FCC Outlines Plan For Network Neutrality - Two new principles, plus expansion to cover wireless sector...
Links: home · search · speed test · login · more ·

FCC Outlines Plan For Network Neutrality
Two new principles, plus expansion to cover wireless sector...
01:23PM Monday Sep 21 2009 by Karl Bode
tags: legal · fcc · net-neutrality
Last Friday the FCC leaked news to the press that today they'd be unveiling their plans for network neutrality. Today new FCC boss Julius Genachowski spoke at the Brookings Institution about the new plan. As expected the early plan is vague, given the rule making process doesn't officially begin until next month when the rule-making process begins, but the goal is to take the FCC's existing network neutrality policy statement and codify them into hard rules -- strengthening them to challenges from ISP lawyers.


As it stands, the FCC's policy statement simply encourages that ISPs engage solely in "reasonable" network management, while protecting the consumer's right to access the lawful Internet content, applications, and services of their choice. It also suggests that consumers should have the right to attach any non-harmful devices to the network they see fit.

But what's reasonable isn't defined and the guidelines themselves aren't law, and may not even be enforceable in court. The nebulous wording and shaky legal foundation of these principles opened the door to legal assault from the likes of Comcast, which is currently suing the FCC over their crackdown during the Comcast upstream P2P throttling fiasco. The FCC's new rules will not only clarify much of this murky terminology, but Genachowski suggests these rules will be expanded to cover the wireless sector.

In Genachowski's speech (which you can read in its entirety here), he acknowledges he also wants to add new fifth and sixth principles. The fifth focuses on preventing ISPs from discriminating against specific content or applications, while the sixth will focus on requiring that ISPs be completely transparent about their network management practices. Transparency has been particularly problematic in an age of invisible caps and sophisticated throttling hardware. Of course rule specifics will be hashed out in October.

"I will soon circulate to my fellow Commissioners proposed rules prepared by Commission staff embodying the principles I've discussed, and I will ask for their support in issuing a notice of proposed rulemaking," says the new boss. "I will ensure that the rulemaking process will be fair, transparent, fact-based, and data-driven," he says, adding that "anyone will be able to participate in this process, and I hope everyone will."

While anyone and everyone will participate, you can expect lobbyists for AT&T, Comcast and Verizon to continue to get the best seats. Be mindful that lobbyists will likely work very hard to make these principles as weak as possible so they can only be used in the most egregious instances of foul play. This is a perfect opportunity for telecom lobbyists to pre-empt tougher federal laws, that not coincidentally picked up steam in Congress last week.

Also be aware that when lobbyists see discussions of "transparency," their immediate thought is that it's a perfect opportunity to push harder for low usage caps and high per-byte overages. Mega-carriers believe that as long as they're facing expectations of honesty when it comes to network management, they might as well use the opportunity to their advantage in almost vindictive fashion. Expect the industry's continued dream of shifting from flat-rate pricing to metered billing to play a starring role as the rules get hashed out.

Related:
  1. Democrats Take Nap On Network Neutrality
  2. Time Warner Cable: Let's Not Talk About Net Neutrality
  3. Obama Nominates New FCC Commissioner
  4. Google Voice Ban Is Clear Network Neutrality Violation
  5. 5 Signs Our Broadband Plan May Already Be In Trouble
  6. FCC To Announce New Net Neutrality Rules Monday
  7. What Network Neutrality Is REALLY About
  8. Cox Scraps App-Specific Throttling Trials
Links: New Topic
Forums »

TKJunkMail @ 21st Sep 11:46AM:
Some additional info on FCC "open internet" plans

Statements by other FCC commissioners:
»hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/a···69A1.pdf
»hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/a···70A1.pdf

News story:
»tech.yahoo.com/news/ap/20090921/···et_rules
And new rules to include WIRELESS:
»news.yahoo.com/s/nf/20090921/bs_nf/69053

Here is a video of the speech:
»www.openinternet.gov/join-discussion.html
As I posted this, the LIVE portion followup is still ongoing. The archive of the full video will come after the live feed is done.

And the web site set up to follow and participate in the whole rule making process for open internet:
»www.openinternet.gov/
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page


reply
Matt @ 21st Sep 12:05PM:
Karl?

Karl,

What is your opinion on this? You are usually very pragmatic and a little pessimistic about whether the FCC will really enact anything to protect consumers. Do you think this will actually have a backbone behind it, or is it just political posturing in the guise of consumer interests?
reply
TKJunkMail @ 21st Sep 12:10PM:
Repub FCC commissioners have not commented yet

said by Matt Do you think this will actually have a backbone behind it, or is it just political posturing in the guise of consumer interests?


I find it interesting that the 2 Dem FCC commissioners gave a big back slap to Genachowski in their statements. But the 2 Repub commissioners haven't commented yet. It seems to indicate they don't agree. We will find out later if they actually make something public.

But as shown in this news story, the FCC will get plenty of opposition from industry and from some in Congress. I'd bet that the wireless companies will lobby hardest against this.
»news.yahoo.com/s/nf/20090921/bs_nf/69053
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page


reply
Matt @ 21st Sep 12:12PM:
Re: Repub FCC commissioners have not commented yet

Tk, you're telling me you're surprised that Dems and Repubs don't agree and the "new guy" won't take an official stance on anything either way yet? :D
reply
DrModem @ 21st Sep 12:19PM:
Re: Repub FCC commissioners have not commented yet

said by TKJunkMail :

I find it interesting that the 2 Dem FCC commissioners gave a big back slap to Genachowski in their statements. But the 2 Repub commissioners haven't commented yet. It seems to indicate they don't agree.
I'm shocked I tell you, absolutely SHOCKED! :p
reply
Karl Bode @ 21st Sep 12:28PM:
Re: Karl?

Karl,

What is your opinion on this? You are usually very pragmatic and a little pessimistic about whether the FCC will really enact anything to protect consumers. Do you think this will actually have a backbone behind it, or is it just political posturing in the guise of consumer interests?
I'd have to wait for the actual rules to fully chime in. I will say AT&T and Verizon are still very much in the driver's seat when it comes to both parties of this government, and anybody really expecting tough, pro-consumer rules will be disappointed. I'd expect fairly weak guidelines that do give the FCC a little more legal power for blatant instances of ISP shenanigans (cutting off a competing VoIP carrier), but I think the real push, driven by lobbyists, will be about pre-empting tougher Congressional laws while using "transparency" to help push the idea of metered billing on consumers.
reply
mixmasta @ 21st Sep 12:28PM:
This will usher in a new era of usage caps

I am all for net neutrality. But this will only embolden ISPs and wireless phone companies to create new and smaller usage caps to prevent file traders from overwhelming their networks. It is also the perfect excuse to raise/add fees to squeeze extra dollars out of customers. This will be the next big fight. ISP's trying to one up each other on who offers the higher usage cap until we eventually go back to truly unlimited broadband usage circa 10 years ago. Any smart ISP or wireless phone provider should be looking for ways to massively increase their available bandwidth right now.
reply
S_engineer @ 21st Sep 12:36PM:
Re: Karl?

let put on an addendum karl; any pro consumer aspects put forth by the FCC will end up being litigated far past this administrations shelf-life in hopes of a new more "business friendly" administration.
What he should do is outsource this policy framework to network engineers rather than attorneys!
--
BF69~~~Please stop suffocating gerbils!

reply
MyDogHsFleas @ 21st Sep 12:39PM:
Re: This will usher in a new era of usage caps

said by mixmasta :

I am all for net neutrality. But this will only embolden ISPs and wireless phone companies to create new and smaller usage caps to prevent file traders from overwhelming their networks. It is also the perfect excuse to raise/add fees to squeeze extra dollars out of customers. This will be the next big fight. ISP's trying to one up each other on who offers the higher usage cap until we eventually go back to truly unlimited broadband usage circa 10 years ago. Any smart ISP or wireless phone provider should be looking for ways to massively increase their available bandwidth right now.
This sounds about right.

IMO this is a rational response to the proposed regulations. If the ISPs are not free to formulate their own, competing offerings to their perceived markets, but instead are regulated into providing only "approved" offerings, they will have to cap everyone, and all the ISPs will start looking the same. Innovative offerings go bye-bye.

This is a case of "be careful what you wish for". Unintended consequences almost always happen when well-intended laws turn into cumbersome, over-bearing regulatory processes.
reply
openbox9 @ 21st Sep 01:07PM:
Re: Karl?

said by S_engineer :

What he should do is outsource this policy framework to network engineers rather than attorneys!
That would only serve to make the lawyers' jobs extremely easy after any rule enactment. Let the engineers do what they do best....engineer. They very well should have a voice in the matter, but they shouldn't be responsible for drafting policy.
reply
Matt @ 21st Sep 01:20PM:
Re: Karl?

said by openbox9 :

said by S_engineer :

What he should do is outsource this policy framework to network engineers rather than attorneys!
That would only serve to make the lawyers' jobs extremely easy after any rule enactment. Let the engineers do what they do best....engineer. They very well should have a voice in the matter, but they shouldn't be responsible for drafting policy.
How about we compromise? Let the engineers write the rules, but let the lawyers add their legalese?
reply
openbox9 @ 21st Sep 01:30PM:
Re: Karl?

That's kind of what I wrote. The engineers get a technical voice, but the lawyers make the rules legally defensible.
reply
beaups @ 21st Sep 01:31PM:
Re: This will usher in a new era of usage caps

This is productive. Start predicting and bitching about the outcome....well before the process even starts.
reply
Karl Bode @ 21st Sep 01:43PM:
Re: Karl?

Originally, the FCC was a mish mash of great thinkers, great engineers, lawyers, Doctors and just SMART, ACCOMPLISHED PEOPLE. Now it's solely lobbyists and lawyers stopping by on their way between think tank or K-Street employment.
reply
Karl Bode @ 21st Sep 01:44PM:
Re: This will usher in a new era of usage caps

Well, history does repeat itself, and if you've been paying attention to this sector, it's not too hard to predict trajectory...
reply
openbox9 @ 21st Sep 01:46PM:
Re: Karl?

I know the history, and I'm not disputing it. I support a good "mish mash" of thinkers, engineers, lawyers, PhD types, and "smart, accomplished people". As I'm sure you're well cognizant of, we most likely won't see that again as long as politics reign and money talks.
reply
Karl Bode @ 21st Sep 01:47PM:
Re: Karl?

You are correct sir! Other reforms need to happen first.
reply
w0g @ 21st Sep 02:06PM:
no one owns the internet

The internet is an public massive web of connected PCs and networks, and no one should have the right to limit or block someone elses traffic. This isn't a private network owned by some company where they can pick and choose and manage in precise detail. If they want to be apart of the Internet as we know it, all traffic should be equal and allowed and no ISP should be able to limit, block, modify, etc anything that is being sent over it. If they want to do that then they can create their own private network, that's not what the internet is.
reply
mixmasta @ 21st Sep 02:07PM:
Re: This will usher in a new era of usage caps

I think new metered billing is worth bitching about.
reply
tubbynet @ 21st Sep 02:18PM:
Re: Karl?

said by Karl Bode :

You are correct sir! Other reforms need to happen first.
mandatory chlorine in the gene pool?

:D

q.
--
"...if I in my north room dance naked, grotesquely before my mirror waving my shirt round my head and singing softly to myself..."

reply
tubbynet @ 21st Sep 02:23PM:
Re: no one owns the internet

said by w0g :

The internet is an public massive web of connected PCs and networks, and no one should have the right to limit or block someone elses traffic. This isn't a private network owned by some company where they can pick and choose and manage in precise detail.
the issue is, how are those pc's all interconnected? by interconnecting a series of private networks. i connect via cox cable. they own that network by either performing a buildout of plant or by purchasing smaller providers and incorporating the plant into the overall infrastructure.
these private isps feel they should be able to manage traffic in a reasonable way because they are responsible for maintaining the overall quality of service to the rest of their users. and, since they own the network, they feel they can do what they need to do.

this is the main point of contention between pro-consumer advocates and pro-business advocates. the pc crowd wants everything transparent, unrestricted, and uncapped, while the pb crowd wants to make sure that they aren't having to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars because a few select people in the regional market are saturating a few pieces of backhaul or hardware. its a delicate balancing act, which is why there is such a heated debate.

q.
--
"...if I in my north room dance naked, grotesquely before my mirror waving my shirt round my head and singing softly to myself..."

reply
RARPSL @ 21st Sep 02:39PM:
Re: no one owns the internet

said by w0g :

The internet is an public massive web of connected PCs and networks, and no one should have the right to limit or block someone elses traffic. This isn't a private network owned by some company where they can pick and choose and manage in precise detail. If they want to be apart of the Internet as we know it, all traffic should be equal and allowed and no ISP should be able to limit, block, modify, etc anything that is being sent over it. If they want to do that then they can create their own private network, that's not what the internet is.
The problem is that they regard the "Last Mile" part (ie: The path being covered from the user until there is a connection to a peering point) as their own private network. Thus they feel that they have already done so and can thus control what flows over their network on its way to/from the Internet (ie: to/from a peering point with the Internet Backbone and other ISP's Networks). IOW: They want to treat their network as a gateway to other networks via the Internet not as a dumb transport for Internet Traffic.
reply
viperlmw @ 21st Sep 02:39PM:
Re: Repub FCC commissioners have not commented yet

said by TKJunkMail :

I find it interesting that the 2 Dem FCC commissioners gave a big back slap to Genachowski in their statements. But the 2 Repub commissioners haven't commented yet. It seems to indicate they don't agree.
YOU LIE!!!
reply
w0g @ 21st Sep 02:41PM:
Re: no one owns the internet

I have no problem with ISPs adjusting the price and services they provide to their customers, and that's what everything you said really is about. If an ISP wants to limit services and traffic in some other way, or prefer their own traffic or content over someone elses, they should disconnect from the internet and make their network private. The internet is inheritly open, undistriminated, and that's just part of the game if you want to be connected.
reply
TKJunkMail @ 21st Sep 02:43PM:
Re: Repub FCC commissioners have not commented yet

said by viperlmw :

said by TKJunkMail :

I find it interesting that the 2 Dem FCC commissioners gave a big back slap to Genachowski in their statements. But the 2 Repub commissioners haven't commented yet. It seems to indicate they don't agree.
YOU LIE!!!
I am not sure if you are being sarcastic or if you find something inaccurate with what I said? Care to elaborate?
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page



reply
huntml @ 21st Sep 02:52PM:
Re: This will usher in a new era of usage caps

We've had a decade now of near deregulation in this area. Where are these 'innovative offerings' of which you speak?
reply
nevtxjustin @ 21st Sep 02:58PM:
Looking at the old "policy"

"protecting the consumer's right to access the lawful Internet content, applications, and services of their choice."

Consumer's RIGHT? I don't recall unrestricted connection to the internet as a Constitutional right.

No problem...I can set up a $200 per month tier for anyone that wants that kind of connectivity, or have in my contract/TOS what MY rules are. If you don't like MY rules, don't use MY service.

"It also suggests that consumers should have the right to attach any non-harmful devices to the network they see fit."

As the consumer sees fit? Non-harmful?

Since when does the clueless consumer have the right to determine what is and isn't fit to connect to my wireless network?

If I have a 802.11n network, a consumer can connect to it with a 802.11b device. Will it cause harm? No, not for the consumer. Will it cause harm to the rest of my 802.11n network and all my other users? Yes. so I suppose I can prohibit that kind of radio as it would be a harmful device.

Let suppose I require a firewall or router behind each CPE (may it be a stand alone router or the CPE's built in router), should I allow a consumer to connected any CPE they want? No, because it would be considered a harmful device.
reply
w0g @ 21st Sep 03:04PM:
Re: Looking at the old "policy"

Do what you want with your network, but if you're selling access to the Internet, you don't own it or have any right to govern it. "Your" network means nothing because you're selling a public service/utility. Feel free to disconnect your network from the Internet and sell it as your own private service and no one would give a crap, restrict it as much as you want, no one would want it anyway.
reply
w0g @ 21st Sep 03:08PM:
Internet should be treated as public utility/service

Full regulation and definition of requirements for someone to sell and market access to it. Shouldn't be any different than power/phone/water.
reply
Matt @ 21st Sep 03:15PM:
Re: Repub FCC commissioners have not commented yet

said by TKJunkMail :

said by viperlmw :

said by TKJunkMail :

I find it interesting that the 2 Dem FCC commissioners gave a big back slap to Genachowski in their statements. But the 2 Repub commissioners haven't commented yet. It seems to indicate they don't agree.
YOU LIE!!!
I am not sure if you are being sarcastic or if you find something inaccurate with what I said? Care to elaborate?
I think he's referring to Joe Wilson. :)
reply
WhyADuck @ 21st Sep 03:35PM:
Re: Looking at the old "policy"

Heh, sounds like a 65-year-old telecom executive. It's the same sort of crap we heard when the FCC gave consumers the right to attach their own telephone devices. Telephone companies acted like it would be the death of the telephone network, but in the end it's been the antiquated policies of the phone companies (that still think they can nickle-and-dime customers to death for "custom calling features") that have caused the decline in landlines, not equipment that consumers have purchased and attached.

What you can't do is sell a bicycle to someone after you've advertised it as an automobile. No one will stop you from selling your restricted-access, customer-unfriendly private network, but if you advertise it as "Internet access" you'll get slapped down hard. Just as you can't call any old mechanical transportation device an automobile, there can and should be certain standards about what can be called "Internet access." If you don't meet those standards, then you get no federal and state subsidies, you don't get carte blanche permission to string your wires or cables across public rights-of-way, and you don't get any other benefit or assistance that might be afforded to a real Internet provider. That's why it's important that we set the bar high for what's considered "Internet Access."

Also, when we say consumer right to such access, of course it's not a constitutional right, but it is a right that can be given by government. Think of it in terms of buying a car - you now have a right to buy a car that gets a certain level of fuel economy that was unheard of in your parents' generation, because government policies have given you that right. Technically it might be an ability rather than a right, but either way, you can obtain something your parents couldn't because government policies forced automakers to offer more fuel-efficient cars. If that was legal, then I see no reason why government can't pass laws and policies that enforce more consumer-friendly Internet access. Yes, you can still build a car in your home auto shop that gets three miles a gallon if you really want to, you just can't use it on the public roads or offer to sell it to anyone else. And you'll still be able to use a slow, locked down network in your home or office if you really want to, but you won't be able to sell it to others as Internet access.
reply
yt @ 21st Sep 03:36PM:
Wireless rules

Rob Topolski asked 2 good questions to Verizon around the aspect of their claims that wireless should be exempt from net-neutrality. The two claims are:

•"Spectrum is shared"
Not a valid argument as all Internet traffic is shared

•"They have areas of unexpected bandwidth because of no fixed endpoints"
Also a fuzzy response. You know when there is going to be a football game or event and bring in portable towers. Wireline networks have similar issues around snow days or general Internet events.

The VZ rep first thanked Rob for all his hard work last year pointing out the issues with VZ's chief competitor (Comcast). Then spun his response around why they should be able to violate the principals far more than Comcast ever did.
reply
dlewis23 @ 21st Sep 03:36PM:
Re: This will usher in a new era of usage caps

said by mixmasta :

I am all for net neutrality. But this will only embolden ISPs and wireless phone companies to create new and smaller usage caps to prevent file traders from overwhelming their networks. It is also the perfect excuse to raise/add fees to squeeze extra dollars out of customers. This will be the next big fight. ISP's trying to one up each other on who offers the higher usage cap until we eventually go back to truly unlimited broadband usage circa 10 years ago. Any smart ISP or wireless phone provider should be looking for ways to massively increase their available bandwidth right now.
Thats exactly what will happen. ISP's will put in bandwidth caps to avoid upgrading there network now, plus nickel and dime people who go over, and stop some "heavy" users.

And they will just change a insanely high rate for extra bandwidth. I pay less then $150 a month for a high end server with 10 TB of bandwidth that is connected to 9 different network providers.
reply
anon @ 21st Sep 03:37PM:
Great speech but is that all it is?

"In view of these challenges and opportunities, and because it is vital that the Internet continue to be an engine of innovation, economic growth, competition and democratic engagement, I believe the FCC must be a smart cop on the beat preserving a free and open Internet."

Smart words coming from an articulate person and I want to believe but if one thing that history has shown us is that history repeats itself and a seemingly unlimited money supply can do anything it wants. If the Bells/Cable providers don't want something they will do whatever is necessary for their benefit (or in their words "the stock holders") and not for the consumer. Julius also makes me a bit nervous being he seems more like a lawyer by looking at his background than being the head of a very technical entity. I can only hope he has the right advisors and not a group of people with an agenda. We will see I guess. Hope for the best plan for the worst.
reply
funchords @ 21st Sep 03:47PM:
Re: no one owns the internet

said by tubbynet :

the pb crowd wants to make sure that they aren't having to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars because a few select people in the regional market are saturating a few pieces of backhaul or hardware.
Except when it isn't. And when the cure doesn't fit the problem.

The FIRST time the AP tried it, Comcast blocked the Holy Bible (4 MB). This wasn't a bandwidth hog, on a multi-night dozens-of-gigabyte feast of bandwidth consumption. It was one small and simple upload: FAIL.

The extension of your message is that the consumer wants it all for no money. The business wants to provide nothing for all of the money. I don't see that as the controversy. This isn't about traffic streams at all, it's about revenue streams.

I see TV and Phone companies seeing the Internet as a threat to their core businesses. What was and still is an add-on service that can be cheaply provided for a premium price threatens to replace the core businesses. The ISPs of tomorrow will have to replace that lost income from TV and Phone -- since TV and phone can be offered over-the-top.

That's a tough problem for them, but the Internet-only user shouldn't be the one forced to solve it.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- District of Columbia -- KJ7RL
Test your Broadband connection today! -- »measurementlab.net/

reply
funchords @ 21st Sep 03:52PM:
Re: Repub FCC commissioners have not commented yet

said by TKJunkMail :

said by viperlmw :

said by TKJunkMail :

I find it interesting that the 2 Dem FCC commissioners gave a big back slap to Genachowski in their statements. But the 2 Repub commissioners haven't commented yet. It seems to indicate they don't agree.
YOU LIE!!!
I am not sure if you are being sarcastic or if you find something inaccurate with what I said? Care to elaborate?
I'm hoping it was a joke based on the Joe Wilson rudeness.

As Julius Genachowski was speaking today, I was smirking to myself how funny it would be if Richard Bennett, George Ou, Brett Glass, or someone of that ilk were to suddenly blurt out, "You Lie!" (None of them were actually in the room, and I kinda doubt two of those three guys would have been so rude as to really do that, but that's still something that kinda crossed my mind.)
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- District of Columbia -- KJ7RL
Test your Broadband connection today! -- »measurementlab.net/

reply
jjeffeory @ 21st Sep 04:46PM:
Re: Karl?

said by Matt :

said by openbox9 :

said by S_engineer :

What he should do is outsource this policy framework to network engineers rather than attorneys!
That would only serve to make the lawyers' jobs extremely easy after any rule enactment. Let the engineers do what they do best....engineer. They very well should have a voice in the matter, but they shouldn't be responsible for drafting policy.
How about we compromise? Let the engineers write the rules, but let the lawyers add their legalese?
Bingo! This is the way to go!
reply
jjeffeory @ 21st Sep 04:46PM:
Re: Karl?

said by openbox9 :

That's kind of what I wrote. The engineers get a technical voice, but the lawyers make the rules legally defensible.
Not the way I read it here... I got more of a "everything's fine, please move along.... Nothing to see" vibe from what you said...
reply
nevtxjustin @ 21st Sep 04:50PM:
Re: Looking at the old "policy"

Obviously you guys don't run an ISP. If it costs me $600 for a T1 and if a single user wants full access to that T1, then I can't support any other customers.

Ahhh...but you say I should buy more T1 lines...sorry, that would not leave me with any profit and then NO ONE would have service.

Sure I can give a customer full access to a T1, but it will cost them $800 per month for the T1 and dedicated circuit for him off my network.

You guys just don't get it. Back haul bandwidth costs money.

The argument about customers attaching their own phone is not a comparison. A phone is a phone. If I have a proprietary Motorola Canopy system, am I supposed to support a common 802.11g secondary network for those that want to use their own radio?

Its MY network...If you want to use MY network to access the internet, you play by MY rules for find another provider.

Our wireless network is designed for a 2,000 Kbps internet speed. This is 100 times faster than a rural dial-up connection. In other words, checking your Yahoo email or reading a CNN web page should take less than a few seconds to load, compared to three minutes using a dial-up line.

Our network is optimized for essential internet use such as:

Educational research
News, weather, and sports
Banking and paying bills
Health and medical care
Public and government services
On-line price comparing and purchasing
Consumer information
Email and instant messaging

We are an essential services provider, not an entertainment or telephone company. Therefore our network may not be suitable and perhaps speed limited or even blocked for bandwidth consuming use such as:

Television programs - Hulu, Slingbox, UpstreamTV, XBox
On-line movies - DirectTV on Demand, Netflix
Peer-to-peer file sharing - BitTorrent, µTorrent, Limewire, Kazaa
Internet telephone calls - Vonage, Skype
Streaming video - webcams, YouTube
Virtual storage and backup - Mozy
Online games

If you have need for these services, we strongly recommend you look for another internet provider.

We have a Fair Access Policy (FAP) in place. If a user's bandwidth consuming use severely impacts other users, we may limit that user's service until use is moderated.

reply
nevtxjustin @ 21st Sep 04:52PM:
Re: Looking at the old "policy"

An ISP is not a recognized "public service/utility" as far as a state franchise or regulatory body is concerned. Its WISP is a private enterprise, not a regulated TV cable or telco service.
reply
openbox9 @ 21st Sep 05:51PM:
Re: Karl?

I left out the part about ensuring the lawyers make rules defensible, but I stated that the engineers should definitely have a voice. How did you discern "everything is fine here, nothing to see"?
said by openbox9 :

They very well should have a voice in the matter, but they shouldn't be responsible for drafting policy.

reply
TKJunkMail @ 21st Sep 06:00PM:
Re: Repub FCC commissioners have not commented yet

said by TKJunkMail :

But as shown in this news story, the FCC will get plenty of opposition from industry and from some in Congress. I'd bet that the wireless companies will lobby hardest against this.
Senate Republicans move to block FCC "open internet" rules with amendment to an appropriations bill:

»www.eweek.com/c/a/Government-IT/···-438469/
Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison introduced an amendment that would deny the FCC any funds for developing or implementing new Internet regulations.

Co-sponsoring the amendment were Republican Sens. John Ensign, Sam Brownback, David Vitter, Jim DeMint and John Thune.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page


reply
nevtxjustin @ 21st Sep 06:08PM:
Re: Internet should be treated as public utility/service

said by w0g :

Full regulation and definition of requirements for someone to sell and market access to it. Shouldn't be any different than power/phone/water.
No problem, I'll start charging you my full T1 cost plus network overhead costs. That will be $800 per month please.
reply
funchords @ 21st Sep 07:07PM:
Re: Repub FCC commissioners have not commented yet

said by TKJunkMail :

Senate Republicans move to block FCC "open internet" rules with amendment to an appropriations bill:

»www.eweek.com/c/a/Government-IT/···-438469/
Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison introduced an amendment that would deny the FCC any funds for developing or implementing new Internet regulations.

Co-sponsoring the amendment were Republican Sens. John Ensign, Sam Brownback, David Vitter, Jim DeMint and John Thune.
A minority-proposed amendment doesn't mean much. It's sure getting a lot of press, though.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- District of Columbia -- KJ7RL
Test your Broadband connection today! -- »measurementlab.net/

reply
TKJunkMail @ 21st Sep 07:28PM:
2 Repub FCC commissioners put out joint statement

Mostly they don't like it, but say the FCC should go forward SLOWLY and not just rubber stamp what Genachowski wants. And at the end they say the FCC is hypocritical when they admit the "4 principles" were unenforceable, but are nonetheless defending them in court against Comcast.

»hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/a···74A1.pdf
Curiously, today’s speech appears to admit that the Commission did not have enforceable rules
at the time of last year’s Comcast/BitTorrent decision while the Commission simultaneously files
its appellate brief defending that decision.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page


reply
jchambers28 @ 21st Sep 07:54PM:
network neutrality

I hope it goes threw and starts to punish companies for throttling and capping and charging overages for internet use. The FCC should put their foot up these types of company's ass .
reply
JKM @ 21st Sep 08:56PM:
Re: no one owns the internet

All ISPs purchase their Internet bandwidth. They then resell it as a service on their infrastructure. What part of free enterprise do you not understand? Bandwidth costs many small ISPs $300.00 per MB, per month. When they are using 50MB per month they pay only $100.00 per MB, per month. Seldom do they pay less that $30-40.00 per MB, per month.

The real problem is not most of the ISPs. It is the lack of availability of competitively priced bandwidth. IMHO the real problem is the Middle Mile Infrastructure is far behind the Last Mile technology and ambitions. If they would get the bandwidth to the Last Mile Infrastructure, competition would fix the problem.

If a company selling you Internet service isn't profitable, they go out of business. How would you like to have to look for a provider two or three times a year because yours went out of business, due to bandwidth hogs. Or better yet, how would you like to buy your bandwidth from the wholesalers for say $1800.00 a month for a 18 Mb pipe because there is no ISP in your area.

Let's put the problem in the proper perspective. We have a small percentage of users who would use the majority of bandwidth if allowed. Middle Mile wholesale bandwidth is severely limited by the technology serving it. In order to stay in business and meet the needs of all customers, limits must be set until unlimited bandwidth is available at the wholesale level.
--
Begin with the end in mind!

reply
JKM @ 21st Sep 09:07PM:
The Real Problem

All ISPs purchase their Internet bandwidth. They then resell it as a service on their infrastructure. What part of free enterprise do you not understand? Bandwidth costs many small ISPs $300.00 per MB, per month. When they are using 50MB per month they pay only $100.00 per MB, per month. Seldom do they pay less that $30-40.00 per MB, per month.

The real problem is not most of the ISPs. It is the lack of availability of competitively priced bandwidth. IMHO the real problem is the Middle Mile Infrastructure is far behind the Last Mile technology and ambitions. If they would get the bandwidth to the Last Mile Infrastructure, competition would fix the problem.

If a company selling you Internet service isn't profitable, they go out of business. How would you like to have to look for a provider two or three times a year because yours went out of business, due to bandwidth hogs. Or better yet, how would you like to buy your bandwidth from the wholesalers for say $1800.00 a month for a 18 Mb pipe because there is no ISP in your area.

Let's put the problem in the proper perspective. We have a small percentage of users who would use the majority of bandwidth if allowed. Middle Mile wholesale bandwidth is severely limited by the technology serving it. In order to stay in business and meet the needs of all customers, limits must be set until unlimited bandwidth is available at the wholesale level.
--
Begin with the end in mind!

EDIT: Neutrality and bandwidth usage are in no way related.
reply
superdog @ 21st Sep 09:08PM:
Re: Internet should be treated as public utility/service

said by w0g :

Full regulation and definition of requirements for someone to sell and market access to it. Shouldn't be any different than power/phone/water.
Hogwash!. I also own and operate an ISP. I spent MY money, blood sweat and tears to build and operate it. Who in the hell is anyone to tell me that if I sell something and I am up front about how it operates and what it does, that I can't do that.

Once again, Its mine, I own it and I will do what I want with it. In most cases, without my service (WISP), there would be nothing but dialup for 45% of my customers. My TOS does not even permit P2P of any type. My customers know this up front, BEFORE they use my service. I couldn't afford to operate if I were to let bandwidth intense programs run wild because of the costs.

As another WISP owner already mentioned, there is no way any ISP could operate by paying $600 to $800 a month for a T1 and then give it all to 1 user for $40 measly bucks a month. I am NOT a charity and I don't owe anyone anything.

You could use your argument on the telephone systems in the USA because our tax dollars over the years have paid for it. None of your tax money ever built even 1 mile of any cable operators network, nor did it build any of mine, therefore, I will do what I want, when I want and if they try and regulate me, I will close and a LOT of people will be back on dialup in short order.

Just so you understand, I do agree with an open internet to some extent. As a small provider, I try to be fair to everyone on my network. I don't care what VOIP app. you run or any other type of "Normal" activity. What I do care about is complete fairness when it comes to accessing the bandwidth I have.

If I would allow P2P apps. like Bittorrent, LImewire etc. to run, 2% of my users would hog all of the bandwidth. How in the heck is that fair to my other users?????

I could hear the phone call now: "I'm Sorry Mrs. Smith that your internet is crawling tonight, but little Johnny down the street is updating his World of Warcraft game with a few Gig worth of patches and since the CO that makes the game is to cheap to buy dedicated bandwidth so that he can stream it from one source and only use his own allocated bandwidth, he is using Bittorrent and opening up 1000 separate connections to his single computer. It should be done in a few hours though, so just go knit a sweater until he is finished, and then things should go back to normal. Have a nice night Mam!"

If we want to talk about fairness, lets talk about Blizzard and a few other CO's that have decided to go "Cheap" and distribute their money making ventures over a P2P network rather than buying their own bandwidth. That kind of crap really pisses me off.

Anyway, its just not as easy as it seems to get that internet connection to your PC, and the day anyone tells me that I have to give it away or stop blocking certain programs, I will do 1 of 2 things, either close up or charge each user based on usage and get back from the hogs that take. If I can't do that, then back to step one, CLOSE. :D
--
»www.wavecrazy.net

reply
SuperWISP @ 21st Sep 09:16PM:
Re: Repub FCC commissioners have not commented yet

Robb, I knew I could count on you to think of me. How sweet.

Let's just say, discreetly, in Swiftian terms, that the Chairman said some things that were not so.

And probably without realizing that they were not so. I hope to visit with him and his staff to correct these things, which were doubtless told to him and his staff by mendacious DC lobbyists such as yourself and the groups for which you work.

Which are, in turn, all funded by Google.
reply
SuperWISP @ 21st Sep 09:44PM:
Re: Karl?

said by Karl Bode :

Originally, the FCC was a mish mash of great thinkers, great engineers, lawyers, Doctors and just SMART, ACCOMPLISHED PEOPLE. Now it's solely lobbyists and lawyers stopping by on their way between think tank or K-Street employment.
And that's why it's proposing to regulate the Internet. Google spends a lot of money on K Street nowadays, and some folks seem to want to cash in.
reply
SuperWISP @ 21st Sep 09:48PM:
Re: no one owns the internet

said by w0g :

The internet is an public massive web of connected PCs and networks,
...all of which are privately owned, controlled, and administered. The Internet was designed so that these devices and networks could be interconnected but still remain under their owners' control. In short, it was specifically designed so that NASA (for example) could have and enforce different acceptable use policies on its network than Stanford University or Sun Microsystems (to name three institutions which were on the original ARPANet/Internet).

In other words, your assertion that "no one owns the Internet" is not correct. Anyone who owns a computer or network that participates in it owns a part of it, and gets to administer that part as he or she sees fit. This is the original social contract of the Internet.
reply
patcat88 @ 21st Sep 09:49PM:
Re: Internet should be treated as public utility/service

Why don't you get something cheaper than a rip off T1 from the ILEC? Why not go with a regional fiber metro ethernet provider that has their own fiber for $2K-3K per mo for 10mbps? Or use P2P microwave to a POP?
reply
SuperWISP @ 21st Sep 09:52PM:
Re: no one owns the internet

Ironically, the fact that Comcast delayed (it didn't block it altogether) a BitTorrent upload of the King James Bible merely shows that it was not censoring content. Which is good. Rather, it was preventing abuse of its network by BitTorrent. Which is also good.
reply
petecarlson @ 21st Sep 10:10PM:
Re: Looking at the old "policy"

said by nevtxjustin :

"protecting the consumer's right to access the lawful Internet content, applications, and services of their choice."

Consumer's RIGHT? I don't recall unrestricted connection to the internet as a Constitutional right.
Your attempting to argue that the only rights one has are the rights granted in the Constitution and amendments. A tall order that that falls on it's face. This is the crux of network neutrality and I would love to debate it but how is one supposed to debate such a childish rebuttal?
said by nevtxjustin :

No problem...I can set up a $200 per month tier for anyone that wants that kind of connectivity, or have in my contract/TOS what MY rules are. If you don't like MY rules, don't use MY service.
If it costs $200 to provide said service then so be it but as a fellow WISP operator I know you are full of it. Limit bandwidth and cap traffic till you get to a profitable price point but do it in a network neutral manner. We can't pretend that we are the gods of the internet.
said by nevtxjustin :

"It also suggests that consumers should have the right to attach any non-harmful devices to the network they see fit."

As the consumer sees fit? Non-harmful?

Since when does the clueless consumer have the right to determine what is and isn't fit to connect to my wireless network?

If I have a 802.11n network, a consumer can connect to it with a 802.11b device. Will it cause harm? No, not for the consumer. Will it cause harm to the rest of my 802.11n network and all my other users? Yes. so I suppose I can prohibit that kind of radio as it would be a harmful device.
Absofrickenlutly. Easy to do to. No one says you can't run N, even if you want to throw airmax in the mix. You could even refuse associations below/above X dbi or modulation rate as these things could cause real harm.
said by nevtxjustin :

Let suppose I require a firewall or router behind each CPE (may it be a stand alone router or the CPE's built in router), should I allow a consumer to connected any CPE they want? No, because it would be considered a harmful device.
Your going to have to explain this one to me. Now I understand why you do this, I do the same thing for the most part, but it is the harmful actions that you need to ban and not the act of hooking my Ubuntu box directly to my cpe.
reply
JKM @ 21st Sep 10:20PM:
Re: Internet should be treated as public utility/service

I have 2 fiber providers near me. One 7 miles and one 19 miles. Cost of bandwidth is about $300.00 per MB per month from either. Then there's the $350.00 per month tower lease for the PTP link. Figure it out, that's $416.67 monthly per MB for 3 MB. As I keep preaching, the real problem is the last mile technology is far ahead of the middle mile technology, bandwidth availability and fair pricing.
--
Begin with the end in mind!

reply
petecarlson @ 21st Sep 10:24PM:
Re: Looking at the old "policy"

said by nevtxjustin :


Our network is optimized for essential internet use such as:
...
We are an essential services provider, not an entertainment or telephone company. Therefore our network may not be suitable and perhaps speed limited or even blocked for bandwidth consuming use such as:
...
I think this is wrong because it makes you the arbitrator of good, bad, needed, not needed.

Think about what you are trying to accomplish and work back from there. We have X mb to share in a fair way. An easy way to do this is by setting a low cir with a much higher burst and small burst bucket. You could even set bucket size based on average usage so that someone who didn't download all day would have a larger bucket then someone who did. There are hundreds of ways to slice it but as soon as you start playing god of the internet, even when its your internet, your bound to start making bad decisions. Think of yourself as the government and then provide systems for the people to regulate themselves with as little regulation as possible.
reply
petecarlson @ 21st Sep 10:33PM:
Re: This will usher in a new era of usage caps

said by huntml :

We've had a decade now of near deregulation in this area. Where are these 'innovative offerings' of which you speak?
Didn't you see the recent 'innovative offerings' from Comcast? Offer amazing speeds and then spoof rst packets to keep usage down. That's innovative as hell. Should be illegal but its absolutely innovative.
reply
petecarlson @ 21st Sep 10:37PM:
Re: This will usher in a new era of usage caps

I'm all for a good flame war but what's with all the gas?
reply
petecarlson @ 21st Sep 10:41PM:
Re: This will usher in a new era of usage caps

said by dlewis23 :

I pay less then $150 a month for a high end server with 10 TB of bandwidth that is connected to 9 different network providers.
Does this have anything to do with anything? Relevance?
reply
petecarlson @ 21st Sep 10:45PM:
Re: network neutrality

It has nothing to do with throttling, capping, or charging overages for internet use as these things are, for the most part, network neutral. Want dedicated bandwidth? Pay for it. Think your provider is abusing monopoly power and their right of way? Complain about that and I might just back you up.
reply
pandora @ 21st Sep 10:51PM:
Re: This will usher in a new era of usage caps

said by huntml :

We've had a decade now of near deregulation in this area. Where are these 'innovative offerings' of which you speak?
WOW and its ilk, PS3, Xbox 360, IP TV, VOIP, Skype video. Look around. :)
--
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use."

reply
petecarlson @ 21st Sep 10:53PM:
Re: no one owns the internet

said by SuperWISP :

Ironically, the fact that Comcast delayed (it didn't block it altogether) a BitTorrent upload of ...
This is such BS. If I didn't know better I would think you were a mouth for Comcast. You have to know that Comcast was playing man in the middle and spoofing rst packets on a connection. I don't give a damn what is being transfered, you don't break the internet that way. This is fraudulently pretending to be someone else on the internet and it should absolutely be illegal. Everyone at Comcast who had anything to do with this should be ashamed of themselves and you should be ashamed of yourself for defending it.
reply
petecarlson @ 21st Sep 10:59PM:
Re: no one owns the internet

said by w0g :

The internet is an public massive web of connected PCs and networks, and no one should have the right to limit or block someone elses traffic.
I think you need some modifiers here.
Can I limit a connection to the throughput they are paying for?
Can I block UCE?
Can I block traffic to/from you after you move more then an agreed upon limit?

I think your post is ill thought out and deserves to be ripped apart. You are providing an easy target and I implore you to think about what you are writing.
reply
patcat88 @ 21st Sep 11:02PM:
Re: Internet should be treated as public utility/service

said by JKM :

I have 2 fiber providers near me. One 7 miles and one 19 miles. Cost of bandwidth is about $300.00 per MB per month from either.
I assume you mean mbitps per month?

Is $300/mbitps/mo with internet access or is that loop, and does it include free construction or not? What about faster links than 10mbitps or long term contract pricing? Why not get P2P metro ethernet to some place with cheap or spare bandwidth (colo center or office building, with a hosting company willing to oversubscribe their gigabit link)? Cogent is only $10/mbps/mo on network, although Cogent is on the cheapish end. What about the local cable company and their business division or they don't serve ISPs?
reply
SuperWISP @ 21st Sep 11:28PM:
Re: Repub FCC commissioners have not commented yet

said by funchords :

A minority-proposed amendment doesn't mean much. It's sure getting a lot of press, though.
That's because they're right. Congress just recently reprimanded the FCC and insisted that it not be a loose cannon. Yet, today, the new Chairman -- while claiming that the new FCC would be data-driven and would not jump to conclusions -- stated without investigation several false conclusions (e.g. that there was no competition among providers) as the basis for a drive to regulate the Internet.

What's more, while the Chairman claims in his speech that there will be a public, open process, the proposed rules are being drafted behind closed doors, without public input or even the input of all of the Commissioners.

Since the FCC's powers are delegated by Congress, it has every right to stop such a farce before it gets going.
reply
solstice @ 22nd Sep 12:23AM:
Yay Julius!

It's time that the FCC acted like it had a backbone. The cell providers are a useful next target. I wrote a blog post about the cell companies' monopoly practices in text messaging, in light of google voice here:

»matthaber.com/b2evolution/blog5.···-texting
(warning--naked people on blog too)
reply
nevtxjustin @ 22nd Sep 12:24AM:
Re: network neutrality

said by jchambers28 :

I hope it goes threw and starts to punish companies for throttling and capping and charging overages for internet use.
I simply cannot understand your twisted logic.

* I am an ISP.
* I have to buy my bandwidth from a higher tier provider.
* You want me to give you all the bandwidth you want and want ME to pay for it.

Perhaps a simple analogy. I am a gas station owner and I buy gas in bulk from a fuel distributor. Now just because I sell gas, you want me to give you all the gas you want, even if it means I have to pay for it out of my own pocket.

It cost me...yes, I have to PAY for the bandwidth my customers use. I cap them at 30 GB per month, its in my contract. If you exceed 2 GB per 24-hours, I throttle your connection, its in my contract. If you don't like it, don't sign the contract.
reply
nevtxjustin @ 22nd Sep 12:27AM:
Re: Looking at the old "policy"

said by petecarlson :

I think this is wrong because it makes you the arbitrator of good, bad, needed, not needed.
If you sign up for my service, then you acknowledge that I have the final say. Don't like, don't sign the contract. Simple as that.
reply
nevtxjustin @ 22nd Sep 12:39AM:
Re: Looking at the old "policy"

said by petecarlson :

the crux of network neutrality
To me, network neutrality means I don't block a competitive service, i.e. if I had my own VoIP servcie, then I should not block Vonage or Skype. This is a not network neutrality issue, its an unfair commerce issue that is addressed by other existing laws already in place.

I block ALL PtP traffic, therefore I am practicing network neutrality. In other words, I give no preference to any particular PtP service. *THAT* is the crux of network neutrality.

said by petecarlson :

Your going to have to explain this one to me. Now I understand why you do this, I do the same thing for the most part, but it is the harmful actions that you need to ban and not the act of hooking my Ubuntu box directly to my cpe.
For me, it would not be your CPE, its still mine. I don't care what you connect to the LAN side of my routed CPE.
reply
SuperWISP @ 22nd Sep 12:54AM:
Re: no one owns the internet

said by petecarlson :

You have to know that Comcast was playing man in the middle
It wasn't playing. The ISP is the man in the middle. And one of its most important responsibilities in that role is to prevent abuse of the network. That's just what it was doing: stopping abuse. Every customer should be glad that this is done, because it ensures quality of service.
reply
iansltx @ 22nd Sep 01:09AM:
Re: Internet should be treated as public utility/service

Hmm, sounds like people will just get T1s then...
reply
iansltx @ 22nd Sep 01:14AM:
Re: Internet should be treated as public utility/service

If I recall correctly superdog just switched to a cheap Tier 3 with $65 per Mbit bandwidth, if not less.

I've been quoted $30ish per Mbit on a 100Mbit commit in my hometown.

If you had access to $30 per Mbit bandwidth ould you sell unmetered, unlimited, unthrottled connections at 1 Mbit for $45?

The T1 comparison is absolute hogwash if you're not using a T1 for your own pipe. If you are then fair's fair, however don't defend companies that have their own national backbones and have effectively zero marginal cost for 1GB of traffic.
reply
viperlmw @ 22nd Sep 01:16AM:
Re: Repub FCC commissioners have not commented yet

said by funchords :

I'm hoping it was a joke based on the Joe Wilson rudeness.
I really thought he would get that.
reply
iansltx @ 22nd Sep 01:20AM:
Re: The Real Problem

So you're saying that if you had $30 per Mbit bandwidth you'd offer unlimited packages with no disallowed legal activities? Just asking.

Or, put another way, if two people had local traffic on your network, would you care how much bandwidth it took?

Or, put another way, would you allow for unlimited usage if you stated that the top 1% of users paid $X more per month than everyone else? Is the $X clearly stated and if so is it less than the customer could do on their own (by buying a T1)?

Comcast has a non-metered package. Starts at $60 around here. $90 gets you 22/5 unmetered. Granted, that's wireline but still...

Time Warner Cable also has a business class product that wasn't among the bunch to get metered awhile back in Beaumont. Starts at $100.

Don't disallow high usage. Just make it profitable, yet better than the competition that you'd have in that arena. If a user can get a $300 T1 you should be able to sell them 750GB worth of bandwidth on a 1.5+ Mbps connection for $250...
reply
iansltx @ 22nd Sep 01:36AM:
Re: no one owns the internet

Or quality of disservice.

Actively killing BitTorrent connections is bad mojo.

Throttling them down to a set number of Mbps/Kbps and clearly stating what that throttle is, I can take. Blocking them altogether, not cool.
reply
iansltx @ 22nd Sep 01:37AM:
Re: Looking at the old "policy"

1. The target isn't you. It's Comcast, TWC, Verizon and AT&T.
2. Careful, you'll get yourself regulated just like a utility.
reply
iansltx @ 22nd Sep 01:40AM:
Re: Looking at the old "policy"

Hmm, online backup isn't an essential service? Tell that to someone who has lost data.

Additionally, let me ask a question that I will continue to repeat: what if your bandwidth at the headend was $30 per Mbit? How about $15? How about $5? Would you then offer unrestricted packages?
reply
iansltx @ 22nd Sep 01:47AM:
Re: Looking at the old "policy"

Actually, some folks think that network neutrality is a bit different. I'm pretty sure I can make P2P look like encrypted video traffic to a packet shaper.

You aren't really talking about network neutrality when saying "I'm not blocking competitors' service." That was lumped in with net neutrality at first but that's more plain anticompetitive practices. You're right in saying that net neutrality isn't about unlimited data access. It's just about a level playing field, the ability to pass ones and zeros from point A to point B without getting cut off based on what those ones and zeros actually are. You can do 'dumb" shaping based on flows, no problem. You can cap traffic. Comcast does both. Cox does the first in practice and the second nominally. no big deal.

But when you don't offer an alternative (either at your own company or someone else's) and/or you kill certain traffic outright, that stifles the progression of internet services.
reply
nevtxjustin @ 22nd Sep 02:27AM:
Re: Looking at the old "policy"

said by iansltx :

Hmm, online backup isn't an essential service? Tell that to someone who has lost data.

Additionally, let me ask a question that I will continue to repeat: what if your bandwidth at the headend was $30 per Mbit? How about $15? How about $5? Would you then offer unrestricted packages?
DVD burners are a lot faster for backups.

Did you mean to say $5 per one *GB* per month. A user can easily burn through 1 GB per day, and that's not counting software downloads and updates. So for 30 GB per month, I'd be paying $150 per month and charging him only $35 per month (or there about). EVEN if I paid only $1 per GB per month all the wile charging him for $35 per month connection, I'd be loosing money.

So no...even if my backhaul cost was $5 per GB per month.

True, P2P can look like anything you or they want, that's why I would put a blanket cap at 30 or 50 GB per month and not care what the traffic really was.
reply
nevtxjustin @ 22nd Sep 02:29AM:
Re: Looking at the old "policy"

Lets take it a step further...isn't QOS for VoIP a form of violating neutrality by giving priority to VoIP and by de facto taking priority from HTTP.
reply
jjeffeory @ 22nd Sep 02:41AM:
Re: Karl?

said by openbox9 :

I left out the part about ensuring the lawyers make rules defensible, but I stated that the engineers should definitely have a voice. How did you discern "everything is fine here, nothing to see"?
said by openbox9 :

They very well should have a voice in the matter, but they shouldn't be responsible for drafting policy.
That's currently how things seem to be drafted, so that's all that I meant. I think the layers and marketing department give more input on these matters than the engineering department. No slam on attorneys and marketing people intended...
reply
jjeffeory @ 22nd Sep 02:44AM:
Re: Internet should be treated as public utility/service

You're not the problem it's the big boys who control the middle.
reply
jjeffeory @ 22nd Sep 02:55AM:
Re: Looking at the old "policy"

said by nevtxjustin :

said by petecarlson :

I think this is wrong because it makes you the arbitrator of good, bad, needed, not needed.
If you sign up for my service, then you acknowledge that I have the final say. Don't like, don't sign the contract. Simple as that.
Hmm, well I guess I don't sign the contract. Simple as that... I understand where you're coming from, but that's not how most of us see the internet working.
reply
jjeffeory @ 22nd Sep 02:57AM:
Re: Internet should be treated as public utility/service

said by iansltx :

however don't defend companies that have their own national backbones and have effectively zero marginal cost for 1GB of traffic.
This...
reply
mdrift @ 22nd Sep 03:00AM:
Re: Karl?

said by openbox9 :

That's kind of what I wrote. The engineers get a technical voice, but the lawyers make the rules legally defensible.
As an Engineer we don't get squat. The Business Suits dictate, so please spare me on letting the Engineers design and implement. The leash is very short.
reply
iansltx @ 22nd Sep 03:13AM:
Re: Looking at the old "policy"

Apparently you misunderstood me.

hat if you could get a 100 Mbit connection for $3k? How about $1500? How about $500? How would that change your business model?

As for DVD burnes being faster for backups, how far do you think DVDs are from the computer being backed up? Offsite anyone?
reply
iansltx @ 22nd Sep 03:16AM:
Re: Looking at the old "policy"

That falls under reasonable network management. It's not really VoIP that gets priority in that case, so much as flow-based priority to realtime applications. That's net-neutral and that works.
reply
mdrift @ 22nd Sep 03:21AM:
Re: This will usher in a new era of usage caps

PS3, XBox, Scrap for being innovation with NET technologies. VOIP, IP TV, SKYPE are applications of technologies designed before GW.
reply
mdrift @ 22nd Sep 03:22AM:
Re: Looking at the old "policy"

said by nevtxjustin :

"protecting the consumer's right to access the lawful Internet content, applications, and services of their choice."

Consumer's RIGHT? I don't recall unrestricted connection to the internet as a Constitutional right.

No problem...I can set up a $200 per month tier for anyone that wants that kind of connectivity, or have in my contract/TOS what MY rules are. If you don't like MY rules, don't use MY service.

"It also suggests that consumers should have the right to attach any non-harmful devices to the network they see fit."

As the consumer sees fit? Non-harmful?

Since when does the clueless consumer have the right to determine what is and isn't fit to connect to my wireless network?

If I have a 802.11n network, a consumer can connect to it with a 802.11b device. Will it cause harm? No, not for the consumer. Will it cause harm to the rest of my 802.11n network and all my other users? Yes. so I suppose I can prohibit that kind of radio as it would be a harmful device.

Let suppose I require a firewall or router behind each CPE (may it be a stand alone router or the CPE's built in router), should I allow a consumer to connected any CPE they want? No, because it would be considered a harmful device.
The US Constitution didn't outlaw slavery, so by not addressing it it somehow condoned it?

The mutable US Constitution beyond the Bill of Rights is designed to expand or contract with the times.
reply
nevtxjustin @ 22nd Sep 03:28AM:
Re: Looking at the old "policy"

said by iansltx :

Apparently you misunderstood me.

hat if you could get a 100 Mbit connection for $3k? How about $1500? How about $500? How would that change your business model?
OK, that makes more sense.

No, it wouldn't because the cheaper the bandwidth, the more customer's I can load out.
reply
openbox9 @ 22nd Sep 05:37AM:
Re: Karl?

This is about the way the FCC "should" function to draft rules and policy, not how it may or may not be operating currently. I have an engineering background too, so I believe I have a decent understanding of how things tend to work.
reply
huntml @ 22nd Sep 07:12AM:
Re: This will usher in a new era of usage caps

And which of these innovations came from an ISP, exactly?
reply
yt @ 22nd Sep 09:24AM:
Re: Internet should be treated as public utility/service

said by iansltx :

...however don't defend companies that have their own national backbones and have effectively zero marginal cost for 1GB of traffic.
Do you have any idea how much capital is required to carry traffic nationally? How about the opex costs for the facilities, power, lambda/optronics for a national backbone all over the US or world wide? You also need to scale that for 40-50% / year traffic growth which is what happens even with slowing customer net-adds.
reply
pandora @ 22nd Sep 09:24AM:
Re: This will usher in a new era of usage caps

said by huntml :

And which of these innovations came from an ISP, exactly?
None, ISP's provide the path, not the function.
--
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use."

reply
petecarlson @ 22nd Sep 09:58AM:
Re: network neutrality

said by nevtxjustin :

It cost me...yes, I have to PAY for the bandwidth my customers use. I cap them at 30 GB per month, its in my contract. If you exceed 2 GB per 24-hours, I throttle your connection, its in my contract. If you don't like it, don't sign the contract.
This is a network neutral method of managing bandwidth. I don't see an issue with it as long as you are not granted a right of way which creates a monopoly in your service area.
reply
superdog @ 22nd Sep 10:05AM:
Re: The Real Problem

said by iansltx :

So you're saying that if you had $30 per Mbit bandwidth you'd offer unlimited packages with no disallowed legal activities? Just asking.
As an ISP owner,I have no interest in defining "legal" activities. What one person considers moral, another may not. If I could offer a wide open internet, I would, and I do in 99% of my customers eyes. I MUST make $$ to stay in business, so unfortunately, P2P use stops that process from happening, so it gets blocked. It isn't that I am for OR against P2P applications and the content it provides. I am just against anything that kills my network and ruins the online experience for all of my normal users.

said by iansltx :

Or, put another way, if two people had local traffic on your network, would you care how much bandwidth it took?
Local traffic for most ISP's isn't an issue, as our networks can (In most cases) deliver a lot more bandwidth than our backbone to the internet provides

said by iansltx :

Or, put another way, would you allow for unlimited usage if you stated that the top 1% of users paid $X more per month than everyone else? Is the $X clearly stated and if so is it less than the customer could do on their own (by buying a T1)?
I will try answering your question like this:

In almost everything in life, there is always someone or something that dominates whatever subject it is related to. There is always a player who scores the most points, the most assists and just basically runs circles around everyone else on the playing field. Is this a good or bad thing?

There is always a person who takes advantage of every "free" situation they find themselves in. Perhaps you have been a victim of this person, as they were ahead of you in the buffet line at a wedding. The DJ announces that the caterer has run out of rolls, so please only take 1 per person, yet you watch this individual stuff 1 in each pocket and one on their plate. They just don't care about anyone else.

SUV's and large pickup trucks consume much more gasoline then a Honda Civic. That's OK though, as the person who is driving the SUV knew this when they bought it. They pay for this though, as they must buy a LOT more gas than the Civic owner. The example is that they are consuming a lot more fuel to do the same thing the Civic owner can do.

I could go on and on with examples of things in life that are fair and not so fair. In some cases, people choose their own demise and they pay for it. In other cases, people take things that are really not theirs and others pay for it. What it all boils down to is what is right?. It seems that answers for this question are hard to find?.

IMHO, if you consume it?, you should pay for it. I don't think that every person should pay all of the time. What I mean is this: I have customers who rarely use any bandwidth at all, and after watching their usage for a few months, I lower their costs to $10 a month, as their habits deserve a lower rate. I also have customers who, after being on my system, I see that their usage habits are above average, so I contact them and then raise their monthly rate slightly (From perhaps $22 a month to $27). I also have users who just CRUSH their connections. I simply call and discuss their situation, after which I then raise their rates accordingly. If they disagree with me on their habits?, I show them a graph of what they consumed for the month. If they still disagree, I simply lower their connection speed to make up the difference and keep things fair for all the others. (They agree to all of these things when signing up. I have them read the TOS right in front of me and then initial every page at the bottom. I do this on purpose so if they have any questions, they can be answered)

said by iansltx :

Don't disallow high usage. Just make it profitable, yet better than the competition that you'd have in that arena. If a user can get a $300 T1 you should be able to sell them 750GB worth of bandwidth on a 1.5+ Mbps connection for $250...
That's the idea behind my last paragraph above. Make $$ but be fair. My costs have been coming down in the last 3 years and I have been passing them on as best I can.
--
»www.wavecrazy.net

reply
petecarlson @ 22nd Sep 10:07AM:
Re: This will usher in a new era of usage caps

said by pandora :

WOW and its ilk, PS3, Xbox 360, IP TV, VOIP, Skype video. Look around. :)
Let me throw a bunch of crap into the debate for people to trip over.

1) PS3
Not the network, not created by an ISP.

2) Xbox 360
Not the network, not created by an ISP.

3) IP TV
Not the network, this is a service, If you threw this out by itself and not with a bunch of other random things, I would take the time to explain why this isn't a valid example of a service providers 'innovative offerings'.

4) Skype video
Not the network, not created by an ISP.

I just don't know what to say, Any defense of your comments or did you just throw out a bunch of words in the hopes of making the debate a little more convoluted?
reply
petecarlson @ 22nd Sep 10:18AM:
Re: no one owns the internet

said by SuperWISP :

said by petecarlson :

You have to know that Comcast was playing man in the middle
It wasn't playing. The ISP is the man in the middle. And one of its most important responsibilities in that role is to prevent abuse of the network. That's just what it was doing: stopping abuse. Every customer should be glad that this is done, because it ensures quality of service.
Absolute crap. One could queue a packet, drop a packet etc but to drop a connection by pretending to be the device on the one end and then telling the other end to shut down the connection? How on earth are you defending this?
reply
pandora @ 22nd Sep 11:05AM:
Re: This will usher in a new era of usage caps

said by petecarlson :

said by pandora :

WOW and its ilk, PS3, Xbox 360, IP TV, VOIP, Skype video. Look around. :)
Let me throw a bunch of crap into the debate for people to trip over.

1) PS3
Not the network, not created by an ISP.

2) Xbox 360
Not the network, not created by an ISP.

3) IP TV
Not the network, this is a service, If you threw this out by itself and not with a bunch of other random things, I would take the time to explain why this isn't a valid example of a service providers 'innovative offerings'.

4) Skype video
Not the network, not created by an ISP.

I just don't know what to say, Any defense of your comments or did you just throw out a bunch of words in the hopes of making the debate a little more convoluted?
Wrong, wrong, wrong.

PS3, network, Xbox 360, network, IPTV, network, Skype video, network, VOIP, network.

It doesn't matter who created it, the question is about ISP's discriminating about applications AND about usage caps.

Clearly IPTV is competition for many ISP's, and if they can't discriminate based on the application, they will invoke usage caps. Comcast has already done this.

For cell phones, customers may win the right to tether, but wireless providers will counter with enforced caps IMO.

Eventually, someone has to pay for bandwidth consumed by new applications.
--
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use."

reply
jchambers28 @ 22nd Sep 11:09AM:
Re: network neutrality

I think the whole capping ant throttling thing is another way to screw over the consumer. The network providers like Laval 3 don't cap or throttle their connections what gives the ISP's that write to do so. The ISP's that CAP and throttle connections are a bunch of GREEDY bastards. Also weir are not talking about gas here were talking about internet use here.
reply
iansltx @ 22nd Sep 11:15AM:
Re: Looking at the old "policy"

Aaaaaaaand there's the problem. You're complaining about expensive bandwidth yet you wouldn't change a thing except add to profits if you had cheap b\w. Thanks a lot.
reply
iansltx @ 22nd Sep 11:18AM:
Re: Internet should be treated as public utility/service

I said marginal cost. Once the infrastructure is in place, you merely have to swap out the lasers at the ends to upgrade capacity. One user's gigabyte of data (or thousand gigabytes of data) is a tiny fraction of the capacity of these backbone links, and thus doesn't really show up on the cost radar.

From what I hear, fiber routes cost $5 per Mbit to keep up. Again, less than a penny per GB. So practically zero. Also, a corollary of Moore's law has to do with bandwidth; equipment will be made on the fiber side to cope with demand.
reply
iansltx @ 22nd Sep 11:22AM:
Re: The Real Problem

Actually, what you're doing sounds absolutely fair. You're tailoring costs to consumption, lowering costs for some users (unheard of for the big guys) while raising costs for others. You're passing on lower bandwidth costs as time goes on as well. I have no quarrel with you.

Now if you were operating a wireline fiber network where bandwidth was 5% or less of your expenses per customer, I'd wonder why speed tiers wouldn't be enough to differentiate unmetered service, but you aren't. So everything sounds 100% legit.
reply
huntml @ 22nd Sep 11:47AM:
Re: This will usher in a new era of usage caps

So then...how would regulating ISPs to ensure that they treat all data types evenhandedly deleteriously affect the ability of application developers to innovate? Connect the dots for me please.
reply
pandora @ 22nd Sep 12:09PM:
Re: This will usher in a new era of usage caps

said by huntml :

So then...how would regulating ISPs to ensure that they treat all data types evenhandedly deleteriously affect the ability of application developers to innovate? Connect the dots for me please.
Treating all types of data evenhandedly, even with caps, will be good for application development. Caps will impose a limit beyond data handling. Net neutrality is a mixed blessing, many ISP's deliver content, and particularly with video media they will impose caps to limit competition IMO.

On devices like cell phones, data prices may go up to cover any loss due to VOIP data services.

People seem to think net neutrality will solve all problems. While helpful, it will IMO introduce or enhance other issues.
--
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use."

reply
yt @ 22nd Sep 03:15PM:
Re: Internet should be treated as public utility/service

said by iansltx :

I said marginal cost. Once the infrastructure is in place, you merely have to swap out the lasers at the ends to upgrade capacity. One user's gigabyte of data (or thousand gigabytes of data) is a tiny fraction of the capacity of these backbone links, and thus doesn't really show up on the cost radar.

From what I hear, fiber routes cost $5 per Mbit to keep up. Again, less than a penny per GB. So practically zero. Also, a corollary of Moore's law has to do with bandwidth; equipment will be made on the fiber side to cope with demand.
You should cite your source as you heard wrong.

The perception of "once a network is in place" is highly inaccurate. While a large scale network does have incremental upgrades every year (which are no where near zero or pennies) , it needs major infrastructure upgrades every few years.

Growing capacity isn't a matter of "swapping out lasers." There are many different components required to bring bandwidth from point A to Z. To properly budget one should not ignore existing spend and only look at one aspect (a laser) they need to look at the loaded costs as eventually each component has to be upgraded to grow capacity needs.

These components are:

•Space and power in each facility (for a US only fiber based backbone figure about 400 or so facilities with amps, regen equipment and routers). This is JUST for the backbone.

•"the lasers" numbers are very large to add another Nx10G or Nx40G to the network all across the entire infrastructure. Also don't forget any regeneration equipment for spans which exceed transponder distances.

•10G Xenpak, Nx10G router cards, Chassis slots multiplied by the number of 10G links to get from point A to Z. Don't forget the redundancy for that link.

Marginal... No. This is actually very, very expensive and only accounts for the backbone costs. You have a similar type of analysis for the regional area networks and the last mile fiber or DOCSIS infrastructure.

You are also talking about "One user's gigabyte of data" and need to multiply that user times multimillions.
reply
iansltx @ 22nd Sep 03:45PM:
Re: Internet should be treated as public utility/service

We're arguing about different things.

I'm saying that the cost per megabit on teh backbone,w hile stll ammking a profit on the backbone service itself, is $5 per Mbit per month. Or about a cent per GB.

Also, I don't need to multiply 1GB by multimillions. We're talking about usage based billing (charging tons extra because you're two drops in the bucket instead of one) not network sizing.

On the last mile, I agree that non-fiber architectures are bnadwidth-starved and relatively expensive to upgrade (okay, DOCSIS 3 is less than $100 per customer, but whatever). However on the backbone there are plenty of companies selling $5 per Mbit and making a profit at it. Therefore costs on the backbone must be lower than $5 per Mbit.

Again, I don't hear backbone providers like XO and Level3 complaining about capacity. They just build more as needed. The fiber is already in the ground. The endpoints just need to be upgraded. Whereas last-mile providers are too cheap to lay down the fiber and thus decrease their upgrade costs from there on out by a large degree.
reply
nevtxjustin @ 22nd Sep 03:53PM:
Re: Looking at the old "policy"

said by iansltx :

you wouldn't change a thing except add to profits if you had cheap b\w.
BINGO! I'm operating a "for profit" business, not a tax supported library free hotspot.

You are certainly free to invest thousands of dollars to get your own backbone connection.
reply
iansltx @ 22nd Sep 04:04PM:
Re: Looking at the old "policy"

Just realize that if you're the only one in your area providing decent service, you might get government-financed, open-network competition. At which point you'll come crying to the WISP boards saying 'It's not fair."

Hmph.
reply
huntml @ 22nd Sep 05:57PM:
Re: This will usher in a new era of usage caps

I actually agree with you. I think, however, that on balance, the trade-off will be pro-consumer.
reply
nevtxjustin @ 22nd Sep 06:36PM:
Re: Looking at the old "policy"

said by iansltx :

government-financed, open-network competition.
= only required to meet minimum requirement for 756 Kbps proposed definition of broadband

= government dictating how you run your business

= requiring additional "family friendly" filtering

= dealing with any customer demanding they use their own CPE that may not be compatible with your AP

= can be only funded for underserved (translation: non-profitable) areas. I don't deploy in non-profitable areas, so its a moot point
reply
iansltx @ 22nd Sep 07:08PM:
Re: Looking at the old "policy"

If you don't give your customers the option for 3 Mbps access, your deployment areas are underserved.
reply
nevtxjustin @ 22nd Sep 08:12PM:
Re: Looking at the old "policy"

said by iansltx :

If you don't give your customers the option for 3 Mbps access, your deployment areas are underserved.
Assuming you mean I would be under serving my customers with less than a 3 Mbps connection...

The typical user (read that as 99%) would hardly notice in the time it took for a CNN web page to load between 3 and 1.5 Mbps.

We spend several hours a day for a week comparing connection speeds using a 10 Mbps internet connection and testing different wireless AP to CPE speeds.

For an identical sized file:
20 Kbps - 4:20 minutes
786 Kbps - 12 seconds
1.5 Mbps - 1 sec
3.0 Mbps - 1 sec

For typical web use, the tripping point was around 1.3 Mbps. Past that speed, there was little, if any, discernible difference ins web page loading time on the CPE side.

At one time, we considered three speed/price points.
We had a 90% uptake for the $19/1.5 Mbps plan. That meant users were driven by price, not speed.
We had a few for the $29/3 Mbps plan.
And a few for the $59/6 Mbps plan that was targeted for users that were will ing to pay extra for a faster speed.

We concluded people were taking advantage of us (to crudely and realistically phrase that), when the infrastructure cost was the same for a higher speed, i.e. CPE cost was the same regardless of what speed they wanted.

We also concluded that the $19 plan that was meant to be an incentive to sign up with us was unwarranted as we were deploying in areas where there was no competition or where the competition was so terrible...the mere presence of our service was an incentive in itself, without having to resort to a lower price offering.

Edited for crucial typographic error in spelling...
reply
iansltx @ 22nd Sep 10:41PM:
Re: Looking at the old "policy"

Sorry for not clarifying. The gov't says that an area is underserved if there's no 3 Mbps terrestrial service available. I'd agree with you that for static content (i.e. not video or downloads) 1.5 Mbps is about the tipping point. However when you get into video stuff you're looking at 3 Mbps-plus.
reply
TKJunkMail @ 23rd Sep 03:27PM:
Update on Senate block of FCC net neutrality initiative

»voices.washingtonpost.com/postte···ith.html
"While we are still generally opposed to net neutrality regulations, we have decided to hold off on the amendment because [FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski] approached us and we are beginning a dialogue," said a staff member on the committee.

An official at the FCC confirmed that Genachowski, who on Monday introduced a proposal for net neutrality rules, called Republican members who criticized his move, saying it could hurt the businesses of network operators. The call was intended to begin a conversation about the proposal that would prevent Internet service providers from blocking Web content and services.

Rebecca Arbogast, head of technology policy research at Stifel Nicholas, had said the move was a standard vehicle for Congress to block what regulatory agencies were trying to achieve in the executive branch or in a regulatory agency.
The Senate Republican's got what they wanted - Genachowski having to listen to them.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page



reply
Matt @ 23rd Sep 03:42PM:
Re: Update on Senate block of FCC net neutrality initiative

I hope they have something to say, or he won't be listening for very long.
reply
yt @ 23rd Sep 10:09PM:
Re: Internet should be treated as public utility/service

said by iansltx :

We're arguing about different things.

I'm saying that the cost per megabit on teh backbone,w hile stll ammking a profit on the backbone service itself, is $5 per Mbit per month. Or about a cent per GB.

On the last mile, I agree that non-fiber architectures are bnadwidth-starved and relatively expensive to upgrade (okay, DOCSIS 3 is less than $100 per customer, but whatever). However on the backbone there are plenty of companies selling $5 per Mbit and making a profit at it. Therefore costs on the backbone must be lower than $5 per Mbit.
First, I am having de ja vu of a previous conversation I had with you on a similar topic where the inaccurate $5 number came up.

Also you cannot mix GB served and Mbps, as networks are not built that way. That said there is correlation between a heavy GB usage and Mbps built to support it. Assuming you are on a 12Mbps plan and networks need to be built for at least a 95-98%ile. A heavy user will normally peak at 12Mbps for over 5% of the month which even with unsustainable $5/Mbps maps to $60 and this doesn't factor in any other costs to run an end to end network.
said by iansltx :

Again, I don't hear backbone providers like XO and Level3 complaining about capacity. They just build more as needed.
I would not use ISP examples of providers that are not profitable. Level3 has bled money since they started and has ridiculous debt. XO had 1 profitable year in the past decade.

said by iansltx :

The fiber is already in the ground. The endpoints just need to be upgraded. Whereas last-mile providers are too cheap to lay down the fiber and thus decrease their upgrade costs from there on out by a large degree.
This is partially correct. The fiber is in the ground, but if you build fiber networks you understand that new equipment has to be added every ~80Km to light new fiber and ever 1000Km to add capacity within lit fiber. Capacity also requires every add/drop city for router capacity, space, power.. but I am repeating myself with fact based data.

Your also incorrect on the last mile issues. While Verizon has done a great job at marketing FTTH, the reality is that fiber is not needed today to serve 99+% of the residential user base needs. Fiber is really only required (with today's technology) when you get well above 100Mbs which very few ask for (except some minority users on this site ;-)
reply
iansltx @ 24th Sep 02:56AM:
Re: Internet should be treated as public utility/service

1. Coaxial plant from what I gather is MUCH more complex than fiber. Copper plant is also more complex than fiber. Therefore from a long-term ROI perspective fiber is better.
2. I can't get more than about 4.5 Mbps over copper to my location without multi-bonded T1s...and Im in town! So there copper is a dead tech.
3. $5 per Mbit is what I'm lifting directly from WebHostingTalk. There are folks over there (Mzima for example) who run their own backbones. Therefore I think they'd have a pretty good idea of costs.
4. If the cost is in megabits per second and not GBs then why are providers capping? Why aren't they either offering "free night and weekend GBs" or throttling people down during peak hours but still offering unlimited bandwidth?
5. If it's so expensive to run a fiber network etc. etc. then why are FiOS users able to get 20/20 for $60 per month with no caps, overages, etc.? Don't tell me "because Verizon is losing money on those customers" because I'm sure the company did the math and saw that the ROI is positive. I can name provider after provider in the US that have fiber networks, decent symmetric speeds, decent pricing and no caps. These providers will never have to dig up their last mile again; that problem is solved.
6. Note that I said "dig up". I'm fully aware that endpoint and midpoint equipment will have to be upgraded, though realistically until you see multiple providers competing fiber vs. fiber GPON will be plenty.
7. I can get Cogent 100 Mbps ethernet, including a Time Warner Cable loop, for $3000 per month for 100 Mbps symmetric...dedicated...to an area that at the time of the quote had no active compettion for the last mile on the fiber side. Put another way, there was no fiber but TWC's. Yet I was able to get $30/Mbps including internet transit. So that's $22 per Mbps between a large city and a small one (pop 10,000 or so). Don't tell me TWC is losing money on this because that's either not true or everyone i the communications business is in the wrong industry and we'll see bandwidth prices skyrocket in the next 30 days as companies go bankrupt. Fat chance.
reply
yt @ 24th Sep 07:36AM:
Re: Internet should be treated as public utility/service

1. Maintenance of a new fiber plant is cheaper than a coax plant, but the cost to build it is very expensive. Verizon started 5 years ago and spent over 20B (that is billion) to build out FioS for the current homes passed. Even if you factor in maint savings, how many customers do you need to pay that off?. It might be a decade before anyone really knows whether Verizon’s bet on FiOS is a smart investment, but I personally think it was the right choice for them given the fact they can pay for it with other lines of business.

Comcast spent 1B to upgrade to DOCSIS3 and go all digital reclaiming tons of spectrum in 1-2 years. Comcast can now reach more customers with 50Mb advertised speeds than all other US telcos combined. Can FTTH offer higher speeds than DOCSIS... sure.... Will people buy that in masses anytime soon?... no. Was DOCSIS3 and Cavalry the right choice for Comcast vs FTTH... yes.

Also telcos have to build fiber all the way from the CO. Most cable companies (when needed) only need to build from the HFC fiber node point to the home. BUT (and that is a big but) they don't NEED to do it now.

This is a bit of a leap frog and one can successfully argue that FTTH has long term benefits, but in a real world business if you do not have to spend 20B, you don't send 20B. Techies of the world scream for FTTH, but when 99+% of the users don't need it, it is just plain STUPID to do it. VZ did not do FTTH because they want to please .001% of their customer base, they did it because they had to upgrade their plant from twisted pair. Cable companies do NOT have to do this to get the speeds customers are asking for.

2. I agree twisted pair copper is dead. Verizon realized this and decided to go FTTH. Their ROI on that investment is going to be very long, but it was do or die for them and the only way they can possibly do this is to pay for it with their wireless revenue. FTTH is not a profitable standalone business in the majority of US geographies and at current costs. Period.

3. Mzima is yet another unprofitable business. I think I have explained the reason for the unsustainable $5 per Mbit price point several times before.

4. This is simple. Average consumers don't understand 95%ile billing and Product folks want to make this simple. They do analysis on users in the high GB and rough estimates on the costs to support and draw various tiered structures around it. The billing systems are expensive to change too. Is it a perfect model? no. Is it pretty close?... yes.

5. Sorry to say it but, "because Verizon is losing money on those customers". This is a long term investment for VZ being subsidized by their other lines of business. They did the math and saw it was a do or die investment in their wireline business.

I stand by my two points with the facts that support them
•$5 / Mb price point is below the cost to build and operate end to end networks. Spot market pricing for transit has other factors around it and does not reflect the true costs. If you ask people that build networks they would agree.
•FTTH as a stand alone business in the majority of situations around the US is not a profitable business under today's economics. VZ is making a multi year (decade+) investment to continue in the wireline business and funding is subsided by their wireless business.

"Can you hear me now?"
reply
JKM @ 27th Sep 03:48PM:
Re: Internet should be treated as public utility/service

Yes that is Mbps. About $506.00 for a T1. Those are the options. No cable or DSL provider offers resale and the closest cable is 11 miles, and DSL 7 miles. They don't intend to supply bandwidth to their competitors. The real problem is not the last mile providers per say. It is the select last mile providers that also control the middle mile infrastructure. They don't intend to wholesale bandwidth at a price that will allow fair competition. When I can use 40Mbps service, I can purchase that for $4000.00 per month on a five year contract.
--
Begin with the end in mind!


EDIT: Just Internet bandwidth.
reply

Thank you for using lo-fi dslreports.com - report bugs
© 99-2009 silver matrix LLC