neutrality is not enough to protect the freedom and vitality of the net, and that we must also press for a strict separation between the businesses of creating content and delivering it online. Specifically, look at "Moving Slowly in the Fast Lane," by Crawford; "Making Network Neutrality Sustainable," by Isenberg; and "Deliminate the Bastards!" by Weinberger. The more the incumbent phone and cable companies can monopolize the internet service delivery business while at the same time becoming content providers and brokers, the more they have a dangerous incentive to block competitive innovation that might threaten the artificial market scarcities they've built their prime businesses upon.

In addition to this structural question, a number of commenters last night were rural residents who could not get broadband.  You can read a few here, here, and here.  Why is this happening?  Why does it not fit within an existing business model to serve certain areas.  (I'd note that Donna Edwards, a candidate in Maryland's fourth Congressional district, can't get broadband either in her home).

Also, and this one is for Mark, what are the main threats to privacy right now that we need to keep an eye on?  And what are the main threats to openness and democratic governance?  Is Dan Krimm's 'neutral core' concern around ICANN as dangerous as it sounds?  What about the story told yesterday by Mike Stark about guerrilla activism group the 'Yes Men' having their web site shut down by Exxon Mobil because they were making fun of the company?


Those are some lead-off questions for the discussion tonight.  Thanks for joining!
Matt Stoller :: Live Blog with Durbin Staff, Ben Scott, and Mark Rotenberg at 7pm (and AT&T)

Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Live Blog with Durbin Staff, Ben Scott, and Mark Rotenberg at 7pm (and AT&T) | 107 comments
Hello everyone (0.00 / 0)
Hi, I'm Russ Newman, on Senator Durbin's staff. We'll be joined by more shortly. I look forward to our discussion this evening.
Privacy Issues (0.00 / 0)
Hi, Russ. Great set of issues. You asked about privacy. Here are a few - privacy of email, profiling of Internet users, scrubbing search histories, developing good tools for privacy and anonymity. And also a fun fact - the original Communications Act of 1934 (the original framework for telecom policy) contained one of the best privacy provisions in the history of privacy law. Why? Cause Congress believed that privacy was a key requirement for a meaningful communication policy.

Marc.

[ Parent ]
Privacy Issues (0.00 / 0)
Hi, Russ. Great set of issues. You asked about privacy. Here are a few - privacy of email, profiling of Internet users, scrubbing search histories, developing good tools for privacy and anonymity. And also a fun fact - the original Communications Act of 1934 (the original framework for telecom policy) contained one of the best privacy provisions in the history of privacy law. Why? Cause Congress believed that privacy was a key requirement for a meaningful communication policy.

Marc.

[ Parent ]
Hello (0.00 / 0)
Hi, Joe Shoemaker here from Sen. Durbin's staff. Looking forward to the discussion tonight.
The Digital Divide (0.00 / 0)
Senator Durbin,

29 percent of Latino adults subscribe to broadband versus 43 percent of whites, but weâ??ve made considerable progress in recent years thanks in no small part to lower broadband prices and increasingly diverse content. However, I am concerned that these gains might be reversed if broadband providers were forced to pass the increasing cost of capacity upgrades onto consumers, which it seems network neutrality regulations would do. Making lower-income families choose between subscribing to broadband â?? which is, to quote you Senator, not a luxury but â??tools necess[ary] to compete in the 21st Centuryâ?? â?? or not threatens to widen the persistent digital divide. How do you propose to thread this policy needle? And why do you think net neutrality regulation is needed, considering that no ISP thus far have degraded or blocked content they disagree with?

Robert de Posada
President, The Latino Coalition

net neutrality (0.00 / 0)
Ways to thread this policy needle are at the heart of tonite's discussion -- and exactly what we want to hear from you. So ultimately what you have to offer is probably more important than what we have to say.  Our top priority is to make broadband service as accessible and affordable as possible. How in your view would a net neutrality provision in this bill negatively affect those goals? Why would there be higher costs that were passed on to the end user?
[ Parent ]
disclosure (4.00 / 1)
It's helpful if there's disclosure, so without addressing the arguments I'll point commenters to this page which lists the sponsors of the Latino Coalition.  It includes AT&T and Verizon.  I have no problem with those companies representing their views, in fact I'm glad they are here. 
[ Parent ]
robbing peter to pay paul (4.00 / 1)
This is an important point.  And there is a very important answer.  It is a total falsehood that we must choose between a neutral Internet and expanded network capacity.  No other nation in the world has made such a choice. 

There are a many ways for network owners to recoup their costs without discrimination.  They can raise prices on providers of content that interconnect their servers to the Internet anytime they like--they just can't cut discriminatory deals. 

They can also take advantage of numerous tax breaks that network owners gets, such as accelerated depreciation.  Despite all the rhetoric about network build-out, most network owners still depreciate more than they invest in their infrastructure.

In any event, higher prices anywhere in the Internet economy will ultimately be passed to consumers. If we are paying the bill anyway, in one way or another, shouldn't we get to keep the open Internet, the very thing that makes the Internet so worth having?

[ Parent ]
Exactly (0.00 / 0)
There's no evidence that the providers would choose to use any additional revenues from discrimination and tiering to build out networks or lower prices. 

This is about them being able to vertically integrate into the content market -- i.e., they  actually have an incentive not to rollout more and faster service because it would undercut their new business model -- big pipes == no market for tiering.

It's sad to see the diversity arguement being used to mislead.  The fact is these companies already redline, and will continue to do so.

[ Parent ]
The Digital Divide (0.00 / 0)
Hey there Senator Durbin and everyone working hard on this important debate.  I'm Hannah Sassaman, an organizer at the Prometheus Radio Project (http://www.prometheu...).  We don't really work a lot on internet issues -- but we do build radio stations here in the United States, and all over the country.  I wanted to reply to Mr. de Posada of the Latino Coalition. 

It seems to me that Mr. de Posada is claiming that the United States, if it passes legislation enforcing net neutrality -- legislation enforcing the principle that no content that any community member makes should be eroded based on who makes it, and what pipe shoots it up to the larger internet -- will deepen the lack of access that communities, especially minority communities, have to fast, reliable broadband. 

Prometheus has been building radio stations with rural farmworker coalitions and community groups for a number of years, and as we've partnered with many of these groups, we've learned that when they do not have access to the local media infrastructure they need, and when their access is limited or defined by an incumbent owner, the vital work that these groups are doing suffers.

Case in point:  Prometheus was lucky to partner last year with the Pineros y Campesinos Unidos de Noroeste -- PCUN (http://www.pcun.org/) -- to build a community radio station.  PCUN is an over 20 year old coalition of Latino farmworkers, over 4500 strong, and the state of Oregon's oldest Latino organization.  PCUN has developed affordable housing, community business, and collective community organizing solutions with and by farmworkers for decades. 

When PCUN leased time on a local AM radio station in the Willamette Valley to broadcast information about union organizing, workers' rights in the strawberry fields, and community content that was appealing to Woodburn, Oregon's farmworker community, local farm owners pushed the AM radio station to knock PCUN's program off the air (http://orderofr.net/... ).

Now, they are the licensees of KPCN-LP (http://www.pcun.org/... ) -- a 100-watt radio station built on the grounds of PCUN's headquarters, operated by and for the farmworker community.  Not only can they control their content -- but local youth, elders, and workers are learning how to make radio, maintain and upgrade their FM radio station, and innovate unique technological solutions in the service of their community.

Radio activists and community organizers are following the 700 mhz auction with interest, because we know that we need to win the battle to keep corporations' hands off our content now.  When neighborhood organizations, community schools, civil rights groups, and local towns want to innovate a new way to connect to each other, we don't want big corporations to get in the way, in the name of saving money or prioritizing content that they pay for. 

I'm also a little taken aback by the idea that companies that think they can't afford to expand broadband service will first cut plans to serve inner cities and rural areas.  If Verizon, Comcast, and other companies that lay the lines for broadband have to make a choice, I hope they'll decide to cut back on advertising and donations to political campaigns, to make sure that neighborhoods in North Philadelphia, rural South Dakota, and beyond get essential broadband service first.

[ Parent ]
The cost of buildout. (0.00 / 0)
Robert, the current regulations give incentives to the telecomms for NOT building the network, and the engineered scarcity and lack of competition is keeping the prices up. Net Neutrality and Open Access, coupled possibly with local loop unbundling and/or separation of content from infrastructure will work together to create the broadband competition needed so that there will be incentive to build the networks. In France currently there is local loop unbundling, and some of the new companies that have sprung up are now building their own fiber to the home.

The Telecomms and their astroturf groups have been pushing this propaganda onto folks that Net Neutrality will kill the internet by killing buildout, when the opposite is true. What they don't tell you is that Net Neutrality was in place as a guiding force when the internet became the success it is today.

http://www.wetmachin...

[ Parent ]
innovation and barriers to market entry (0.00 / 0)
I said I'd cross post this here... but it looks like comments from the earlier thread (http://www.openleft....) were referenced above, so I'm opting not to do so.
Implementing structural separation (0.00 / 0)
In another of today's threads, David I raised the structural separation issue and I responded with some questions about how it could be implemented. I like the concept in theory, but have real doubts about implementation, and not just the political challenges involved.
http://openleft.com/...
I welcome responses to my questions from anyone involved in tonight's discussion. I think David and others have done a great service by proposing this model and the rationale for it, and tonight's discussion is an opportunity for us to collectively explore it more fully.
Senator Durbin is Right About Not Changing the Status Quo Precipitously (0.00 / 0)
Hi, everyone.  I 'm an Internet lawyer -- I have the distinction of having MSNBC call me "a pioneer in Internet law".  In my law practice, I spend most of my time working to protect privacy and data security and fighting online hate.  I think the Internet has flourished because the government has not engaged in heavy regulation.  For that reason, I agreed to co-chair Hands Off the Internet, which Senator Durbin mentioned in his video remarks.  Thanks to the Senator for hosting this session, and for allowing all perspectives.  I agree with the Senator that before changing the status quo, a strong case needs to be made for government intervention.

In 2005, the FCC adopted a policy providing that (1) consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice; (2) consumers are entitled to run applications and services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement; (3) consumers are entitled to connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network; and (4) consumers are entitled to competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers.

Given the FCC's enforcement authority, which it used in the one isolated incident of a small ISP blocking a VOIP service, and given a number of other laws that could be used if content is blocker or degraded, see http://www.handsoff....  why aren't these protections enough?


Co-Chair, Hands off the Internet Coalition

Existing Protections (0.00 / 0)
Hi Christopher,
I think you raise an interesting point.  Perhaps others can elaborate on why they think enforcement of existing FCC policies is not enough to protect the internet from being significantly altered.  Are companies currently violating the type of open access guidelines we had in the past?
[ Parent ]
not enough - and everyone knows it (0.00 / 0)
Chris - good to see you again.  I had not realized that AT&T was still paying to keep Hands Off the Internet online.  Glad to see you're still there to keep me on my toes.

Fact is that the FCC's 4 principles were never designed to be a substitute for nondiscrimination or "net neutrality" on the Internet.  Chairman Martin himself has often said that he does not take the 4 principles to preclude the ability of network owners to create privileged tiers or "fast lanes" on the Net.

The incident of the small ISP blocking VOIP was adjudicated under authority the Commission has since relieved itself of having over broadband.  Surely all Internet lawyers in Washington are well aware of that?

[ Parent ]
Title I of the FCC Act (0.00 / 0)
When addressing the same question, Amazon's representative speaking for your side, acknowledged that the FCC has Title I authority to enforce the principles. 


Co-Chair, Hands off the Internet Coalition
[ Parent ]
Title I isn't the issue (0.00 / 0)
I think they ahve authority under Title I also, but those activists on the DC Circuit worry me.  Talk about upsetting settled law!

The real problem isn't authority.  It's (a) do the FCC principles address enough (I don't think so) and (b) which is better -- cleaning up messes after the fact (if they happen) or preventing messes before t5hey happen (and risk the possible unintended consequences).

History shows trying to clean up messes after the fact (breaking up Ma Bell, trying to reverse cable market power) is very difficult, expensive, and not always effective.  By contrast, puting some modest protections in place early is cheap and works much better.

[ Parent ]
'principles' are a form of legal handwaving (0.00 / 0)
My experience in watching electeds (or appointeds) espouse 'principles' is that it's mostly feel-good goo-goo talk.

If they're principles to live by, they're principles worthy of legislative protection. Otherwise -- spare me.

[ Parent ]
Madison River (0.00 / 0)
The Madison River incident you are referring to was settled as a Title II case.

You could argue that out-and-out port blocking may be prohibited under Title 1.  But VOIP degradation into the quality of service gutter is not prohibited by the 4 principles.

[ Parent ]
Just a consent decree, undefined (0.00 / 0)
Ben, I don't think Madison River was a Title II issue.  There was no rule cited, no violation cited.  It was actually a Consent Decree with a "voluntary payment to the US Treasury". I don't think Madison River knew what it was doing.  Powell was trying to make himself look good as he left, doing a favor for his friends at Vonage.  Had Madison River's ISP blocked ports, it would have been totally within the rules.  (ISPs block ports all the time.  Try to use SMTP Port 80 at home lately?)  Had Madison River's telephone company blocked ports, it would have been a clear violation of rules then in effect (but not in effect any more). The ruling did not identify which one they did, and Madison River was such a hapless bunch of losers that they didn't know the rules either.

I have no problem with ISPs blocking ports, selling fast lanes, or doing anything else -- openly -- they want short of violating the privacy of packet content.  ISPs, after all, are "information service" providers, not telecom carriers.  However, we get practical neutrality (if one ISP blocks too much, people can just switch to another) when the pure telecom layer -- access between end users and ISPs -- is regulated common carriage, open to all ISPs.  That's what changed under K-Mart[in]'s FCC.  He took away common carriage obligations from the telephone companies, so ISPs no longer have guaranteed right of access to the local loop.  A duopoly (one cable ISP, one telco ISP) isn't enough.  Regulating ISP behavior is guaranteed to fail.  Regulating telephone company behavior is trivial; they just don't like it.

[ Parent ]
Please disclose the specifics of HOW that 'enforcement' would occur (4.00 / 1)
First, due to the 2005 legal action brought by telecoms and cable (ie., 'Brand X'), the technology once called 'phone' has now been legally redesignated an 'information service'.  Nothing that you said was untrue; but you failed to provide a full, complete, clear picture for all readers here.  In that sense, your comments are not accurate with what I understand of this  issue. Please elucidate.

The legal redefinition moved 'information services' out of Title II Common Carrier, and into Title 1 -  which does *not* have the same legal requirements for Common Carrier protections as Title II.

--
Second, to say that the FCC can 'enforce' brings up nightmares worse than anything that Dickens ever described in 'Bleak House'. 

1. How many enforcement officers?
There are millions of us on the Internet... how quickly, sanely, and reasonably would problems be resolved?  By appointees? By agency staff? 

2. How much would it cost a small website owner? or blog owner? or church group? or public agency to resolve a problem with the (presumably underfunded, understaffed) FCC?

3.  How many lifetimes would be required for any party to actually, realistically get a case heard and resolved?  Sorry, but post-Katrina, I think a whole lot of us have tons more trust in our ISPs and online software forums than in almost any government agency these days. (It gives me no pleasure to make this statement, but it does need to be tossed into the mix of viewpoints.)

Specifics on the actual, 'on-the-ground' actual "USER EXPERIENCE" DETAILS of having to deal with the FCC if you have them, please. 

If you don't have explicit specifics, of the type that small businesses, churches, and local schools can count preview, assess, and rely upon, then I'd like to post a 'red flag' on this item for Sen. Durbin's staff.

Matt, et al, thx for hosting this.

[ Parent ]
Top-Down Astroturf Pseudo-Citizens (4.00 / 3)
Chris,

Why can't "Hands Off" members post their own opinions without getting your pre-approval?

David I

David I -------

[ Parent ]
Wireless Internet violates the four principles (4.00 / 1)
Chris,

You ask why aren't the "protections" of the FCC's four principles enough.  If they were enough, wireless Internet providers like Verizon and ATT would allow their services to work with content, apps and services, and devices of our choice, et cetera, but they don't.  Can I use my Apple iPhone with Verizon? No. I rest my case.

I don't see the FCC "protections" helping us by opposing Verizon's and ATT's crippled devices and wireless Internet access services.

If the FCC had said to Verizon, ATT, et alia, "Follow the four principles, or else," and if they had obeyed, I'd believe you.  But that's not happening, so you're talking BS.

David I

David I -------

[ Parent ]
Thank you ;-) (4.00 / 1)
I've seen too many unpleasant situations where people covered their rear ends with 'principles', but then claimed that they were 'helpless' to enforce weenie regulations because the law 'wasn't clear' or 'didn't give them authority'.

Kinda like saying that I'll build you a website out of rubber cement and Trix cereal. Not. Credible.

Second  the 'B.S.' comment.  If it were neon and 12 feet high, I'd like it even better.

[ Parent ]
phony argument (4.00 / 2)
Chris,

Hi - this is Adam with MoveOn.

You know full well that Net Neutrality was the law of the land until just recently--when the FCC slated it for elimination. It was under Net Neutrality that a guy named Craig who had a list was able to form this thing called Craigslist. It was under Net Neutrality that a couple guys in a garage were about to come up with this thing called Google. It was under Net Neutrality that a one-page $29 website was able to become the 3.3 million membership organization, MoveOn.org.

So, if anything, you talking about "isolated incidents" of discrimination problems for the little guy just proves the point -- Net Neutrality works. It's worked for the entire history of the Internet. If you like the current Internet, you like Net Neutrality and should want it re-instated.

Chris, we don't need to guess what would happen in a non-Net Neutrality world. The dinosaur corporations who fear competition and innovation, and who pay your check at Hands Off The Internet, have made their intentions in a non-Net Neutrality world quite clear. From the Washington Post, December 5, 2005:

"William L. Smith, chief technology officer for Atlanta-based BellSouth Corp., told reporters and analysts that an Internet service provider such as his firm should be able, for example, to charge Yahoo Inc. for the opportunity to have its search site load faster than that of Google Inc."

If a multi-billion dollar company like Google may get outbid for the right to work properly on peopleâ??s computers, one can imagine the fate of small businesses, nonprofit organizations, activist groups, religious groups, and other everyday Internet users that use the Internet to communicate.

Bottom line: The Internet as we know it today was founded upon Net Neutrality principles which were recently slated for elimination by the FCC, and we need Dick Durbin and other leaders of Congress to re-instate it into law. Folks can sign a petition urging Congress to do that here:
http://www.civic.moveon.org/save_the_internet/

[ Parent ]
Minority Report (0.00 / 0)
Remember the movie "Minority Report" where the pre-cogs could tell who would break the law and they were locked up in advance of doing anything wrong?  Admittedly, the statements of some of the telecom executives are probelmatic, but we don;t make laws based on gaffes of corporate executives. 

Co-Chair, Hands off the Internet Coalition
[ Parent ]
Tell me again ... (0.00 / 0)
If the phone and cable companies aren't going to discriminate, why are they fighting so hard against protecting the longstanding principle that prevents them from discriminating?

There's no science fiction here. We're just taking the heads of all the major phone companies at their word. They say they want to discriminate, and we believe them.

Craig Aaron, SavetheInternet.com

[ Parent ]
"Gaffes" is a euphemism here for lies. (0.00 / 0)
Your astroturf group exists to cloud the issues and defend the oligopolistic power of your backers.

It's anti-competitive, anti-consumer and anti-democratic.

I encourage Senator Durbin's staff to examine the history, inception and benefactor agendas of this astroturf group closely.

[ Parent ]
Financial Report (0.00 / 0)
More relevant to this discussion is the common phrase you see in many prospecti for new investments...

past earnings changes are not necessarily indicative of future earnings levels

It's frequently true that what folks in Washington call a "gaff" is just an excess of candor. So while past statements by industry executives many not necessarily be indicative of future industry behavior, that doesn't mean they aren't frequently indicative.

As someone who used to work in the industry, I'm acutely aware of just how bad the big telecoms and the big cable companies have been for innovation.  Were it not for the internet breaking open the market to small companies and individuals to innovate, content would be limited (as it is limited in the well protected cellular provider market) to content where the telecom provider is also the content provider.

You are making arguments that effectively put our cellular phone system -- one of the least open of the developed world -- as the direction your employers would like take net access.

That dog not only don't hunt, it's beginning to smell like it needs more than bath.  More like it needs to buried, and fast.

[ Parent ]
test (0.00 / 0)
test
[ Parent ]
Why the FCC isn't enough. (0.00 / 0)
Mainly, my concern is that the FCC hasn't been adequately doing its job to collect useful data, protect consumers, punish violators of the law, and encourage innovation and competition.  The US broadband market is stagnant relative to a growing list of industrialized countries.  We are paying more per Mbps than people living in a growing number of major cities around the country and our rural areas have fewer broadband choices. 

I'm not saying that it's impossible for the FCC to do a better job, but they've abdicated their responsibility to protect the best interests of the general public in favor of regulations and policies that benefit stockholders.

[ Parent ]
Hi All (0.00 / 0)
Hi,
Dave Lazarus here from Senator Durbin's staff.  Glad to be joining you here tonight.
Well (0.00 / 0)
since we have a bunch of spectrum nerds here, how about talking about the most recent news out of the FCC, the Martin proposal passing?  Does it throw a wrench into what Google is trying to do?
Google (0.00 / 0)
Didn't Chairman Martin make a statement today to the effect that he would oppose the Google approach?  What's the effect of that announcement?
[ Parent ]
Wholesale condition not dead yet, but on life support. (4.00 / 1)
It hasn't passed yet.  While wholesal open access/structural separation is down, it is not yet out.
[ Parent ]
Google (0.00 / 0)
How does the google approach differ from the way the FCC is currently proceeding with this auction?
[ Parent ]
Why is the wholesale requirement so important? (0.00 / 0)
Harold,
I'm still a little confused about the significance of the wholesale requirement in terms of auction dynamics.  While I appreciate the value of a wholesale model in terms of market dynamics, I'm less clear about why Google feels its necessary as a requirement (vs. them just bidding on the spectrum and then  employing a wholesale model).  Is it because a wholesale model requirement would reduce the perceived value of the spectrum for incumbents, thus offsetting some of the "incumbent advantages" they'd otherwise enjoy in the auction, and which would otherwise allow them to justify a higher bid than Google?  That's my guess, but I couldn't tell for sure from reading that Google post you pointed to on your blog.  Thanks for any clarification you can provide.
[ Parent ]
nice explanation (0.00 / 0)
Google describes the dynamics, but basically what you wrote is correct.
[ Parent ]
Blocking premium, incumbent discount (4.00 / 1)
You have it pretty solid. The two concepts are the "blokcing premium" and the "incumbent discount."  I give a simplified example of how it works below.

Lets pretend that a rational new bidder with no assets comes to bid.  He figures that, after all the money spent building a network, getting customers, and learning how to run a wireless business, it can expect a $1 billion return over the next ten years (lets pretend further than that is not realistic to predict).  So it will bid up to $1 billion, because if it bids more than $1 billion it can never hope to see a return on the license.

The calculation for an existing provider is different.  First, the existing provider gets a premium on price for keeping competition out.  So it values capturing the license higher.  Not because it will use the license "more efficeintly" as classic auction theory suggests.  No, it will get more profit by keeping out new entrant, since that lets it charge higher prices.  This blocking premium lets the incumbent bid more than $1 billion and still make a return on the license.

Similarly, the incumbent has far fewer expenses.  It has infrastructure and customers already. So it has an "incumbent discount" by not needing to factor these expenses into the projected return on the license.  Again, this lets it bid more than a rational new entrant.

Wholesale changes this equation because it is impossible to keep out competitors even if you capture the license (assuming the FCC enforces).  That eliminates the "blocking premium."  It also reduces the "incumbent discount," because the incumbent cannot just integrate the spectrum into its existing holdings.  So wholesale "levels the playing field" on the auction, allowing the rational new entrant to compete with the rational incumbent.

[ Parent ]
Google, 700 MHz, white space and new open models (0.00 / 0)
Thanks Harold and Matt.  That does clarify it. 

Even if the FCC doesn't include a wholesale requirement, I'm hoping Google has some business planners as smart and creative as its software engineers, and can justify a winning bid based on the unique strengths it brings to the table in terms of developing alternative business models--perhaps including provisions for integration with unlicensed use of the white space spectrum--which is one of my remaining areas of hope for open models to thrive. 

If the FCC opens up most of the white space, the combination of it and some 700 MHz licensed spectrum could create a critical mass of high-quality spectrum in which new and more Internet-friendly open models could thrive.  Though I have some concerns about Google, I think they're well suited to help lead the way toward a pretty radically different spectrum-use model, especially this potential integration of licensed 700 MHz and unlicensed white space spectrum.

[ Parent ]
Thanks for hosting (4.00 / 1)
I'm Harold Feld, honesty requires me to say I'm a huge supporter of Free Press and EPIC and a participant tomorrow night.
That said, I'd like to draw attention to Paul Krugman's recent column on how the French experiment in structural separation has reaped huge dividends in only a few years.  The higher prices we all pay for our slower services basically constitute a "Comcast/AT&T Tax" on our economy as a whole.
I love the French too, but... (0.00 / 0)
In 2002, Krugman complained that he had only one choice for broadband access â?? cable.  But in 2007 there is genuine competition for cable from phone companies and wireless providers.  Billions are being invested in infrastructure.

As a result, connection speeds are increasing, prices are falling and fiber connections to the home are proliferating. Importantly, the Digital Divide is closing, as African-American broadband use has almost tripled since just 2005, according to Pew Research. U.S. broadband access at the workplace and in schools is unparalleled in the world. Happily, the era of France bashing has ended, but that does not mean we need to put the French telecom industry on a pedestal as a model for the U.S. to imitate.


Co-Chair, Hands off the Internet Coalition

[ Parent ]
Build Out (0.00 / 0)
Hi Chris,
While I think you raise a good point about there being progress and investment, I wonder if there are regulatory mechanisms that could further hasten the build out of networks.  We know of many communities in rural areas especially that don't have access to a multitude of providers.
[ Parent ]
Competition? What Competition? (4.00 / 1)
It's Orwellian to see how the incumbent duopoly of telco and cable trumpet how competitive the broadband market is.  At the moment, 96% of high-speed residential lines are controlled by those two technologies.  Wireless is not a competitor on price or speed.  No one is cancelling their DSL line at home because they just got a Blackberry. 

At home, I get 3 MB of speed for $50 bucks a month.  Plus I pay $60 for TV.  Plus I pay $40 for phone.  That's $150 a month.  I have 1 choice in my neighborhood for that bundle.  In France, that same package costs $40 a month, and I have half a dozen choices.

I think American consumers would like a little piece of real competition like they have in France.

[ Parent ]
can you (0.00 / 0)
bullet point the French system (infrastructure) regulations and business model (or Japan or EU generally).  I generally feel the US needs to model their structures from the EU and Japan but don't know the nitty-gritty details of their systems.

NoSlaves.com  


The Economic Populist
[ Parent ]
What France has that we don't (4.00 / 1)
Business Week did an excellent piece explaining the French marketplace.

The basic point is that both France and Japan (as well as basically all of the world leaders in broadband) have some kind of an open access policy.  They have competition "within" each technology platform (i.e. multiple DSL competitors sharing the same infrastructure) as well as between technology platforms.  We have only the latter.  So far, it is has earned us a marketplace with only two real competitors.

[ Parent ]
for other lurkers (4.00 / 1)
EU i2010 policy and reports plus

I have to fundamentally agree to structure the system like the EU  with an open access within each technology, for the idea of "enforcement" and violation of the law  in other areas of reforms ends up being eviscerated by the agencies responsible for enforcement implementation and execution(through corporate lobbyists) as well as an absurd legal $$ game. 

NoSlaves.com  


The Economic Populist

[ Parent ]
Plus, if you want to see the future of mobile development, look at Japan (0.00 / 0)
Where is a critical future revenue stream coming from? Mobiles.

And if you look at the economics of mobiles, they're different from desktops and laptops in terms of use. 

The Economist has done the best work that I've seen in reporting on the adoption, usage, and economics of mobile and cell phone deliveries (partly by watching Africa, which has power grid issues that make a cell phone far more affordable than a desktop).

So any legislation involving spectrum that cells and mobiles use has huge implications for digital divide policies.  Because people who can't afford a computer can still afford a cell phone. 

[ Parent ]
Wireless competition for cable? (0.00 / 0)
Christoper,
Can you clarify what you mean by "genuine competition...from wireless providers?"  What wireless providers are you referring to, and roughly how many truly broadband customers do they have?  If you consider current 3G services as competitive with cable, I can't say that I'd agree.  Clearwire is in a few dozen mainly small markets with a not-so-competitive offering and, so far, Sprint is still mainly talking--not to mention that it is closely allied with cable operators, one of the two wireline pipe owners (and so, arguably is Clearwire, through its alliance with Sprint).  You make some valid points, but I don't see this as one of them.
[ Parent ]
Billions and billions.... (4.00 / 1)
With regard to billions spent on infrastructure, its worth noting that the two super-Bells have not substantially increased their capital spending from earlier levels to deploy DSL and now FiOS and U-verse.  In fact, they've been spending less as a percentage of revenue compared to earlier years and, according to some experts, not even spending enough to offset the non-cash depreciation expense they're charging against earnings.  From this perspective, they're cutting back on upgrades and maintenance for much of their plant in order to still support  increased dividend payouts while upgrading the high-revenue, low-cost portions of their networks.  That may be a good decision in terms of stock price, but I don't think the nearly half of their customers that won't see FiOS or U-verse service would agree that its a good idea.  And these two companies represent a very substantial portion of our nation's broadband infrastructure which, for a lot of folks, raises their investment decisions to the level of a public policy issue.
[ Parent ]
Disdain is difficult to do in a short post (4.00 / 1)
It's difficult for me to slam the following hard enough:

But in 2007 there is genuine competition for cable from phone companies and wireless providers.  Billions are being invested in infrastructure.

AT&T and Comcast are government protected monopolies, and to the extent either company is effectively "regulated", they are regulated to prevent competition.  Having more than one choice is not a choice if the incumbent providers get protection from price competition, and can use the regulator as an additional barrier to entry for new providers.

When AT&T and Comcast stop lobbying to prevent developments like municipal wifi, there will be effective competition, and not before.  I'm not sure what it will take for you folks to get your lobbyists to remove their choke hold on both federal and state policy, but I sure as hell would like to see people start to try in earnest.

[ Parent ]
question (4.00 / 1)
If the current regulatory regime is working in this country so well, then how did France (and a dozen plus other countries) leapfrog us in access?
[ Parent ]
I should also mention Finland (4.00 / 2)
Finally, I should mention Finland's recent and enormously succesfull project for wholesale wireless access.  It is discussed in the most recent paper released by New America Foundation.  http://www.newameric...
[ Parent ]
Hmm, you must not live in my area. (0.00 / 0)
I have a couple choices since I'm in town, but a lot of my friends in this are only have one choice-- cable that is so oversubscribed that it's often slower than dialup, and suffers outages every time there's a storm.

I also saw this recently:
http://isen.com/blog...

[ Parent ]
couldn't agree more (4.00 / 1)
Harold, the Krugman piece was striking. Even before that piece was published, Sen. Durbin has been very concerned about the U.S. lagging behind. He often cites the Japanese example - $30/mo gets a consumer in the broadband fast lane, partly because of neutrality principles and structural separations. The question is does that work here in the U.S. as well as it does in Europe? What French regs/laws exist that we don't have in the U.S.?
[ Parent ]
A Tax on the Economy As a Whole (4.00 / 1)
This is very similar to the healthcare debate.  By not resolving healthcare issues, we shifted billions in costs to industry as a whole.  Similarly, when we see energy prices rise, it impacts the economy as a whole.

Telecom increasingly impacts the economy as a whole.  This is reflected in our rather enemic GDP.  Contries with higher speeds/lower costs are reaping rewards in overall improvement in GDP and productivity.

[ Parent ]
Broadband is essential for econ dev (0.00 / 0)
Anyone who thinks there's no relationship between the ability to communicate with customers, clients, students, or others in a social network please raise their hands...

Anyone who thinks that a kid asking for help with math homework should pay more because he lives in Baker, OR than in Portland, please raise your hands...

[ Parent ]
French structural separation? (0.00 / 0)
When did France adopt structural separation, Mr. Feld?  I don't believe they have and it's not mentioned in Krugman's column.  Krugman mostly seems to lament fact that French consumers subscribe to Internet TV more than the US.  Then again, only 25% of French households subscribe to cable or satellite TV services, compared to 80% here.  Why is this a problem? 
[ Parent ]
French structural separation (0.00 / 0)
This article from GigaOm has the details: http://gigaom.com/20...

As does this one from Businessweek.
http://www.businessw...

[ Parent ]
80%?????????? (0.00 / 0)
80% here? Where did THAT number come from?
[ Parent ]
OECD Stats on Cable/DBS penetration (0.00 / 0)
bj,

I obtained the cable/DBS subscription figures for US and France from the OECD Communications Outlook 2007, Tables 6.1 and 6.2:

http://213.253.134.4...

There is a startling lack of factual discussion in all of these threads.  France as "domestic content" quotas for pay television sold there and probably explains their relatively low 25% subscription figures for traditional multichannel video programming distributors.  Is it any wonder, then, that the French people, repressed by speech regulation by the government, would then turn to the unregulated Internet for video entertainment?

I guess if you follow Krugman's logic, one sure way to boost broadband in the U.S. would be to regulate content on broadcast, cable and DBS, and this would then create an artificial spike in demand for "Internet TV" and subscriptions to broadband that go with it. 

The articles Mr. Feld posted on France do not talk about France adopting "structural separation" at all, they merely discuss the French unbundling regime, which is quite different.

When I look at France, I see the French government owning 1/3 of the dominant provider French Telecom (Table 2.5 in the OECD report), I see that same firm controlling 46% of the wireless market in the country (nearly twice the market share of the largest U.S. wireless company, Table 2.4), and only 1.3% of access lines being served from non-incumbent networks (Table 2.2, compared to 18% in the U.S.). 

The French model is a model for perpetual, regulated, state-owned monopoly.  Is that what you are proposing?

[ Parent ]
A few other factors need to go into the mix on France (0.00 / 0)
Both the Brits (BBC) and the Japanese (NHK - http://www.nhk.or.jp...) develop more content and have more programming than the French.  That's a key factor in the French 'domestic content' policies.  It's related to French history and psyche. 

French (and Japanese) history and cultural assumptions don't translate well to this aspect of  US policy discussion.  (FWIW: The Japanese even use a distinctive script, katakana, for words that enter the Japanese language from 'outside' their Japanese heritage, which underscores my point that national and cultural attitudes impact policy decisions about controlling content over networks.)  In contrast,  US has spawned Hollywood, Silicon Valley, Pixar, Broadway, jazz... our telco policies need to reflect that dynamism and innovative spirit.

I doubt that many French feel 'repressed' about their speech; look at the development of their software sector -- in animation, web apps, mobile apps,  and anime production.  Word on the blogs is that plenty is happening there, and it's high quality.  (Just like Japan.)  What's driving Internet video is partly the quality of new creations, and partly the fact that Internet drives down the COSTS of creating that content in the first place. 

See: (Japan) http://k-tai.casio.j...
(France) http://www.dofus.com... -- then note the country/language flags on the upper right corner of the screen, and try to assess the economic potential for a business such as this.

But if you think that the policies should simply be constructed around 'entertainment,' and 'controlling content', then you're thinking too small. Technologies developed for online participation (like dofus) have tremendous potential for solving complex public policy issues that require a view from 30,000 feet, plus multiple participants -- storm tracking, simulating stream flows, simulating crop and regional economic patterns... all of these come out of gaming, and all of them will require a reasonably open network if they are to be developed. (The economics of developing these 'games' and simulations are quite risky, and these are not the kinds of things that telecoms have ever demonstrated themselves to have much facility in either creating or promoting.)

Although France and Japan have different network ownership structures than the US, that fact doesn't constain US policy makers to hand over US network decisions to the telcos.  France and Japan have more regard for the role of government than us Yankees generally possess.  IMHO, it wouldn't be the end of the world if US government took over broadband and made phone/broadband a civil service job.  If it meant a basic system of protocols and low-cost access, it might be an improvement (!). ( And at least I wouldn't have to inadvertantly subsidize astroturf organizations and highly paid telco lobbyists, which would be a pleasant change.)

The network is a public good.  The French and Japanese are more clear-sighted abut that fact than us Yankees tend to be.  That's why they've pulled ahead of us. They're very clear about the social, economic, and educational benefits of a cheap, reliable, easily accessed network.

We need equal clarity and focus.

[ Parent ]
Comparative Approaches (0.00 / 0)
The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Developments (www.oecd.org) provides very useful data on how well (or not so well) countries are doing when it comes to such issues as broadband penetration and TLD growth. The OECD Communications Outlook 2007 is now available. Highly recommended.

Go to https://www.oecd.org...

Marc.

[ Parent ]
The FTC Report (0.00 / 0)
The Federal Trade Commission released a report a couple of weeks ago recommending taking no action, other than continued monitoring, on â??net neutrality.â?? They said that the risk of unintended anti-consumer scenarios arising from premature regulation is too great at this time and urged lawmakers to â??use caution.â?? The promise of an open internet should always be Americaâ??s goal, however it seems that prudence may be wise when attempting to regulate young technologies. Have you read the report? And if so, how do you think Congress should address these concerns?
I think it's safe to say that the report was a cop-out. (0.00 / 0)
The FTC report, in large part, amounted to a sort of he-said-she-said with no real conclusion ("punting," as I think your organiation put it, Ben?), in my view. In that regard, it's not very helpful as we move forward...and the way Congress can address these concerns is to continue to seek smart insights. That's what we're trying to do with this initiative. It should also be said that the effect of such a report with a Republican president and a Democratic Congress is going to be much weaker than it would have been last year.
[ Parent ]
FTC - what have you done for me lately? (0.00 / 0)
Russ is quoting me right.  FTC punted.  They summarized the debate of 2006 without offering any useful insights on a way forward.  It did not change the debate one iota.
[ Parent ]
coulda been better :-) (0.00 / 0)
. . . if they hadn't eliminated the microphones for public comment and packet-sniffed our handwritten comments submitted on pieces of paper.
[ Parent ]
Are there multiple legislative approaches here? (0.00 / 0)
Sen. Durbin is on the Appropriations, Judiciary, and Rules & Administration committees and several subcommittees.  It seems curious that both my US senator & representative are members of technology & communications subcommittees, yet they seem not to have any connections with this process.  Is Sen. Durbin working at this from "Agriculture--Rural Development" or "Terrorism, Technology & Homeland Security" subcommittees?

Does Sen. Inouye, Commerce Committee chairman, have massive influence on this process, as per Broadband Data Improvement Act (S. 1492) and all related legislation on broadband technology?  S. 1492 was just voted out of committee, even though a previous discussion here, Tuesday I think, commented on the lack of such legislation.

Are House & Senate subcommittees working at cross-purposes?

Jurisdiction (0.00 / 0)
With regard to your question about the legislative process, you're right that Chairman Inouye, as Chairman of the relevant authorizing committee, does have primary jurisdiction in this issue area.  In the case of braodband data mapping and information collection, the Chairman has been very active in this area.  In fact, his legislation builds on Senator Durbin's earlier legislative effort on broadband mapping (S. 1190).  I think it was tremendous to have that bill pass out of committee unanimously.  It's a real step in the right direction.

As for your House-Senate question, I think the relevant committees are working toward the same goal on the issue of data and mapping.  They may have different ideas about how to get there but they'd generally like to see the same thing - more data collected so that providers and others can see the market opportunities in providing broadband to less served areas.

[ Parent ]
Is the Internet really neutral today? (0.00 / 0)
Isnâ??t is a bit unfair to assert that the Internet is truly neutral today given that bits are not really treated equally right now?  For a variety of legitimate reasons internet traffic is treated differently.  People pay for different speeds based on their individual needs and resources. Law enforcement/public safety need to be able to treat bits differently to prioritize for 911 and first responders. And networks block spam and viruses and manage bandwidth to guarantee service.  Also, companies like Google uses services like Akamai to make sure that content from their site is delivered faster than an ordinary site.  Indeed, Googleâ??s own algorithms produce search results that arenâ??t really â??neutralâ??, affecting what sites people visit.  If the law calls for â??neutralityâ??, wonâ??t it be an enormous drafting and regulatory challenge to lay down the law?


Co-Chair, Hands off the Internet Coalition
First responders? (0.00 / 0)
I don't think anyone's talking about 911 and first responders here.  Is that really an insurmountable drafting challenge?
[ Parent ]
Drafting challenge (0.00 / 0)
Good point.  The are much more difficult challenges having to do with what is and is not covered bythe concept.

Co-Chair, Hands off the Internet Coalition
[ Parent ]
Misleading (0.00 / 0)
You know very well that paying for differing levels of speed by the end user is not the same thing as the tiering and favoring/discrimination your paymasters are pushing for.

No one pushing for NN ever argued that caching and legitimate network management wasn't ok.  What we do argue is that we reject your model of gatekeeping, which will kill the innovation engine that is the Internet.

[ Parent ]
Yes it is. (4.00 / 1)

It's enforced by the means by which network providers interoperate.  Yes, there are a whole array of things they do already that identify and treat specially certain bits, but until there's end-to-end ownership of every Internet pipe and endpoint under one network policy owner, neutrality is the bedrock that enables it all to connect.

Really, what you argue for when you argue for ending net neutrality is to eliminate interoperability.

[ Parent ]
And another thing (4.00 / 1)
Your paymasters AT&T tried to kill the Internet before it was born.  Now you're trying to help them gain control over it.  One look at AT&T's and Verizon's wireless data products shows you what the Internet will look like if you get your way -- the walled garden model.

We the people reject it, and reject shills like you.  We're tired of high-paid astroturf groups like yours spreading false propaganda

[ Parent ]
Is more neutral than it could be (0.00 / 0)
A packet is a packet is a packet. In that sense, it is neutral.

To say that people pay for different speeds is simply to point out that some people have slower modems, or dialups; this is a technical issue outside the scope of the actual network that carries the packets.  Please don't muddy the issue here; it is too important to be obfuscated.

Just because you connect with a dial-up, whereas I may connect via DSL, does not have any implications for how broadband -- as a technology -- should be legislated.

To say that we allow (we want!) law enforcement to be able to track certain packets doesn't mean that legislation affecting broadband should favor telecoms, nor any other PRIVATE interest. Law enforcement (like education) is a public resource.  So is the network.

Google uses algorithms because to do otherwise would be lunacy.  Using algorithms at a particular site, which individuals actively seek out and choose to go to has zero implications for whether or not the 'net' or 'broadband' is neutral.

False analogies and obfuscation don't promote clear thinking or good policy.

[ Parent ]
Shilly McShillerson (0.00 / 0)
arenâ??t really â??neutralâ??

It's nice that you have the courtesy to so transparently copy and paste from MS Word rather than, you know, writing something in response to the post like a human being.

Me | My Work | Future Majority

[ Parent ]
Thank you for comming Russ. (0.00 / 0)
This is a great idea for our Senator Dick Durbin. Even though I'm from Ohio, a conversation with the concerned citizens about this great country and the great idea it represents is refreshing.

Net Neutrality forwards the idea of we and the public square. My brother needs the public square to reach him. He lives in Ohio farmland.

Broadband access is a half mile down the road and he doesn't have the money to have it brought down to his home. 

We, as a society, need to connect every one to the public square.

Can Senator Durbin include universal internet access (just like telecomm from days of yore) as part of the over all scope?

Map Inquiry "Nova, Ohio"

"They pour syrup on shit and tell us it's hotcakes." Meteor Blades

Universal Access (4.00 / 1)
Thanks for the comment on this.  I think the end goal is to have universal access.  My question is how much would this cost?  Is this a piece of infrastructure that no one but the federal government could possibly take on?  Something like the federal interstate system.  Or, is there a way to leverage the private sector so that we don't create an unneccesarilly expensive program?
[ Parent ]
study? (4.00 / 1)
Anyone up for using an economist to correlate the projected increases in US labor productivity, GDP and regional growth to an open access network and universal deployment?  Even in the public financial sphere (like highway infrastructure) it might possibly (with no change in tax structure) pay for itself?

Esp. if one limited offshore outsourcing and put in tax incentives for rural sourcing as an alternative?

NoSlaves.com  


The Economic Populist

[ Parent ]
Getting at Universal (0.00 / 0)
The path to universal access will not be built with a single policy.  But there are a variety of policy choices and market forces we can leverage to dramatically improve broadband access.  Universal Service Fund transition from dial-tone to broadband would be an excellent start.

But it's important to note that our problem is fundamentally not about availability (not to discount those rural areas that are without a provider).  Over 90% of the country can buy broadband if they choose.  The fact that only half of that do so is telling.  It is a function of hte "consumer value quotient."  The price per unit of speed, and the services online that it will buy you, is simply not worth it to a lot of people.

It is next generation applications that consumers want.  So we need a combination of policies that promote maximum innovation in applications (net neutrality) and also increase the reach, speed, and value of our networks (USF reform, competition policy).

[ Parent ]
"not worth it to a lot of people" (0.00 / 0)
I agree that only half are buying broadband now.  But two things to keep in mind:

1. There is always an adoption S-curve; no product ever jumps from 0 to 100% quickly; most are pretty slow.  The pace is accelerating somewhat, but it's still early days for broadband.

2. We don't know enough about non-adopters.  We assume it's about price, but that's not necessarily so.  Many people have had bad experiences with high tech, or are otherwise deterred by the interfaces.  OUr applications are not yet usable and friendly enough, to say nothing of accessible -- there are millions who would like to use advanced services, but they are still inaccessible.

[ Parent ]
Telll that to the families in East Cleveland. n/t (0.00 / 0)


"They pour syrup on shit and tell us it's hotcakes." Meteor Blades
[ Parent ]
To me, there is No Net Neutraliy without Universal Access. (0.00 / 0)
If one can't partake. it does not exist. Like Health Care, I want solutions.

The billions this country is giving away is hurting all of us.

"They pour syrup on shit and tell us it's hotcakes." Meteor Blades

[ Parent ]
Question (0.00 / 0)
Why can the government not pay to lay fiber optic cable everywhere they run electricity and let companies compete for you to use it? I finally got broadband Internet at my house and can now actually USE the internet- getting news, blogging, watching videos, checking email in a reasonable manner of time. But I can only buy my internet from one company and are not that happy with their service (internet goes down sometimes, repair time, etc). I think that the Internet is as essential as electricity in today's society.
Colton
http://sustainable-s...
Electrical coops (0.00 / 0)
Hi Colton,
My understanding is that there has been a business model for most of the utilities that have been subsidized by the federal government, such as electricity and rural housing.  Without some form of private investment and sustainable revenue stream, a federal program like that could be quite expensive and eclipsed by future technology.  Is there some way to leverage the private market here?
[ Parent ]
Leveraging the private sector (4.00 / 1)
It's instructive to see how this is done overseas.  Basically, you have to use policy to create a private sector entity that profit maximizes by maximizing available bandwidth and the scope of service territory.  The best way to do that is with a wholesale model that sells bandwidth and shared access on the network to as many retailers as it can find.  Some of energy markets also work this way (as Rep. Pickering pointed out in a recent House hearing).

What happens is that the network owner works double time to build out the network on its own dime in order to accommodate more and more retailers.  The retailers in turn innovate their product to make it different and valuable to the consumer.  Everybody wins.  I think they call that capitalism.  But it needs a little help from its friend--public government.

[ Parent ]
Well said (0.00 / 0)
Well put Ben.  This does seem like a very simple and clean solution, and one that aligns wholesale and retail service providers' interests with true value creation focused clearly on their part of the value chain.  And in some respects this counters anti-NN arguments about lack of incentives to invest in expanding capacity, without opening the door to discrimination  by vertically integrated pipe owners.

What's your view of the political feasibility of legislation that would mandate structural separation in the wireline sector?  This strikes me as a much "cleaner" approach to this goal than NN rules which, as David Isenberg and others argue, still leaves the door open to exploitation of loopholes and prolonged legal-challenges, as occurred with UNE-P.  But it strikes me a real tough thing to implement at this stage of the game.

[ Parent ]
This is how cable access started (0.00 / 0)
It's been long enough that people no longer remember why cable access used to be called CATV -- Community Antenna Television.

Why was it called this?  Because people who lived in areas with poor television reception over the air banded together to buy high gain antenna (and later, satellite dishes) to allow people in that area to get TV reception.

Note that this happened not because the service was "profitable", because it wasn't. It was a solution that people found to get service when it wasn't profitable.

The same kind of model makes a lot of sense for rural areas, and there are some great technologies available to make this possible, community wireless and point-to-point microwave as examples.

Public policy should look seriously at helping these sorts of cooperatives come into being, including (although not being limited to) subsidy where needed.

Public policy should not be built around building internal or other subsidy of large media corporations to "encourage" them to build out infrastructure. Because, as they have done to date, they will pocket the subsidy and defer or ignore any obligation to investing into what they like to call "unprofitable" services.

This kind of policy has, and will continue to be the corporate welfare equivalent of "welfare with no work".

[ Parent ]
Consider consumer cost (0.00 / 0)
With video services like YouTube consuming so much Internet capacity, see http://www.handsoff.... , there is no question that American needs more broadband capacity.  In order to pay for the buildout, broadband providers are proposing charging big users or offering specialized pay services, so that the entire cost of the new infrastructure is not borne by the ordinary user.  Net neutrality would ban that kind of cost-sharing, which economists call two-sided pricing, and the consumer will end up paying more.  Isn't that a real danger of net neutrality regulation?

Co-Chair, Hands off the Internet Coalition
Easy answer (0.00 / 0)
If your paymasters are so worried about congestion, and really need more money (Chris, look at AT&T's recent profits),

then the easy answer is to up the cost of them getting their data onto the net. 

If you implement tiering, it will kill the net as we know it.

And ask yourself, is You Tube really going to pay to reach all the customers of rural non-RBOC LEC's?

No, of course not.  So your model kills the Internet for those you are claiming to want to help.

Give it up, repent for your shilling ways.

[ Parent ]
Consumers have been paying for years (0.00 / 0)
I read Christopher Wolf's statement as a veiled threat:  "If we (telcos) don't get to raise prices, and then control the wires,  we won't lay any more wires or cable."  That mindset is characteristic of a monopoly (or bully) used to having full control and creaming the benefits.

Please have the decency to respect the billions that local taxpayers, students, and teachers have 'invested' in being able to utilize and support the Net. Telecoms neglect to mention that K-12, Higher Ed, government, and business have each spent billons in hardware, training, and resources to help people utilize the Net.  The value of a network lies in its use; without people who've invested in training, hardware, and software development, the network is only an inert jumble of lifeless wires. 

It is true that video requires more bandwidth than text.  But it is also true that innovating the video compression codecs, DVD cameras, digital editing software, DVD media, ISPs, and web servers has created many jobs -- jobs that are directly attributable to innovation.  If you can't innovate, how can you create those new jobs? Create those new businesses?  Every tier of added cost impacts innovation, and that's bad for the overall economy.

The 'ownership' and 'tiered fee' mindset worked for railroad:  control the lines, jack up prices.  Nevertheless, legislating broadband by using 100 year old assumptions (which originate in the technology of railroads)  is imprudent.  Asking for tiered payments to underwrite 'buildout' ignores the enormous contributions that many Americana have made, and continue to make, in utilizing the network. We're already paying in other ways for the network; we don't need to underwrite buildout on the telecoms' terms.

[ Parent ]
Durbin staff signing off (4.00 / 1)
Thanks everyone for the discussion tonight. We are archiving the posts and will be sharing them with the Senator tomorrow morning. Appreciate the input!
Thanks (4.00 / 1)
Thank you all for being here tonight.
Have a nice night.

Dave

Signing off (0.00 / 0)
Thanks very much - certainly, this discussion is far from over. All of us will be checking in periodically and will be sure to comment, and as Joe said, we'll definitely be sharing with the Senator.

I hope everyone tunes in again tomorrow evening at 7 for what promises to be another raucous discussion regarding wireless issues and broadband infrastructure issues.

thanks (0.00 / 0)
Hopefully, by then I'll have the bold fixed in the comments. Been working at it for the last half an hour and I can't seem to fix it.
[ Parent ]
off topic, technical (0.00 / 0)
There is something funky possibly in either your css misinterpreting a character in the posts for a HTML element?
or maybe missing a termination end somewhere BOLD html confused from content container into CSS?

I notice the ampersand symbol will block the display of any comment after it within the comment block on auto format
(notice everyone is using ATT to avoid the symbol).

NoSlaves.com  


The Economic Populist

[ Parent ]
more off topic technical (0.00 / 0)
http://www.openleft....

is where it starts and if you had a web designer do the graphics and the skin, i.e. the css there might be a minor error that's reacting to the text in the container (the comment box) and cannot parse it correctly or terminate the string right (kick out of it).  Hope this helps, I just like to solve technical bugs, habit.

NoSlaves.com  


The Economic Populist

[ Parent ]
Chris -- use a validator (4.00 / 1)
I just ran the page against a validator.  I'd recommend it -- lots of stuff wrong with the generated HTML that will make it hard for you to even see where the problem is, much less fix it.

I can already tell that you need to do some additional filtering of user supplied HTML before rendering it back to the screen (e.g., "&" characters that are not getting turned into HTML entities, no doc type, and so on).  It's worth fixing these things first, just to make your job easier to do.

[ Parent ]
but (0.00 / 0)
the auto format looks like it screwed up, so it's in that function, which is the ajax (I think) formatting function, looks like it didn't work or give an error when someone tries the strong HTML tag around a URL link.

NoSlaves.com  


The Economic Populist
[ Parent ]
W3C Validator URL (0.00 / 0)
In case you doh't have it bookmarked, it's at: http://validator.w3....

Best, and thanks for the chance to 'think via the keyboard',

rOTL

[ Parent ]
think I found something (0.00 / 0)
In the comment from Adam with MoveOn, comment number 3579,

There is an unclosed strong tag within the auto generated HTML

I think this is it reading your page source for doesn't isolate each comment with a new id css container to break any errors  (no div tag with a class equals)

I think if you try closing that strong tag in that comment, life might return to normal.

NoSlaves.com  


The Economic Populist

[ Parent ]
Thank You (0.00 / 0)
I'm glad you all are stopping by. I realize there are nuances you all have to deal with up on the hill.

At the same time, butting heads when you have the high ground is a worthwhile excercise too.

"They pour syrup on shit and tell us it's hotcakes." Meteor Blades

[ Parent ]
I joined the party too late, but... (0.00 / 0)
I just wanted to say hi to everyone who commented on this blog.  Great comments.  I'm too busy (and too late) tonight to join in the fun, but I wanted to send my unlimited compliments to you all (well, most of you; I saw that Christopher Wolf is commenting here). ;-)

Mitchell Szczepanczyk
Chicago, IL
http://www.szcz.org

Oakland wireless here in Oakland Michigan (0.00 / 0)
Oakland county Michigan is slowly rolling out a free internet service for the whole of Oakland county.  I beleive this can serve as a model for other counties that are considering offering it's citizens a basic internet service for free and additional bandwidth at a reasonable cost.  The program has three stated goals, one of which is to bridge the technological divide between oakland's various economic classes.
What will telecomunications architecture in an ultrabroadband world look like? (4.00 / 1)
Dear Senator Durbin:

As you formulate your broadband legislation, I'd encourage you to pause to reflect on what the telecommunications architecture might look like in another generation.  In particular, what will be the role of wireless and wireline in an ultrabroadband network?  Will wireless be a third pipe as so many have hoped for several decades now?  Or will it be a complement to the wired network; that is, just providing a short link at the edges of a wired network?  How big will the wireless cell sizes be in the coming world?  Will current cell sizes be too large to provide 4G speeds in the vicinity of 1 gbps?  What about 5G or 6G speeds?  How small could cell sizes get?  Could light posts (and local public rights-of-way more generally) become the most valuable wireless assets in the coming era?  Will wireless and wired policy converge or maintain their current, radically different regulatory regimes?  Is there a compelling reason why wired networks are primarily regulated locally while wireless networks are regulated nationally?  Could it be that the optimum regulatory regime would switch today's jurisdictional control?  Should similar wired/wireless functionality be regulated at the same level of government? 

Thanks for attempting to tackle such a complex and controversial area of public policy.

--JHS

P.S.  On Tuesday evening I attempted to submit a longer version of this post.  Much to my chagrin, when I hit the "submit" button (after going through a preview and then a preview of a revised post), I got an error message.  Thus, I had to rewrite my comment from scratch.

Live Blog with Durbin Staff, Ben Scott, and Mark Rotenberg at 7pm (and AT&T) | 107 comments
Donate to Open Left







QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.
As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2009, Powered by SoapBlox