FCC Considers Treating Cable Firms Like Utilities

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
I thought these guys wanted to create a fast lane for companies? Now they want to do the opposite?

In a live chat on Twitter, Gigi Sohn, the FCC senior counsel for external affairs, said the regulator’s “open internet” proposals, to be published on Thursday, will seek comment on whether broadband internet access should be treated in the same way as electricity, telephone calls or water, where consumers have equal access to the same service.
Click to expand...
 
hmm.. treated like a utility.. like power or water..where as my usage increases from tier to tier i pay a higher rate..

is that what they mean?

its not like i can pick or choose who i get my water from, so this would not do anything to increase competition, in fact it would completely kill it

im not sure...
 
It's more likely to make things worse then better. There is a reason Government efficiency is an oxymoron.
 
kattana said:
hmm.. treated like a utility.. like power or water..where as my usage increases from tier to tier i pay a higher rate..

is that what they mean?

its not like i can pick or choose who i get my water from, so this would not do anything to increase competition, in fact it would completely kill it

im not sure...
Click to expand...

Technically for electricity (in the case of Texas), it's ran as a common utility handled by a major producer with various providers selling it out to customers. People do have a choice as far as which provider to go with, so there is some competition with pricing. As far as the infrastructure, the producer would handle resolving issues. Correct me if I'm wrong.


So "technically" this model could work for internet access. However, the problem is there are different mediums to provide internet, cable, dsl, fiber, satellite, dialup, etc... there would be difficulties in supporting the infrastructure and selling. Turning it into utilities would be creating a middle man in selling?
 
I remember my brother's cable bill after congress regulated cable prices. His bill doubled in under two years.

Yeah, hope is not high.
 
A bad analogy is like a leaky screwdriver.

They're talking about treating broadband providers as telecommunications companies instead of as information services as they currently due. Which has some legalese ramifications under the current piece-meal, nonsensical regulations governing those two kinds of businesses that cannot really be extrapolated to a "utility service" sort of analogy.

Most of the points people seem to be trying to make here apply to the analogy, and not to the actual implementation of the laws.
 
It's possible too that ISPs could implement a pay per use style of billing. Just like your electric company bills per KWh, your ISP could bill per MB. The more you use the more you pay, just like with the electric company. I know that's a tough pill to swallow for some, but all in all, it is fair for everyone. Low usage customers don't have to pay for MBs they're not using as part of a $50 per month package, and higher usage customers have to pay for the bandwidth that they consume. Video streamers would be hit hardest obviously. But it would be incumbent upon the government regulators to insure that the general public is charged a fair rate per MB, and that's where the tricky part comes in. Who decides what the rate is? What factors help make that determination? It has to be reasonable for consumers AND ISPs. Do we really trust the bureaucrats with lobbyists in their ears to do it? I know I don't.
 
JL6speed said:
Technically for electricity (in the case of Texas), it's ran as a common utility handled by a major producer with various providers selling it out to customers. People do have a choice as far as which provider to go with, so there is some competition with pricing. As far as the infrastructure, the producer would handle resolving issues. Correct me if I'm wrong.


So "technically" this model could work for internet access. However, the problem is there are different mediums to provide internet, cable, dsl, fiber, satellite, dialup, etc... there would be difficulties in supporting the infrastructure and selling. Turning it into utilities would be creating a middle man in selling?
Click to expand...

The circumstances is similar in NY.
The power is generated by one company. It is transmitted over their wires.
The only thing that changes is the "service" portion(a middle man) which may change a few dollars/cents a month compared to the "producer" handling everything.

At this point, I see no benefit and increased risk in treating cable as a utility.
First off government interference, taxation for the "regulation", and multiple "service-providers" that the "producers" will blame for any failures or repairs needed.

We will see our service dwindle while prices only increase.
 
A radical thought, but couldn't the USPS get more up to date with the times and provide internet service at a competitive price?

A little competition shouldn't hurt...
 
The ISPs have responded by saying if this goes ahead they will stop investing money into upgrading their networks (were they putting any money into it?). Bring on the era of municipal broadband & wifi, that will force ISPs to compete or die.
 
Personally, they should mandate fiber to every business and house by X. Minimum 1Gbit connections with support for 10Gbit down the road. Done.
 
Providing a connection to what was a telephone line in the beginning, sounds like a utility to me. That's all they are back in the UK as well.
 
viscountalpha said:
It's more likely to make things worse then better. There is a reason Government efficiency is an oxymoron.
Click to expand...

Free competitive market > government venture > monopoly/oligopoly.

Guess which we have now?

And no one is talking about the government running it, just regulating it like they do land based telephone service.

Furthermore, communities that have local community run internet are very happy with their service, and pay less and get higher speeds than with the big telecoms, at no cost to the tax payer, as the subscription fees typically cover all costs...
 
SparkedFire said:
Personally, they should mandate fiber to every business and house by X. Minimum 1Gbit connections with support for 10Gbit down the road. Done.
Click to expand...

Its not the speeds that are the primary cocbcerns, but rather the absuses resulting from cable operators making life difficult for those providing competing services via the internet.

I don't think government has any place in telling companies how fast their networks must be.

Instead they should focus on stuff like the following:
-True net neutrality (including provisions for peering abuses)
- Marketing requirements (like, you can't call it broadband unless it is x fast)
-banning all data caps on landlines, as this is nothing but an overt attack on competing streaming services.
 
No. That's silly. :eek:

Why would we want uniform access to services, we always prefer being charged more than anyone else for the same thing, because it makes us feel special and unique. :rolleyes::p
 
kattana said:
hmm.. treated like a utility.. like power or water..where as my usage increases from tier to tier i pay a higher rate..
Click to expand...
As opposed to now, where as you have a large and larger "pipe" connected to your house the amount you pay is increased tier to tier? Except in this case it really is all the same hardware, and very often is as simple as them typing in a command that unlocks how fast you can download.
 
I've always dreamed about having our ISP bill us the same way our Electrical Company does.

PGEnolube.jpg


tard.gif
 
Zarathustra[H];1040829041 said:
Its not the speeds that are the primary cocbcerns, but rather the absuses resulting from cable operators making life difficult for those providing competing services via the internet.

I don't think government has any place in telling companies how fast their networks must be.

Instead they should focus on stuff like the following:
-True net neutrality (including provisions for peering abuses)
- Marketing requirements (like, you can't call it broadband unless it is x fast)
-banning all data caps on landlines, as this is nothing but an overt attack on competing streaming services.
Click to expand...

Requiring 1Gbit isn't asking for much on fiber. How about running all of the fiber back to a central point so changing providers is as simple as moving a cable. This could be done at certain points in a neighborhood. We made the Interstate system, why can't we get fiber to everyone and finally give this country an accomplishment again. This country hasn't done a single relevant thing in quite some time.
 
SilverSliver said:
Where the heck do you live that charges that much? I'm in Texas and we are paying around 9 cents delivered per kwh.
Click to expand...

I thought the rates for low usage were pretty low, but that depends if this is the final cost, or if transmission costs, etc. are added to it after. On the high end the prices get pretty insane though. Probably just structured to tr to disincentivize waste, which isn't a bad idea.
 
Zarathustra[H];1040829188 said:
I thought the rates for low usage were pretty low, but that depends if this is the final cost, or if transmission costs, etc. are added to it after. On the high end the prices get pretty insane though. Probably just structured to tr to disincentivize waste, which isn't a bad idea.
Click to expand...

Also I wouldn't mind that structure. Don't think I've ever used more than 400KWh in a month...
 
Watch out, remember that Comcast just got into the electricity business. Electricity may no longer be a utility, forget about Internet being a utility.
 
Zarathustra[H];1040829192 said:
Also I wouldn't mind that structure. Don't think I've ever used more than 400KWh in a month...
Click to expand...

In fact, back in ~2003-2005 when I lived alone in Providence, RI, my monthly electric bill would never go above like $28
 
I'm going to call this for what it is. It's all about power and the unyielding will to dominate our perception of reality. For decades TV and newspapers have represented where we get our information from. A handful of people framing our views, controlling the narrative and national discussion. The Forth Estate (Mainstream Media) was hijacked back in the 70's and brought under full control of multinational corporations and elite banking cartels in collusion with our government (who has also been "mostly" hijacked by the same groups). This tragic story is brilliantly told in the movie "The Network". Amazing movie and a must see IMO...

The Internet (Fifth Estate) has undone their stranglehold on information and there is a mass exodus of people (more everyday) that no longer turn on the TV for news or flip through a newspaper. Humanity is being informed and thus empowered in ways we never dreamed of as little as 20 years ago. People are walking up to the "real" reality of things and this threatens the 1% who essentially rule the world. It's staggering when you think of all the ways the internet has brought people together.

If Net Neutrality is killed, this will give Corporations a foot in the door to reshape the internet like they did with the press. Make no mistake, this is the REAL objective and if they have their way, it will start with "Fast Lanes" and quickly worsen each year as new bills pass (rammed) into law written by lobbyists building upon the framework open to them with Fast Lanes.
 
Steve said:
I thought these guys wanted to create a fast lane for companies? Now they want to do the opposite?
Click to expand...

The proposer of the "fast lane" rules got a heavy case of smackdown. All the big tech companies probably called their senators (by that, I mean the people they donated to).
 
Iceshot said:
The Internet (Fifth Estate) has undone their stranglehold on information and there is a mass exodus of people (more everyday) that no longer turn on the TV for news or flip through a newspaper. Humanity is being informed and thus empowered in ways we never dreamed of as little as 20 years ago. People are walking up to the "real" reality of things and this threatens the 1% who essentially rule the world. It's staggering when you think of all the ways the internet has brought people together.
Click to expand...

It's a mixed blessing. Yes, we now have access to more information than ever before, but we also have access to more misinformation than ever before. What's missing is that editorial review that kept the news sane.

Now - whatever your crazy view (vaccines cause autism, HIV doesn't cause AIDS, 9/11 was an inside job, human activity has not led to climate change, lower tax rates increase government revenue, etc. etc. etc.) regardless of how little basis in fact they have, you can spend a few seconds googling and find a seemingly believable (to you) source that confirms our wacko belief.

Online communication between people who share the same wacko beliefs and only those beliefs create echo chambers in which people hear the same things repeated until they believe them, which results in the creation of such crazy fringe groups like the Tea Party.

We used to - when content had editorial supervision - have different opinions on the same facts. Now we all have the ability (and inclination, it seems) to pick and choose our own facts, which - IMHO - is a very dangerous situation.

So in this regard, the freedom of information on the internet is somewhat of a dangerous thing, but at the same time, the genie is out of the bottle, and we should not try to control it.
 
It really should be treated as a public utility as its incredibly needed in our society. There isn't a day that goes by that doesn't involve me using the internet in one form or another. Hell, even making telephone calls in low cell coverage areas is done over wifi with T-Mobile and telecom IS regulated.

I do, however, see the difficulty in getting it to happen because of how jacked up our political system is with this sort of stuff. I'd love to see some sort of act passed in Congress that would create a nationwide fiber network to every urban neighborhood in America with a deadline that would require real work to be done in the near term. I think it would give America a great accomplishment on par with our rail and road systems when they were built. Of course, it would also need to be regulated to keep the ISPs from cramming billions in upgrades costs down our throats.

I really don't think they could switch to metered usage though as it would really stifle...everything. If I want to install an O.S. what about the hundreds of MBs or couple GBs in initial updates, do I just forgo installing them and leave myself as an open security risk, which many will do and could cause an economic risk. I mean, I probably average about 20GB in traffic a month and I think I'm a pretty pedestrian user by todays standards. Even at .01 cents/MB that'd be $200/month....that's insane and I hardly stream anything or play games all that much...they'd have to move to something like $1/GB. Or maybe they'll meter the electrical signals you send. It's really quite possible...though that would make it even more difficult to gauge your needs trying to determine if you use 2 billion bits or 50 billion bits...


This is kind of like the whole Occupy Movement. The Occupy protesters clearly recognized there is a problem with the wealth distribution in society but didn't have a single voice or idea on how to rectify the issue....they just sat around complaining and being a nuisance to the non-participants. Americans recognize that choice in ISPs is extremely limited and costs are excessive but those of us that know a bit more then the average user can't really come to a general consensus on how to fix the problem...we just sit around complaining and being a nuisance to eachother :D .
 
I live in the south and payed $300 for natural gas for a month this past winter, I'm not sure this will make things better. Worse maybe. Granted, natural gas as a resource isn't cheap and I could do better with insulating the house, but this is silly.
 
Parmenides said:
I live in the south and payed $300 for natural gas for a month this past winter, I'm not sure this will make things better. Worse maybe. Granted, natural gas as a resource isn't cheap and I could do better with insulating the house, but this is silly.
Click to expand...

More insulation is always good, but you might be able to save money by replacing your central AC with a heat-pump version. That way you can run it backwards and heat your house when it gets chilly out. The advantage is that it's 3.5 times more efficient than regular electric heat, and might be cheaper than gas (depending on pricing). The only downside is that it's only useable down to about 30F, at which point you would need to turn the gas furnace back on, but if you live in an area where freezing temps are rare, then that limitation doesn't really matter.
 
USMCGrunt said:
I really don't think they could switch to metered usage though as it would really stifle...everything. If I want to install an O.S. what about the hundreds of MBs or couple GBs in initial updates, do I just forgo installing them and leave myself as an open security risk, which many will do and could cause an economic risk.
Click to expand...

When you walk into a dark room, do you stop to consider the cost of electricity, or do you just turn on the light anyway?
 
Jorona said:
C
O
M
M
O
N

C
A
R
R
I
E
R
S
Click to expand...

This. We wouldn't be in this mess if the ISPs would just be told "no fast lanes, here is a law banning it". And if there was actual broadband competition in this country. I can't speak for you all, but there is ONE cable internet provider in my city, and other than that we have Centurylink DSL...

We need to do something, because what we are doing now is only continuing in a bad direction. Our current internet model won't work for very much longer, and is already failing.

Common carrier is a good idea. Public utility is better than nothing, assuming it isn't charged per data bit.
 
SparkedFire said:
Requiring 1Gbit isn't asking for much on fiber. How about running all of the fiber back to a central point so changing providers is as simple as moving a cable. This could be done at certain points in a neighborhood. We made the Interstate system, why can't we get fiber to everyone and finally give this country an accomplishment again. This country hasn't done a single relevant thing in quite some time.
Click to expand...

Well, it probably requires running more fiber lines back to the neighborhood switching station (or whatever the hell we call those places). Currently several houses can share one fiber, but if we go wholesale to gigabit per household, each household will probably need their own.

Google is more than likely losing money hand over fist in their current gigabit implementation.
 
sir-gold said:
When you walk into a dark room, do you stop to consider the cost of electricity, or do you just turn on the light anyway?
Click to expand...

Personally, I don't turn lights on if they don't need to be on, not to save money or anything, just because I don't see a need in them being on if they don't enhance my ability to see....ive lived with people whose natural instinct is to reach for a light switch, regardless of the amount of natural light flooding a room...

More directly to your question though, I don't consider it because my electricity costs are pretty low, .09/KWh. If they were .25 or more, you bet I would keep the lights turned off but that doesn't open up a risk to myself (other than MAYBE robbery risk increase) or a risk to the economy like metering data usage which directly affects whether or not people install security updates, or virus definitions. What about viral infections that create spam? Does the ISP just eat the cost of that or does the user declare bankruptcy, or more likely, disconnect the internet services....all of which are bad for the total economy. Siphoning water or electricity from a neighbor isn't really possible, I mean it is, but its more trouble than its worth really which is why metering works for those services. It's not the same with the internet.
 
Iceshot said:
I'm going to call this for what it is. It's all about power and the unyielding will to dominate our perception of reality. For decades TV and newspapers have represented where we get our information from. A handful of people framing our views, controlling the narrative and national discussion. The Forth Estate (Mainstream Media) was hijacked back in the 70's and brought under full control of multinational corporations and elite banking cartels in collusion with our government (who has also been "mostly" hijacked by the same groups). This tragic story is brilliantly told in the movie "The Network". Amazing movie and a must see IMO...

The Internet (Fifth Estate) has undone their stranglehold on information and there is a mass exodus of people (more everyday) that no longer turn on the TV for news or flip through a newspaper. Humanity is being informed and thus empowered in ways we never dreamed of as little as 20 years ago. People are walking up to the "real" reality of things and this threatens the 1% who essentially rule the world. It's staggering when you think of all the ways the internet has brought people together.

If Net Neutrality is killed, this will give Corporations a foot in the door to reshape the internet like they did with the press. Make no mistake, this is the REAL objective and if they have their way, it will start with "Fast Lanes" and quickly worsen each year as new bills pass (rammed) into law written by lobbyists building upon the framework open to them with Fast Lanes.
Click to expand...

Yeppers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top