Comments on: FCC Position May Spell the End of Unlimited Internet

By: lyd

lyd — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 15:07:59 +0000

Accusations of anti-trust violations among the wireless carriers seem paranoid to me. I do not believe there is a cartel problem here.

By: It's not illegal if

It's not illegal if — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 22:14:52 +0000

There is very little real competition in the marketplace.

Almost always the DSL providers are forced to go through the ILEC who make most of the profits in the deal. The ILECs take the profits since they don’t need to compete, they leave competing to the ISPs who struggles to break even.

So for fixed connectivity there is really only competition between the ILEC and the one local cable company, if you get cable. Satellite is irrelevant due to the latency.

Competition for mobile data is even more of a joke. There is collusion in the market between the largest carriers who control both the frequencies and the actual network. This is why the data plans for all of the major carriers cost the same. There is no competition because the major carriers have the frequencies locked and they have agreed to keep data rates high.

I am sure it is only a coincidence that the unlimited data plans from the four major carriers provide 5GB and cost 59.99-60.00/month.

Sure, it is probably illegal for them to collude on pricing and services, but what is the worst that will happen? They might get a fine for a million dollars. I’m sure they are very concerned.

Just remember it’s not illegal if you get away with it.

By: Sagan

Sagan — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 20:46:12 +0000

I have to point out a couple of things here. Being in the industry I can say the problem is not bandwidth. It may be, in the short term, and in some areas simply because the companies in question only upgrade when they absolutely have to, the CEOs would rather the money go into their pockets and the pockets of shareholders rather than to update aging data networks…market forces, supply is only given when the demand makes it profitable. e.g. the 20 year old copper DSL line that runs to my house instead of nice new fiber optic. They like to play the wait until the last minute game. That is to say they are reactive instead of proactive. Profit is more important that quality and future planning, I see the results of this mindset every day in my job. So I hear “But they have to pay X amount to run fiber to all houses” True…there is an initial cost, especially with area as large as some of these companies cover, a daunting prospect in and of itself to be sure, and the entire argument is more complex but the point is if we let them meter service because they cry about bandwidth…what about when everything is nice new shiny fiber etc. et al? and the bandwidth is no longer an issue? Do they still get to meter service? We know darn well that once they start metering that it will never go away, not without some serious pressure. We’ll end up with a whole new land of digital have and have not’s as in Tadd Williams Otherland where only the rich and well to do can afford the bells and whistles and the poor and middle class are relegated to sub standard service….sounds like our current culture in general, does it not? It’s a tricky situation, but given the general lean towards massive greed that drives these companies we simply can not leave them to ‘do what is right’. Given the choice they will almost certainly try to screw people for every dime they can manage and we see the results of a similar mindset with the current financial fiasco the world is in.

By: Andrew Pierce

Andrew Pierce — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 20:00:53 +0000

You’re missing a couple of key points. First, bandwidth is fairly cheap, and getting cheaper all the time. In fact, the expense of monitoring and metering the tubes might actually eclipse the cost of the raw bandwidth. And it doesn’t come to the ISPs in metered form. It comes in an all-you-can eat pipe of a certain width and a fixed monthly rate.

Second, I think you’re overstating the availability of choices. The number of ISP choices has shrunk significantly over the last few years, and in terms of broadband usually comes down to phone company or cable company. If you subscribe to satellite tv, like I do, you quickly find that you have one reasonable choice for service. And the iPhone service levels should demonstrate rather clearly that the mobile networks don’t count yet.

Third, net neutrality doesn’t require additional bureaucracy to maintain or enforce. Make the laws, set penalties, and if the laws are violated, let the courts handle it. I’m sure someone’s willing go to court to sue the telecomms into submission.

I’d also like to point out that in the end network neutrality is actually fairly inevitable — if we need to run unsnoopable TLS encrypted sessions on all intenret connections, if thats what it takes to get our bittorrent or Scype packets through unmolested by our ISPs, we will. Its just we’d rather the telecoms lower their rates or improve their service rather than waste money on trying to lock down the Internet.

Open, neutral networks don’t stifle innovation, but you can be damned sure the cable companies and the phone companies have a couple of areas of innovation they’d like to use ‘traffic shaping’ to stifle, areas which are competing with their core businesses. As Farber says, “Whatever you do, you don’t want to stifle innovation.”