Funny, The Telcos Weren't So Against Regulations When It Helped Them
from the hands-off-now? dept
It's getting somewhat annoying to see just how partisan the network neutrality debate has become, with both the telcos and the internet folks spinning the rhetoric in the debate well beyond the actual issues. Both sides are making statements that have little basis in reality, but it still seems like the claims from the telcos and their supporters that this is about "keeping regulatory hands off the internet" are the most silly. Remember, these are the telcos. They've benefited from billions of dollars in subsidies and regulations in their favor over the years -- regulations that granted them monopoly rights of way and helped them get rid of most of the competition. That, again, is the real issue. If there were true competition that would allow others to enter the market, then there wouldn't even be a debate about network neutrality, because no firm would realistically be able to break network neutrality without a serious backlash. So, the next time someone says this is all about keeping regulators away from the telcos, remind them that regulations built these telcos into the position they're in today -- and ask them if they're willing to trade in all the benefits they got from those other regulations?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yelling first post and then walking off is useless, and clutters these forums.
Can the guys at TechDirt require allow for registration to post? I'd glady do so, that way anyone who posts something like this gets banned.
Stop being an idiot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
>>Stop this idiocy please.
Aww look Ditto, now you've just encouraged him to do it some more.
Let us not ridicule young OhYeah like grumbly old men, no, let us congratulate him. We should respect the lightning wit, razor sharp reflexes and determination that has placed the clever chap where he rightfully belongs, at the top of the pile where he truly is the center of our attention and consequently validated as a worthwhile human being. Who are we johnny-come-lately runners up to comment?
I think that was pretty damn fine first post you know. You beat us all!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
commodity bandwidth would make it irrelevant
Which has always been my economic argument all along. Seems I'm not really grasping the complexity of this debate. I think it's not about their rights to route data how they like so much as it is about lack of choice for the end user. If I had a multi-homed link with a choice of 100 providers to send my traffic through I couldn't care less about it. Perhaps the compromise is staring us in the face, give them the right to compete in whatever way they like in a truly open market by breaking up the telcos with antitrusts?
Unfortunately the whole thing is based on a false dichotomy, the myth of bandwidth as a finite resource. Bandwidth scarcity is an entirely manufactured concept. Flick a few switches to activate the "dark fiber" and the throughput could step up an order of magnitude overnight with no additional outlay. Of course if you actually reduced bandwidth to its commodity price all the jokers charging $20/mo for a crappy DSL would be out of business faster than you can ping localhost.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: commodity bandwidth would make it irrelevant
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why is it funny?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: first posts + dsl providers going outta busine
when the fact that AOL is still miraculously (or more likely, cursedly) still in business?
and now about the first posts thingy - why make people have to register to post? if people wanna post stupid shit, they'll post it having to register or not - and the ones that still do post, will be the especially stupid ones. - its a fucking forum, people post stupid, senseless crap - get used to it...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
speaking of which
And hey where is Dorpus
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
AOL and Bandwidth
While the telcos have definately futureproofed themselves by laying lots of "dark fiber" getting them to light it up would be harder than pulling a non-sedated lion's tooth. They make their billions by selling bandwidth to repackagers who in turn sell it to consumers. They would loose the investment they put into the work and material if they gave it away. Short of federal regulation making them use all available bandwidth, it won't happen. Not that I am defending them, I simply see their position. If I had laid out fortunes to create a data transportation backbone, I would defend that money too. It is possible to get as fast a connection as you really want from most telcos... if you are willing to pay for it. you might need a business license and do a little lying, but its possible.
So until I can afford a T3 line into my house, leave AOL and its victems alone. They can stay off my bandwidth and tie up their phone line all they like. My Ex used to say uneducated people are worthless, but she still wanted her gas pumped and her McMuffins in the mornings.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: AOL and Bandwidth
There is a flaw in this logic, the telco's were granted 200 Billion dollars of taxpayer money for this. I don't see a grand investment on their end.
If someone took $2000 from you and promised you something, wouldn't you make damned well sure you got what you paid for or your money back? The telco's got your money, didn't deliver, and in fact have been allowed to consistently raises taxes and fees on those same lines. You have just been robbed, the gov't knows who did it, but doesn't give a crap.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
more on telcos
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
why AOL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Subsidies"
Network neutrality rules would not only apply to telcos. It would also apply to cable companies, and to any new entrants down the road. In fact, it's quite likely that if a competitive alternative to the telcos and cable companies emerges, it's quite likely that they'll do everything they can to throw up regulatory roadblocks in the way of that new competition. That will be much easier if we've already conceded that the FCC has the power to regulate the Internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Net Neutrality vs. Censorship
At the point that they are filtering, and some kiddy porn gets transferred over their network, then it's concievable that they should be liable for trafficking in kiddy porn.
On a different but related subject:
Free Internet is a question I've had for some time now. Does free internet really mean free web browsing? With the Free part being funded by advertisments in the web browser? When I'm connected to the internet, I'm using a web browser, but I'm also using Instant Messenger, SSH, SMTP, IMAP (primarily over SSH) and who knows what other protocols that don't have a way of inserting ads into the datastream.
A web connection that doesn't allow me to bring up a secure socket connection to my primary web server isn't getting me very much, but I don't understand the economics of free.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just what monopoly are we talking about?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Broadband over power-line is still in trial phase in the US because of ham radio interfernce, which has potential repurcussion to public emergency response equipment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Government regulation
The common carrier laws that applied to telcos did not apply to cable and cable flourished. In fact, it was only because cable began pushing broadband service that the telcos decided to provide DSL. Telcos sat on that technology for years, opting instead to charge more money for T-1 lines. The competitive market for broadband was created by people who wanted to do more.
If you're going to point to the technology stagnation that occurred under government regulation of the telcos as an example of successful regulations, you might think again.
Broadband is where it is today because of free markets, not in spite of them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Government regulation
Thus proving that Telco's can not be relied upon to play nice or fair. Also you are talking residential broadband when discussing penetration. The networks that Google , Yahoo, and most other big corp.'s run on are Telco. So where do you think QoS will occur? I expect something like this:
Google router>>telco router w/QoS>>backbone.
Comcast has already been hit for degrading VoIP, seems they aren't so altruistic. As have Cox and Adelphia, though those reports haven't been substantiated to a degree I would rely on too much.
I am sorry, but it is amazing that just days before or after AT&T is re-incorporated, the head of SBC(not renamed quite yet) is talking about restrictions on their backbone.
I also think that once 1 side realizes they can get away with it, the other will as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
comcast Allegation
Can you cite a source for that allegation? If so, you're the only person engaged in this debate at any level who has been able to come up with two US (non-Canada) examples of anything like this happening.
There has been exactly one case investigated and found to have actually occured - Madison River. That was settled - with a fine to the company - under existing law.
If you are able to demonstrate any other instance, I'd love to hear it. That's the problem with the legislation - it's a solution in search of a problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: comcast Allegation
However, I will stand by the fact that Comcast is getting blasted(I used to be a Comcast customer, and still know many people who are), for this fact: Comcast VoIP works rather well, vonage and skype on their network have many issues.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Government regulation
Well, that's one way to look at it... though it conveniently leaves out the franchise issue, and the fact that no one else can go out and lay wires these days if you're not a cable or telco. So, you mean "private investment and initiatives" teamed with gov't granted monopolies. That last part is important.
If you're going to point to the technology stagnation that occurred under government regulation of the telcos as an example of successful regulations, you might think again.
You are misunderstanding my point here. Nowhere was I saying that the past regulations were "successful." I was saying that the telcos are in the position they're in now, in large part, thanks to regulations. I don't consider that a success story. So for them to say "hands off" is ridiculous. They were perfectly happy with the hands for a while.
All I'm saying here is that the situation isn't nearly as simple as either side is making it out to be. Claiming it's about hands off is ridiculous when the telcos have benefited greatly from the hands in the past -- often through promising specific things in return, which they're now trying to get out of providing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]