Re: Network Neutrality and Groundhog Day

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Lauren Weinstein <lauren () vortex com>
Date: November 14, 2008 4:08:19 PM EST
To: dave () farber net
Cc: lauren () vortex com
Subject: Re: [IP] Re: Network Neutrality and Groundhog Day


There are a number of factors that affect the current situation.
Prior to the early '90s, it was common for municipalities to grant
only a single cable franchise.  Historically most areas have only
had one physical traditional telephone (e.g. Bell, GTE/Verizon)
company.

In both the telco and cable environments, most landline competition
was via sharing agreements where alternative services leased access
to the physical infrastructure of the incumbent service.  So while
you paid your bill to someone else, the actual connection to your
home or business was still provided by the incumbent.

This can cause all sorts of logistical problems, especially when
things go wrong.  One day I'll write up the story of what happened
during the (relatively brief) period when I had MCI Local POTS
Service supplied over Pacific Bell circuits (to get a good toll
plan) -- when one day the line went dead and a comedy of telecom
company errors followed for many days.

Deploying actual physical competing circuits is an expensive
undertaking.  Pole attachment charges are viewed as a big profit
center in many places.  Digging up neighborhoods and backyards again
and again where underground is used triggers the wrath of homeowners.

This leads to the practice of "cherry picking" -- and lying to
municipalities.  The companies prefer to build their networks where
they think the return will be greatest.  This is a natural decision
in a commercial marketplace, but would not be the likely situation
with government-owned networks.  It's not just a matter of density,
but of perceived disposable incomes as well.

Unfortunately, there are cases on record where telecoms have promised
to build in certain areas, but after wiring the well-heeled locales have
reneged on the rest, often without significant penalties.

Given enough spectrum, terrestrial wireless could ultimately make a
significant positive dent, but at the moment the price/speed
available in most cases can't compete with DSL/Cable offerings, even
for those persons with appropriate line-of-sight, and the ability to
install external antennas without having their landlords then find
some other excuse to kick them out.

It's possible that "white space" wireless technology will be of
significant help in these regards, but it's way too soon to know how
that will work out for now.

If electric and water utilities were handled the same way that Internet
access is managed today, we'd find people all over the place lighting
their homes exclusively with candles and pumping water from polluted
backyard wells.

The big question is, has the time come to start treating Internet
broadband access as a necessary utility in the U.S., and what would
an affirmative answer to that question imply and require?

--Lauren--
Lauren Weinstein
lauren () vortex com or lauren () pfir org
Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800
http://www.pfir.org/lauren
Co-Founder, PFIR
  - People For Internet Responsibility - http://www.pfir.org
Co-Founder, NNSquad
  - Network Neutrality Squad - http://www.nnsquad.org
Founder, PRIVACY Forum - http://www.vortex.com
Member, ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy
Lauren's Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com

- - -

> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: Bob Drzyzgula <bob () drzyzgula org>
> Date: November 14, 2008 8:41:32 AM EST
> To: David Farber <dave () farber net>
> Cc: ip <ip () v2 listbox com>
> Subject: Re: [IP] Re:    Network Neutrality and Groundhog Day
>
> On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 07:05:18PM -0500, David Farber wrote:
> > Begin forwarded message:
> >
> > From: "Steven S. Critchfield" <critch () drunkenlogic com>
> > Date: November 13, 2008 6:01:39 PM EST
> > To: dave () farber net
> > Subject: Re: [IP] Re:  Network Neutrality and Groundhog Day
> >
> > Back to the idea of monopolies that Brett likes to argue
> > against. There is exactly 1 "cable" operator. It used to be
> > Viacom, and they sold the franchise to Comcast. There is
> > exactly 1 "phone" company with wire to the homes. Wireless
> > is the only option here for competition that isn't dependent
> > on one of the government anointed monopolies.
> >
> > The AT&T here is a defacto monopoly because they are the only
> > phone company that owns any copper to the homes. Comcast is
> > a monopoly as they only have the ability in our market to
> > drag coax to the home. Independent ISPs here ride AT&T copper
> > to the home. They may be able to colo in the switch facility
> > and get the traffic out there to their own networks, but it
> > still had to cross AT&T's network.
>
> There's one thing I don't completely understand about this.
> When it is claimed that "[Only Comcast has] the ability in
> our market to drag coax to the home" I'm wondering what,
> precisely, is implied by the term "ability". Are the
> impediments regulatory, financial, or perhaps the result
> of some private restriction?
>
> On my street, in Gaithersburg, Maryland, there are
> currently three sets of communications cable hanging on the
> poles: Verizon's twisted pair, and coax-to-the-premises
> cable systems from both Comcast and RCN. I can buy DSL
> from Verizon or from some number of CLECs, Cable modem
> from Comcast or RCN, and I'm sure there's wireless ISPs
> (Clearwire had an application before the planning commision
> in the past year for an antenna a few hundred yards from
> my house) as well as the 3G options from the four major
> cellular providers. Both of the cable TV companies offer
> telephone; I use RCN's and it is delivered over their
> own twisted pair, although that copper only terminates in
> the box up the street. And FIOS is expected within a few
> months; it's expected to be available pretty pervasively
> at least in urban and suburban Montgomery County, except
> where they have trouble getting right of way agreements
> from private homeowners associations; my neighborhood is
> expected to be among the first because of the above-ground
> utilities. At the moment I have a Covad SDSL line for
> my servers and an RCN 20Mbps/2Mbps line for browsing and
> telecommuting. And with all this competition it's still
> too expensive.
>
> At the same time, I have co-workers -- people who commute
> daily to the same physical office as I do -- who cannot
> obtain DSL or Cable Modem -- or even Cable TV. So, no wired
> broadband for them. In at least instance, I know that the
> solution has been DirectTV for video and Verizon's mobile
> broadband for Internet. In his case I know the essential
> problem is that there just isn't sufficient density in
> his neighborhood to make a cable roll-out profitable.
>
> So I'm wondering: What is the lack of "ability" here that
> creates "monopoly" situations, and to what extent are they
> the result of government policy?
>
> --Bob Drzyzgula
>
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------
> 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