billybroadband’s Comments

• Dec 5th, 2014 @ 11:42am

  Unintended consequences

  on Internet Provider Sonic's CEO: Title II Is Only A Regulatory Burden If You're Doing Something Bad
  One thing I've not seen much of in the Title II "debate" is what happens on the state level....once the states get into regulating broadband under Title II you'll see user fees and a myriad of different regulatory treatments. Look at your phone bill now; you want all those line item charges on your broadband bill? Forbearance is a nice sounding word but our regulatory structures and appetites vary greatly between the states. And good luck arguing the tax exemption on internet service will apply. Once that classification changes, it will be Katy bar the door.
• Dec 5th, 2014 @ 8:45am

  Response

  on Rep. Latta Urges Congress To 'Preserve An Open & Free Internet' By Preventing The FCC From Doing So
  I know this is a non-popular opinion on this website, but your assertions are belied by the facts. The fact is that investment in broadband infrastructure in this country HAS flourished under a light touch regulatory scheme for the past decade or more. When first introduced by cable, the "blazing fast speed" was 1.5 mbps; most flagship tiers are around 50 or 60 mbps now. And the price per megabit has been on a downward graph ever since it was introduced. So you get more for less. And to use Ed Whitacre's comment from years ago as an indicator of the prevailing philosophy of modern ISPs again ignores reality; the business model has evolved, but not in any nefarious way at all. I agree that the broadband model is very complex and is not easily boiled down to a pithy soundbite about "keep the internet free", etc. but the fact is that the broadband industry has NOT had a history of blocking sites or discriminating against content providers. Netflix is a unique situation simply because they want the ISPs to do their heavy lifting for them which is the OPPOSITE of the way peering relationship have evolved. And Netflix has been savvy enought to tie their public relations statements to the "net neutrality" catchphrase even though net neutrality isn't close to capturing their business relationship with CDNs and ISPs. I know it won't be popular here, but the legislator you castigate actually has it right.