Open Access Internet

[Modelworks]

The FCC has published their conclusions on open access and national broadband policy of a study done by Harvard. They are seeking public comments before the decision on November 16, 2009. Some of the highlights from the report:

http://www.fcc.gov/stage/pdf/B...band_Study_13Oct09.pdf

Our most surprising and significant finding is that ?open access? policies?unbundling, bitstream
access, collocation requirements, wholesaling, and/or functional separation?are almost universally
understood as having played a core role in the first generation transition to broadband in most of the
high performing countries; that they now play a core role in planning for the next generation transition;
and that the positive impact of such policies is strongly supported by the evidence of the first generation
broadband transition.
The importance of these policies in other countries is particularly surprising in the context of U.S. policy
debates throughout most of this decade. While Congress adopted various open access provisions in the
almost unanimously-approved Telecommunications Act of 1996, the FCC decided to abandon this mode
of regulation for broadband in a series of decisions in 2001 and 2002. Open access has been largely
treated as a closed issue in U.S. policy debates ever since.

Basically what they are referring to is that in late 1990's early 2000's there were thousands of ISP. Everyone could pick whatever ISP offered them the best service. Then the telecom got together and made it where the ISP were forced out by removing laws that required them to allow others access to their lines. If the ISP could get access the telecom made it so expensive that they could not stay in business. Now the FCC is finally waking up that this is hurting broadband in the USA.

Open access policies seek to make it easier for new competitors to enter and compete in broadband
markets by requiring existing carriers to lease access to their networks to their competitors, mostly at
regulated rates. The idea is that the cost of replicating the underlying physical plant: digging trenches,
laying ducts, pulling copper/cable/fiber to each and every home is enormous; it therefore deters
competitors from entering the market in broadband services. By requiring that capacity to be shared,
through leasing, with competitors, open access rules are intended to encourage entry by those
competitors, who can then focus their own investments and innovation on electronics and services that
use that basic infrastructure. The theory underlying open access is that the more competitive consumer
broadband markets that emerge from this more competitive environment will deliver higher capacity, at
lower prices, to more of the population.

Why should one company own the line to our homes when if it was leased out could be used by anyone wanting to provide service ?

The highest prices for the lowest speeds are overwhelmingly offered by firms in the United
States and Canada, all of which inhabit markets structured around ?inter-modal? competition?that is,
competition between one incumbent owning a telephone system, and one incumbent owning a cable
system. The lowest prices and highest speeds are almost all offered by firms in markets where, in
addition to an incumbent telephone company and a cable company, there are also competitors who
entered the market, and built their presence, through use of open access facilities.

I hope that this can come to pass, but I have my doubts. Telecom has a TON of money spent on keeping the rules in their favor and this favors the consumer.

 

[Moonbeam]

'And this favors the consumer' is ambiguous in what you intended it to modify. I think, if you read it without thought as to what you really mean, it sounds like the laws that favor telecoms are also good for the consumer, rather that open access is what is good for the consumer, no?


Maybe:

I hope that this can come to pass, but I have my doubts. Telecom has a TON of money spent on keeping the rules in their favor while open access favors the consumer.

 

[Nebor]

Why should one company own the line to our homes when if it was leased out could be used by anyone wanting to provide service ?

Because they paid for and built the lines? Why would one guy own a whole car when if it was leased out it could be used to provide transportation to anyone wanting it?

 

[BarrySotero]

This sounds like health-care for the internet. Make the people who actually build and maintain the lines have to rent them out to others who cut into their business. Then consumer rates go up as service goes down and the retards in Washington find another "unforseen" problem they have to solve. NO doubt the current would like to ah heck up the lines enough so they could take them over.

 

[piasabird]

This is pure baloney!

The reason people went to cable and satelite is that they wanted faster access and were tired of waiting on dialup. Nobody wants an ISP with modem access. That business model is broken and can never be put back in the bottle. How are ISP's suppose to deliver this access? You people know nothing.

Before you make statements you should know what you are talking about. The Cable companies and the Telephone companies and the satelite providers have natural monopolies. Because of infrastructure costs, it is a hard sell. So how are they going to get this free access? Are we going to separate all the phone and cable networks from the providers?

I just want to see the plan about how this is going to be accomplished.

I say if you want to provide service, then you can set up you own network.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Why should one company own the line to our homes when if it was leased out could be used by anyone wanting to provide service ?

Because they paid for and built the lines? Why would one guy own a whole car when if it was leased out it could be used to provide transportation to anyone wanting it?

Certainly those who Paid for Lines should be reimbursed for that, but making the Lines Public Property, or somewhere between Public/Private is ultimately better for the Consumer and probably better for those who laid the Lines in the first place(eventually those Lines will be Obsolete or become decrepit with Age, needing expensive overhauls).

If doing this is to be pursued, they better not make the same mistakes they did with Opening up Power Lines though. Whatever Entity controls those Lines, they need the Funding to Maintain/Upgrade and not just be someones Cash Cow until it fails.

 

[piasabird]

I can just imagine the extra bandwidth requirements this would cause if I could get 15 extra ISP's through my phone and Cable. Who is going to pay for that extra bandwidth and networking costs?

This sounds like the kind of baloney that president communist O'Bammah would pull along with his Marxist Appointees. Sounds like Mr O'Bammah is trying to control the media. What is the real purpose for all of this?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: piasabird
I can just imagine the extra bandwidth requirements this would cause if I could get 15 extra ISP's through my phone and Cable. Who is going to pay for that extra bandwidth and networking costs?

This sounds like the kind of baloney that president communist O'Bammah would pull along with his Marxist Appointees. Sounds like Mr O'Bammah is trying to control the media. What is the real purpose for all of this?

They all would Pay.

 

[frostedflakes]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Why should one company own the line to our homes when if it was leased out could be used by anyone wanting to provide service ?

Because they paid for and built the lines? Why would one guy own a whole car when if it was leased out it could be used to provide transportation to anyone wanting it?

Yeah, that's the only thing I don't like about open access. Where's the incentive to roll out faster internet if other companies can just lease the lines and undercut your prices because they don't have to recoup the costs of infrastructure?

To me the only way open access would be fair is if the government owned the lines and then leased them out to everybody at the same price (doesn't matter whether AT&T wanted to use the lines or some no-name startup). But then you have the issue of the government owning the infrastructure, and I can guarantee they would use this as justification to stick their noses into what people do online. This would really increase competition, though -- barrier to entry for the market would be decreased significantly, and consumers would probably literally have dozens of ISPs to choose from, all of them offering lower prices, better services, etc. to sway customers over to them. Really it's ideal IMO (for consumers at least, not so much for the profit margins of ISPs) except for the whole thing about the government owning the lines.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: frostedflakes

Originally posted by: Nebor

Why should one company own the line to our homes when if it was leased out could be used by anyone wanting to provide service ?

Because they paid for and built the lines? Why would one guy own a whole car when if it was leased out it could be used to provide transportation to anyone wanting it?

Yeah, that's the only thing I don't like about open access. Where's the incentive to roll out faster internet if other companies can just lease the lines and undercut your prices because they don't have to recoup the costs of infrastructure?

To me the only way open access would be fair is if the government owned the lines and then leased them out to everybody at the same price (doesn't matter whether AT&T wanted to use the lines or some no-name startup). But then you have the issue of the government owning the infrastructure, and I can guarantee they would use this as justification to stick their noses into what people do online. This would really increase competition, though -- barrier to entry for the market would be decreased significantly, and consumers would probably literally have dozens of ISPs to choose from, all of them offering lower prices, better services, etc. to sway customers over to them. Really it's ideal IMO (for consumers at least, not so much for the profit margins of ISPs) except for the whole thing about the government owning the lines.

Government itself wouldn't have to Own them, a fully Independent Non-Profit Corporation could do it under Government Oversight/Regulation. Their mandate would be to Maintain Lines and to Upgrade for Capacity and for New Technology, within Budgetary constraints.

 

[KMFJD]

Originally posted by: piasabird
I can just imagine the extra bandwidth requirements this would cause if I could get 15 extra ISP's through my phone and Cable. Who is going to pay for that extra bandwidth and networking costs?

This sounds like the kind of baloney that president communist O'Bammah would pull along with his Marxist Appointees. Sounds like Mr O'Bammah is trying to control the media. What is the real purpose for all of this?

Ah look it's redneck retard out for a troll...

--------------------------------------
Unprovoked personal attack

Two days

Senior Anandtech Moderator
Common Courtesy

 

[GroundedSailor]

Originally posted by: frostedflakes

Originally posted by: Nebor

Why should one company own the line to our homes when if it was leased out could be used by anyone wanting to provide service ?

Because they paid for and built the lines? Why would one guy own a whole car when if it was leased out it could be used to provide transportation to anyone wanting it?

Yeah, that's the only thing I don't like about open access. Where's the incentive to roll out faster internet if other companies can just lease the lines and undercut your prices because they don't have to recoup the costs of infrastructure?

To me the only way open access would be fair is if the government owned the lines and then leased them out to everybody at the same price (doesn't matter whether AT&T wanted to use the lines or some no-name startup). But then you have the issue of the government owning the infrastructure, and I can guarantee they would use this as justification to stick their noses into what people do online. This would really increase competition, though -- barrier to entry for the market would be decreased significantly, and consumers would probably literally have dozens of ISPs to choose from, all of them offering lower prices, better services, etc. to sway customers over to them. Really it's ideal IMO (for consumers at least, not so much for the profit margins of ISPs) except for the whole thing about the government owning the lines.

The incentive can be provided by Build-Operate-Transfer type schemes, whereby the building company has a fixed amount of time to recoup their money and make a profit, and then the upgrades can go in the general opoen access.

Thats one way.

 

[Ozoned]

Where I live, Natural gas is delivered under a similar scheme. I pay for natural gas through whatever company I want to use, and pay a delivery fee for the use of infrastructure to get the gas to me.

Since this regualtion of the natural gas industry went into effect, my prices have went up 5 fold.

 

[Zstream]

Originally posted by: Ozoned
Where I live, Natural gas is delivered under a similar scheme. I pay for natural gas through whatever company I want to use, and pay a delivery fee for the use of infrastructure to get the gas to me.

Since this regualtion of the natural gas industry went into effect, my prices have went up 5 fold.

Quit complaining you silly racist. What are you now against the poor? You are one of those making 100m dollars and refuse to share it with the poor?

Typical Republican...

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Why should one company own the line to our homes when if it was leased out could be used by anyone wanting to provide service ?

Because they paid for and built the lines? Why would one guy own a whole car when if it was leased out it could be used to provide transportation to anyone wanting it?

They paid for the lines under the guise that they would provide service to everyone. They never did what they promised. Look at the promises they made in the telco act of 1996. Give us more profits and we will run fiber to all homes by 2004. They pocketed the money instead.

 

[Genx87]

I can see an argument for public owning of the physical lines. The problem is I dont fully trust our govt to provide the necessary infrastructure funding for such a venture. Even if they did the initial run up the back end costs would be cut and the infrastructure languish just like our public road system. It is much more politicially expedient to give money away to demographic groups than fund boring infrastructure.

I really dont have a solid answer on how to fix this issue. I think the status quo is probably good enough for me at least. My broadband speeds have gone from 640kbps to bursty 20Mbps in 10 years. I wouldnt under any imagineable scenario imagine that happening under a govt run infrastructure.

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: piasabird
This is pure baloney!

The reason people went to cable and satelite is that they wanted faster access and were tired of waiting on dialup. Nobody wants an ISP with modem access. That business model is broken and can never be put back in the bottle. How are ISP's suppose to deliver this access? You people know nothing.

Waiting on dial-up ? People were not waiting on dial-up in 2000. It was the normal connection method. The telco forced the ISP out by changing laws.

Before you make statements you should know what you are talking about. The Cable companies and the Telephone companies and the satelite providers have natural monopolies. Because of infrastructure costs, it is a hard sell. So how are they going to get this free access? Are we going to separate all the phone and cable networks from the providers?

Who said free access ? If you were a consumer in the late 1990's the telco were not hurting for profits and they were required to lease the infrastructure to whomever wanted to use it.

I just want to see the plan about how this is going to be accomplished.

I say if you want to provide service, then you can set up you own network.

What you say doesn't matter to the FCC. They have seen that the networks as they are a monopoly or duopoly in most cities. Government should stay out of regulation when possible, but in some areas regulation is needed in order for competition to survive. Allowing one company to own the line to a home is one area where regulation is needed.

Taxpayers paid for the majority of infrastructure now in the USA. Telecom companies were able to lie to congress and taxpayers in order to get tax breaks, incentives and increases in profits that never led to what they promised. This merely evens the balance.

The way this proposed system works is pretty simple.
Your current provider, say Verizon , would be split into two companies or two organizations, there are a couple legal ways it is proposed. One would be pure service. The other physical wiring and lines.

At the changeover the company retains all ownership of all lines to homes. They would be required to lease those lines to anyone wanting to use them. The fee for the lines would be determined using the pre-1996 method of cost of operation + profit to cover future expenses which is determined by the states regulatory commission. This company would not be allowed to offer any services like voip, voice, internet, tv. the benefit is that if there are areas in the city not serviced the city decides if it will be serviced, not a corporation. If the city wants to upgrade the infrastructure that city makes the decision. You would have the right to appeal it just like you have the right to appeal changes in school cost or local taxes. The only hand the government would have in it is making sure the lines remain neutral. This is NOT free internet.

The second company , the service company sells bandwidth , voip, tv, or other services. They have to lease the lines from the above company. They do not get price discounts or special consideration above any other party. This is why countries like Japan have better and cheaper access. Not because they have less land to cover. Under this plan if a company wants to sell you bandwidth to your home they can pay the lease and offer you service. You then have the chance to shop nationally for service rather than being stuck with a local provider.

 

[Infohawk]

As Genx87 said, internet speeds have been going up for a long time. The system isn't really broken, so why fix it? And if one is worried about a lack of competition, it looks like the cell providers are starting to get into the game too.

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: Genx87
I can see an argument for public owning of the physical lines. The problem is I dont fully trust our govt to provide the necessary infrastructure funding for such a venture. Even if they did the initial run up the back end costs would be cut and the infrastructure languish just like our public road system. It is much more politicially expedient to give money away to demographic groups than fund boring infrastructure.

Under the plan the government doesn't own the lines. Private companies still retain ownership. The only thing the government does is control profit for the local lines so that it doesn't get out of control, and making sure the lines remain neutral so that all have equal access.

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
As Genx87 said, internet speeds have been going up for a long time. The system isn't really broken, so why fix it? And if one is worried about a lack of competition, it looks like the cell providers are starting to get into the game too.

Actually it is broke. Many people can't even get above dial-up speeds. We pay up to 5 times more than other countries for the same service.

Cell providers are getting into what ?

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: frostedflakes

Yeah, that's the only thing I don't like about open access. Where's the incentive to roll out faster internet if other companies can just lease the lines and undercut your prices because they don't have to recoup the costs of infrastructure?

Nobody can lease lines and undercut because they don't have to pay for infrastructure. The local infrastructure becomes its own company. Charged with nothing but keeping the infrastructure upgraded and running. Everyone has to lease lines from them at the same cost.


The government doesn't own anything. It merely makes sure the lines remain neutral and profits are kept in the 5-10% range, not 100% like now.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: Infohawk
As Genx87 said, internet speeds have been going up for a long time. The system isn't really broken, so why fix it? And if one is worried about a lack of competition, it looks like the cell providers are starting to get into the game too.

Actually it is broke. Many people can't even get above dial-up speeds. We pay up to 5 times more than other countries for the same service.

Cell providers are getting into what ?

The United States is larger than most countries. It's easier to set up high-speed internet in places like S. Korea or Scandinavia. If you live in the boonies in the US you may just have to deal with the fact that you can't get high-speed internet for now. And I don't know anyone who still uses dial-up.

People are getting faster and faster internet through their phones now. Still not broadband but it shows new delivery methods are still developed.

The sky isn't falling and there's no reason to go crying for the government to get more involved.

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: Infohawk


The United States is larger than most countries. It's easier to set up high-speed internet in places like S. Korea or Scandinavia. If you live in the boonies in the US you may just have to deal with the fact that you can't get high-speed internet for now. And I don't know anyone who still uses dial-up.

Size of the country is not the reason for lack of broadband, competition is. Dial-up is still in use by millions of people who have no other choice. You sound like the type of consumer who thinks " I got broadband so everyone can get it". Rural areas will never get broadband with the current system, and they are the ones who can benefit from it most. Many areas could be wired for broadband but corporations want a quick return. I have seen people denied access because it would take a company all of 4 years to recover the cost.

People are getting faster and faster internet through their phones now. Still not broadband but it shows new delivery methods are still developed.

Who owns those wireless companies ? The same ones that own the local service. Those plans are not available everywhere either.

The sky isn't falling and there's no reason to go crying for the government to get more involved.

We should just let it continue till the sky is falling before acting ? We tried that with the rest of the nations infrastructure and now it is too little too late.

 

[Genx87]

I wouldnt be against the govt forcing the local telcom and cable providers to sub lease their lines and recoup costs in a regulated fashion like they are discussing. But I also doubt this will spur innovation either like you hope. Rural America will still be using dial up. Only they may have more than 1-2 choices.

 

[Ausm]

Originally posted by: Genx87
I wouldnt be against the govt forcing the local telcom and cable providers to sub lease their lines and recoup costs in a regulated fashion like they are discussing. But I also doubt this will spur innovation either like you hope. Rural America will still be using dial up. Only they may have more than 1-2 choices.

If you left i infrastructure concerns to the Republican's we would still be using 1400 baud modems.

examples before someone jumps my shit

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes...erence-and-compromise/

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/...onnell-stimulus-block/

http://rawstory.com/blog/2009/...nators-net-neutrality/

http://www.washingtonmonthly.c...ual/2009_02/016734.php