FCC being overwhelmed by phone calls.. here is there phone # if you want to call

[Oldgamer]

Freepress.net, Reddit, Google, and many others are urging people to make a real physical call to the FCC before they have officially set in stone their decision to kill Net Neutrality as we know it.

Here is a link with the FCC's phone and also congresses phone if you want to participate and make some calls yourself.

--------------------------------

https://act.freepress.net/call/internet_wheeler_nn/

https://act.freepress.net/call/internet_congress_nn/

 

[tommo123]

good

 

[Newell Steamer]

Whoa,.. whoa,... WHOA.

Are you organizing efforts to reverse a pro-business ruling?!?

The FCC's ruling will make it better, for profit seeking corporations,... why do you hate the job creators?

 

[jackstar7]

I gave 'em a call. Hopefully voices will be heard rather than ignored.

 

[thraashman]

I support net neutrality but I do not support breaking the law. The FCC wanted net neutrality but lost a court case. So calling the FCC honestly won't do jack shit. This needs to be changed at a legislative level. It's Congress you should contact.

 

[momeNt]

Why not just ask the FCC to lift right of way monopolies on the transmission poles? ISPs make it impossible for other ISPs to get into towns because they grease local politicians from allowing competitors in.

Instead of trying to get the government to regulate ISPs, why not just let competition regulate ISPs?

Would you prefer to have your single service provider have government over its shoulder? Or have 4 or 5 to choose from all trying to get your business. Do you think throttling would then become an issue when throttling can lose them customers?

 

[Thebobo]

Whoa,.. whoa,... WHOA.

Are you organizing efforts to reverse a pro-business ruling?!?

The FCC's ruling will make it better, for profit seeking corporations,... why do you hate the job creators?

Consumers are the job creators

 

[Zorba]

Why not just ask the FCC to lift right of way monopolies on the transmission poles? ISPs make it impossible for other ISPs to get into towns because they grease local politicians from allowing competitors in.

Instead of trying to get the government to regulate ISPs, why not just let competition regulate ISPs?

Would you prefer to have your single service provider have government over its shoulder? Or have 4 or 5 to choose from all trying to get your business. Do you think throttling would then become an issue when throttling can lose them customers?

Broadban providers are Natural Monopolies. A few cities many be able to bring in enough competitors to make a free market work, but the vast majority would not.

 

[momeNt]

Broadban providers are Natural Monopolies. A few cities many be able to bring in enough competitors to make a free market work, but the vast majority would not.

Oh god. Not this again.

Natural market forces ARE NOT what is restricting broadband companies from opening up shops in certain neighborhoods. It is entirely a right of way issue with the local governing body.

 

[Zorba]

Oh god. Not this again.

Natural market forces ARE NOT what is restricting broadband companies from opening up shops in certain neighborhoods. It is entirely a right of way issue with the local governing body.

So without the local governing body, my in-laws out the country would have 5 or more broadband providers?

Why would providers pay to put in lines at a few hundred dollars per house, when they is no guarantee they will even get a 10% market share? Or do you know some special secrete way to into fiber networks for a few bucks per house?

How come you free market people think the first 4 weeks of Econ 101 is more true than the bible, but that everything taught after that is BS?

 

[First]

Why not just ask the FCC to lift right of way monopolies on the transmission poles? ISPs make it impossible for other ISPs to get into towns because they grease local politicians from allowing competitors in.

Instead of trying to get the government to regulate ISPs, why not just let competition regulate ISPs?

Would you prefer to have your single service provider have government over its shoulder? Or have 4 or 5 to choose from all trying to get your business. Do you think throttling would then become an issue when throttling can lose them customers?

Huh? What you said makes little to no sense. Local gov'ts have absolutely zero to do with lack of ISP competition in virtually any area in the continental U.S. ISP's are a textbook case of natural monopolies, due almost entirely to the ridiculously high cost of entry into this industry; it's simply expensive to lay down cable and build out a network, there's no way around the economics of it.

While I'm not familiar with the legalities of transmission poles, given that some may be the private property of the ISP's in question while others (like telephone lines) are regulated like telecommunications and therefore by law providers are forced deliver a (minimum level) service, that's precisely what this whole net neutrality debate is now about. The FCC is considering regulating ISP's the way they regulate telecom/utilities; i.e. forcing providers to provide a minimum, ubiquitous level service to everyone and needing permission from the government to do it. The fact that ISP's have continually been regulated as an "information" service is literally the freest way you could allow them to operate, and yet this has NOT led to a variety of choices via the magic of competition. Competition doesn't always work the way you think or want it to. This is something you'll learn as you become older and more experienced.

EDIT: See here for a good summary of the reality of net neutrality, and below for the crux of the issue:

Wu began writing about network neutrality in the middle of a legal fight over Federal Communications Commission regulations to promote an open Internet by requiring incumbent broadband providers to share their lines with competitors. When a 2005 Supreme Court decision triggered the end of those regulations, Wu’s concept of net neutrality became a rallying cry for advocates of an open Internet. It has been at the center of Internet policy debates ever since.

While the term network neutrality is barely a decade old, it is closely related to the much older concept of common carriage. Since at least the 19th Century, the law has required any companies which provide basic infrastructure — including railroads, telegraphs, telephones, and electric power — operate as common carriers. That means they must offer service to everyone at standard prices. Network neutrality essentially applies the concept of common carriage to the Internet.

 

[momeNt]

Huh? What you said makes little to no sense. Local gov'ts have absolutely zero to do with lack of ISP competition in virtually any area in the continental U.S. ISP's are a textbook case of natural monopolies, due almost entirely to the ridiculously high cost of entry into this industry; it's simply expensive to lay down cable and build out a network, there's no way around the economics of it.

While I'm not familiar with the legalities of transmission poles, given that some may be the private property of the ISP's in question while others (like telephone lines) are regulated like telecommunications and therefore by law providers are forced deliver a (minimum level) service, that's precisely what this whole net neutrality debate is now about. The FCC is considering regulating ISP's the way they regulate telecom/utilities; i.e. forcing providers to provide a minimum, ubiquitous level service to everyone and needing permission from the government to do it. The fact that ISP's have continually been regulated as an "information" service is literally the freest way you could allow them to operate, and yet this has NOT led to a variety of choices via the magic of competition. Competition doesn't always work the way you think or want it to. This is something you'll learn as you become older and more experienced.

EDIT: See here for a good summary of the reality of net neutrality, and below for the crux of the issue:

Mother of God, do you realize that at one time there were multiple railroads traveling across the country on similar routes, and some of them actually weren't built on government contracts? How can you possibly think that paying hundreds of workers a wage that could sustain them for food, drink, women, and sending money home, to just lay a mile of track day, even remotely compares to laying internet transmission lines?

But only one internet company can come service a town of a few thousand people, because it's "expensive".

You contort in the weirdest of way to fit into that natural monopoly box, don't you?

 

[drebo]

Huh? What you said makes little to no sense. Local gov'ts have absolutely zero to do with lack of ISP competition in virtually any area in the continental U.S. ISP's are a textbook case of natural monopolies, due almost entirely to the ridiculously high cost of entry into this industry; it's simply expensive to lay down cable and build out a network, there's no way around the economics of it.

While I'm not familiar with the legalities of transmission poles, given that some may be the private property of the ISP's in question while others (like telephone lines) are regulated like telecommunications and therefore by law providers are forced deliver a (minimum level) service, that's precisely what this whole net neutrality debate is now about. The FCC is considering regulating ISP's the way they regulate telecom/utilities; i.e. forcing providers to provide a minimum, ubiquitous level service to everyone and needing permission from the government to do it. The fact that ISP's have continually been regulated as an "information" service is literally the freest way you could allow them to operate, and yet this has NOT led to a variety of choices via the magic of competition. Competition doesn't always work the way you think or want it to. This is something you'll learn as you become older and more experienced.

EDIT: See here for a good summary of the reality of net neutrality, and below for the crux of the issue:

Actually, telcos are government-backed monopolies.

Cable operators sign franchise agreements with local municipalities which disallows other cable operators from offering service in those areas.

The Telco Act of 1996 divided up the US and created incumbent local exchange carriers. These companies (AT&T, Verizon, Frontier, Surewest, etc) own the physical copper telephone lines. Cable operators are excluded from this.

It also created the ability for other companies to become "competitive local exchange carriers" and provided the facilities to require ILECs to resell their physical copper. But, it also does not require the ILEC to actually be competitive. So, while it ensures that all buildings built will have at least one copper pair of service, it does not require that an ILEC make this copper pair available to CLECs at a reasonable price.

As a CLEC, I can get a copper pair in California over which I can provide DSL service. The problem is that it will cost me about $20/mo to lease this copper from the ILEC.

The solution to this isn't through net neutrality (which actually has nothing what so ever to do with the issues causing broadband to not be widely available or competitive.) The solution would be to municipalize the copper infrastructure.

Rights of way are public and can be utilized by anyone. There is nothing stopping me or any other telco from tearing up a street and running fiber optic cabling through conduit other than the cost. Instead, if we were to take the copper infrastructure (which the government already paid for, for the most part) and make it open to any telco operator without having to engage another for-profit company (except possibly for line maintenance,) that would be extremely preferable. AT&T lets CLECs in because they have to, not because they want to. Ultimately, though, AT&T has a stake in the game and isn't going to lose that profit. That's the mistake in our current telco infrastructure.

 

[Zorba]

Mother of God, do you realize that at one time there were multiple railroads traveling across the country on similar routes, and some of them actually weren't built on government contracts? How can you possibly think that paying hundreds of workers a wage that could sustain them for food, drink, women, and sending money home, to just lay a mile of track day, even remotely compares to laying internet transmission lines?

But only one internet company can come service a town of a few thousand people, because it's "expensive".

You contort in the weirdest of way to fit into that natural monopoly box, don't you?

It cost Google $500-674 per home to install fiber in KC. Now say to have real competition you need 5 companies, and that the most they could charge was $50/month due to competitive pressure. Assuming a 90% penetration rate, it would take each company 65 months to pay off the cost of infrastructure assuming they had no other costs.

Now assuming that only 25% of the service fee is profit, after maintenance, etc, it would take 260 months to pay off. Not to mention all of the maintenance on under utilized lines. Find me any company that is okay with a 22 year ROI.

Also as you get to less densely populated areas, like the suburbs or country the cost of infrastructure will go way up.

You also end up with 5x the infrastructure needed, which is its own bag of worms. I personally agree with drebo, the lines should be state owned and ISPs rent them.

 

[Zaap]

Whoa,.. whoa,... WHOA.

Are you organizing efforts to reverse a pro-business ruling?!?

The FCC's ruling will make it better, for profit seeking corporations,... why do you hate the job creators?

What? You're daring to question your government master? Back on your knees, lapdog. Your rulers have spoken.

 

[First]

Mother of God, do you realize that at one time there were multiple railroads traveling across the country on similar routes, and some of them actually weren't built on government contracts? How can you possibly think that paying hundreds of workers a wage that could sustain them for food, drink, women, and sending money home, to just lay a mile of track day, even remotely compares to laying internet transmission lines?

Yeah, again, your post is "huh?"-worthy. Nothing you said here is cogent, relevant or for that matter sourced. Sorry, you'll have to expand on that vague bullshit for me to bother replying it.

But only one internet company can come service a town of a few thousand people, because it's "expensive".

You contort in the weirdest of way to fit into that natural monopoly box, don't you?

It is expensive, this is without question even among the most die-hard free marketers. It's not the least bit debatable. Call up your local ISP who serves commercial buildings and ask them why their business-grade 3Mbps-5Mbps synchronous circuits never really get below $300-$400/month. It's not a conspiracy among Level 3, Covad, CenturyLink, et al; it's the basic arithmetic of lighting up and maintaining redundant fiber optic networks.

We could get into the game theory consequences of competitive markets and the reasons why free market competition does indeed work...but that's a little past your pay grade and has little to do with government intrusion in this industry. There's no guarantee of Internet service or competition in the first place if carriers like AT&T aren't forced to lease their lines out to other providers.

 

[Oldgamer]

Apparently.. Republicans like Mitch McConnell, Sen. John Thune, Sen. John Cornyn, and other Senate Republicans told Wheeler that utility-style regulations "would create tremendous legal and marketplace uncertainty and would undermine your ability to effectively lead the FCC." They sent him a letter. The Telecom CEO's and their Republican friends are threatening Wheeler and others with a legal war if he even thinks about reclassifying the internet as a utility.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/tech...-if-fcc-makes-the-internet-a-utility-20140514

 

[BoberFett]

Apparently.. Republicans like Mitch McConnell, Sen. John Thune, Sen. John Cornyn, and other Senate Republicans told Wheeler that utility-style regulations "would create tremendous legal and marketplace uncertainty and would undermine your ability to effectively lead the FCC." They sent him a letter. The Telecom CEO's and their Republican friends are threatening Wheeler and others with a legal war if he even thinks about reclassifying the internet as a utility.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/tech...-if-fcc-makes-the-internet-a-utility-20140514

As I've said, if they don't want to be a utility, then they should lose their access to utility easements and should be paying land owners for access across their land. I'm sure every home owner in America would love to get a rent check from Comcast every month.

 

[First]

Actually, telcos are government-backed monopolies.

Cable operators sign franchise agreements with local municipalities which disallows other cable operators from offering service in those areas.

The Telco Act of 1996 divided up the US and created incumbent local exchange carriers. These companies (AT&T, Verizon, Frontier, Surewest, etc) own the physical copper telephone lines. Cable operators are excluded from this.

It also created the ability for other companies to become "competitive local exchange carriers" and provided the facilities to require ILECs to resell their physical copper. But, it also does not require the ILEC to actually be competitive. So, while it ensures that all buildings built will have at least one copper pair of service, it does not require that an ILEC make this copper pair available to CLECs at a reasonable price.

As a CLEC, I can get a copper pair in California over which I can provide DSL service. The problem is that it will cost me about $20/mo to lease this copper from the ILEC.

The solution to this isn't through net neutrality (which actually has nothing what so ever to do with the issues causing broadband to not be widely available or competitive.) The solution would be to municipalize the copper infrastructure.

Rights of way are public and can be utilized by anyone. There is nothing stopping me or any other telco from tearing up a street and running fiber optic cabling through conduit other than the cost. Instead, if we were to take the copper infrastructure (which the government already paid for, for the most part) and make it open to any telco operator without having to engage another for-profit company (except possibly for line maintenance,) that would be extremely preferable. AT&T lets CLECs in because they have to, not because they want to. Ultimately, though, AT&T has a stake in the game and isn't going to lose that profit. That's the mistake in our current telco infrastructure.

I'm not sure this is quite true. I know the 2005 SCOTUS ruling overturned the prerequisite for ILECs to lease their equipment/loop to CLECs, but I didn't know that cable companies were barred in any significant way from offering their own telecom/data services in municipalities. Link? Perhaps you're talking about capable companies that originally tried to get into telecom (i.e. phone service) but couldn't adhere to the regs for providing emergency services and in particular providing power to their phone lines at a CO the way AT&T does with their leased lines but which still today cannot be provided by cable companies if their VoIP cable phone lines experience an area-wide power outage. I imagine it depends how you define a "cable company" given that what they offer nowadays is very different from 20 years ago.

Anyway, I support classifying ISP's as telecoms purely from the perspective of ensuring net neutrality is adhered to, which I think is different from what you're claiming about cable companies being barred from offering service in municipalities. If classifying ISP's as telecoms under FCC rules means monopolizing areas with gov't backing, I wouldn't support that barring some very good reason (like emergency 911 services or cable companies not being able to provide power from a CO the way AT&T can).

In any case, on your ILEC/CLEC point, my real world experience is this; if I were to, say, decide to switch from AT&T phone lines to VoIP, and choose a company like Windstream who (while not a cable operator) can indeed lease those copper lines from AT&T and provide voice and Internet data over them (for a fee), that has to be perfectly legal (I've done it). But what price Windstream pays to AT&T, I don't know, though it appears the 2005 SCOTUS decision (to not appeal the lower court's ruling) to not force ILEC's to lease equipment/loops to CLEC's means AT&T didn't have to lease to Windstream in my scenario.

Overall, I'm not sure if municipalizing the copper/fiber is the way to go, but if it brings more competition I'm all for it. But I'd also like to make sure net neutrality isn't lost in the debate, as content providers like Netflix shouldn't need to subsidize ISP's network buildouts, which is essentially what they're doing, given that the model of mutual cooperation amongst ISP's (i.e. peering) has worked so well. You run into the issue of content providers, who are also ISP's (TWC, Comcast, etc.), having perverse incentives to slow down traffic or at the very least open the door to it. That's not the way the Internet was born and subsequently exploded; it was wide open and it worked well and continues to.

Granted, I have heard some opinions that the incentive to build out their networks is increased if ISP's are able to monetize more of that "peering", I just don't know if the benefits of that (faster speeds for some) outweigh the costs (slower speed for most). That's very tough to know without more data and studies.

 

[First]

As I've said, if they don't want to be a utility, then they should lose their access to utility easements and should be paying land owners for access across their land. I'm sure every home owner in America would love to get a rent check from Comcast every month.

lol, I would love this.

 

[MtnMan]

I gave 'em a call. Hopefully voices will be heard rather than ignored.

Really, how long have your not been paying attention. The rulings always go in favor of the highest bidder, I mean donator.

 

[jackstar7]

Really, how long have your not been paying attention. The rulings always go in favor of the highest bidder, I mean donator.

If the alternative you're suggesting is doing nothing, then I refuse to follow that suggestion.

 

[drebo]

I'm not sure this is quite true. I know the 2005 SCOTUS ruling overturned the prerequisite for ILECs to lease their equipment/loop to CLECs, but I didn't know that cable companies were barred in any significant way from offering their own telecom/data services in municipalities. Link? Perhaps you're talking about capable companies that originally tried to get into telecom (i.e. phone service) but couldn't adhere to the regs for providing emergency services and in particular providing power to their phone lines at a CO the way AT&T does with their leased lines but which still today cannot be provided by cable companies if their VoIP cable phone lines experience an area-wide power outage. I imagine it depends how you define a "cable company" given that what they offer nowadays is very different from 20 years ago.

Anyway, I support classifying ISP's as telecoms purely from the perspective of ensuring net neutrality is adhered to, which I think is different from what you're claiming about cable companies being barred from offering service in municipalities. If classifying ISP's as telecoms under FCC rules means monopolizing areas with gov't backing, I wouldn't support that barring some very good reason (like emergency 911 services or cable companies not being able to provide power from a CO the way AT&T can).

In any case, on your ILEC/CLEC point, my real world experience is this; if I were to, say, decide to switch from AT&T phone lines to VoIP, and choose a company like Windstream who (while not a cable operator) can indeed lease those copper lines from AT&T and provide voice and Internet data over them (for a fee), that has to be perfectly legal (I've done it). But what price Windstream pays to AT&T, I don't know, though it appears the 2005 SCOTUS decision (to not appeal the lower court's ruling) to not force ILEC's to lease equipment/loops to CLEC's means AT&T didn't have to lease to Windstream in my scenario.

Overall, I'm not sure if municipalizing the copper/fiber is the way to go, but if it brings more competition I'm all for it. But I'd also like to make sure net neutrality isn't lost in the debate, as content providers like Netflix shouldn't need to subsidize ISP's network buildouts, which is essentially what they're doing, given that the model of mutual cooperation amongst ISP's (i.e. peering) has worked so well. You run into the issue of content providers, who are also ISP's (TWC, Comcast, etc.), having perverse incentives to slow down traffic or at the very least open the door to it. That's not the way the Internet was born and subsequently exploded; it was wide open and it worked well and continues to.

Granted, I have heard some opinions that the incentive to build out their networks is increased if ISP's are able to monetize more of that "peering", I just don't know if the benefits of that (faster speeds for some) outweigh the costs (slower speed for most). That's very tough to know without more data and studies.

I think you misunderstood my first couple of paragraphs. I didn't say that cable operators were barred from offering telco services, I said that cable companies were excluded from the requirements to let CLECs lease their copper infrastructure.

There's an important difference between landline service and VoIP. A CLEC can offer landline service or VOIP and most states don't recognize VOIP operators as telcos.

The point that I'm driving at is that the government is ensuring that ILECs and cable operators maintain monopolies and that anyone who wants to compete has an exceedingly high barrier to entry.

In the business space, it's not as evident because business services like T1s and metro ethernet are generally high enough margin that CLECs make sense. On the residential side, however, it makes no sense for a CLEC to try to run their own plant or resell ILEC copper because there just isn't any margin in it. The CLEC would have to take a loss to match ILEC prices.

That's what needs to change. Having the copper plant owned by the municipalities would make sure that a (supposedly) neutral body was governing the use and pricing, and thus every company that wanted to compete would stand on the same ground.

As it is, cable franchise agreements and government-mandated ILECs provide too much protection with not enough emphasis put on innovation.

 

[Iron Woode]

Peter Griffin knows all about the FCC...

 

[_Rick_]

Here is most definitely not there.