Re: Obama's FCC team?

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Robert Atkinson <rca53 () columbia edu>
Date: November 15, 2008 9:47:06 AM EST
To: David Farber <dave () farber net>
Subject: Re: [IP] Obama's FCC team?

Dave,

I don't see any inconsistency between Susan Crawford's view and Brett  
Glass'
view. They are both describing the "2.5" broadband infrastructures that
exist in most parts of this country: the two ubiquitous "wired"
infrastructures and a variety of other infrastructures that are either  
less
ubiquitous (i.e., "wired" CLECs) or less capable (i.e., WISPs) than the
"2.0" wired carriers. Susan was focusing on the "2.0" of the 2.5 while  
Brett
naturally focuses on the "0.5."

And before Brett takes offense (none is intended because I have great
respect for what he does) when I say some of the 0.5 is "less capable"  
I'm
thinking of the top current speeds--20 or 50mbps--and, more  
importantly, the
100mbps-1gbps requirements of the future; Brett's and similar WISPs are
effective competitors for current broadband, particularly in low density
areas but I haven't heard of a wireless technology that will be  
effective
for "ultrabroadband" at some point in the future. If anyone knows of  
such
potential, we need to hear about it because it would dramatically  
change the
assumption reflected in Susan's testimony that a duopoly is likely.

The policy question is whether "2.5" is the optimal infrastructure  
structure
For the United States and whether 2.5 (or more) is economically  
sustainable?

I would suggest that the answer will depend on the specific  
circumstances of
each market: a few markets (Manhattan, NY) might sustain "many" highly
capable infrastructures, other markets (Manhattan, NV) won't sustain  
even
one without a susbidy, and most communities lie somewhere between these
extremes.  I also wonder whether a single "federal" policy is capable of
addressing the wide range of circumstances effectively.

Bob

On 11/15/08 8:24 AM, "David Farber" <dave () farber net> wrote:

> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: dewayne () warpspeed com (Dewayne Hendricks)
> Date: November 15, 2008 7:03:41 AM EST
> To: Dewayne-Net Technology List <xyzzy () warpspeed com>
> Subject: [Dewayne-Net] Re: Obama's FCC team?
>
> [Note:  This comment comes from reader Brett Glass.  We asked Brett
> from some clarification of his remarks on Susan Crawford and this is
> his response.  DLH]
>
> > From: Brett Glass <brett () lariat net>
> > Date: November 14, 2008 7:40:36 PM PST
> > To: daveb () dslprime com, dewayne () warpspeed com
> > Subject: Re: [IP] Obama's FCC team?
> >
> > > I profiled 30 possible FCC candidates, including four of the five
> > > chosen, at
> > > http://www.fastnetnews.com/policy/56-us-and-canada-telecom-policy/560-obama-
> > > policy30-profiles
> >
> > Dave, this is scary -- especially given the appointment of Susan
> > Crawford as an advisor. I was physically present at a Congressional
> > hearing at which Susan told a group of Senators -- straight to their
> > faces -- that there were no alternatives to the telephone/cable
> > "duopoly." In short, she was denying the existence of myself and my
> > approximately 4,000 colleagues -- who cover 98% of the country's
> > population and many areas that telcos and cable companies do not
> > cover -- even as I sat in the same room. What sort of policy can we
> > expect from an administration at least one of whose key advisors is
> > willing to make patently false and misleading statements in
> > testimony before Congress so as to promote her personal agenda?
> > Especially when that agenda would render WISPs such as myself
> > extinct and thus actually hinder broadband deployment in rural areas?
>
> Date: November 14, 2008 9:49:41 PM PST
> Subject: Re: Obama's FCC team?
>
> After a rather laborious hunt, I've managed to find a copy of Susan's
> testimony online. The hearing was before the Antitrust Task Force of
> the House (not Senate; my mistake) Judiciary Committee, on March 11th,
> 2008. She says:
>
> > You might be thinking that the market will ensure that a non-
> > discriminatory provider of Internet access will arrive on the scene
> > if that is what users want.  But we do not have a functioning
> > competitive market for Internet access.  Instead, we have regional
> > duopolies (usually one cable provider and one telco) providing
> > Internet access to 98% of the country.  Prices are not going down
> > and nondiscriminatory Internet access services are not available.
> > In fact, a JP Morgan analyst named Jonathan Chaplin recently made
> > clear that cable and telephone companies are doing their best to
> > avoid a price war:
> >
> > "The broadband market is a duopoly," he said. "That should be a
> > stable pricing environment. It's in their interests to compete
> > rationally and preserve the economics of the market."
>
> In the remainder of her speech, she continues to harp on this (false)
> string, claiming again and again that there is only a duopoly in "98%
> of the country" when in fact competitive ISPs -- including WISPs --
> serve about that much of it! She seeks, by denying the existence of
> competitive broadband providers, to advance a regulatory agenda that
> would in fact greatly harm or even eliminate those providers.
>
> For the full text of her testimony, see
>
> <http://www.openinternetcoalition.org/files/Crawford_Testimony.pdf>
>
> --Brett Glass
>
>
> >
> RSS Feed: <http://www.warpspeed.com/wordpress>
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------
> Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
> RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
> Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com





-------------------------------------------
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com