Re: Bill would mandate NN on nets built with bailout bucks

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Brett Glass <brett () lariat net>
Date: January 29, 2009 6:15:54 PM EST
To: dave () farber net, "ip" <ip () v2 listbox com>
Subject: Re: [IP] Bill would mandate NN on nets built with bailout bucks


> New networks built with stimulus funds will likely have to comply  
> with neutrality standards, under rules proposed by the U.S. House of  
> Representatives and Senate.

Actually, the House legislation cites the FCC's "four principles,"  
which were adopted by the FCC without expert input or public comment  
but have since been enforced by the FCC as if they were formal rules.  
(This has provoked complaints by ISPs, including Comcast, that the FCC  
improperly bypassed its proper rule making procedure.) Unfortunately,  
these "principles" -- while they implement some interest groups' ideas  
of "network neutrality," also impose restrictions which make it  
impossible to keep networks secure and reliable or manage bandwidth  
usage on them.

The legislation also requires that the wireless buildouts that it  
funds conform to a definition of "open access" to be put forth by the  
FCC. Unfortunately, this requirement -- which appears to have been  
added with cell phones in mind -- demonstrates that the authors of the  
legislation did not understand that there are different types of  
wireless broadband technologies. It therefore threatens to deny  
stimulus money to fixed wireless broadband providers -- WISPs -- by  
imposing an intractable requirement upon them. (WISPs must design  
every link carefully for maximum throughput and configure the  
equipment for proper operation; they cannot allow users to attempt to  
rig up their own equipment.)

> The House's American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan passed  
> Wednesday. It requires high speed and openness on networks built  
> with taxpayer money. The version from the U.S. Senate Appropriations  
> Committee also requires neutral network management and proposes to  
> spend $9 billion on expanding broadband access. That version also  
> offers tax incentives for ISPs that provide 5Mbps/1Mbps in  
> underserved areas and faster speeds of 100Mbps/20Mbps to areas they  
> already serve.

The language reserving funding for providers who offer speeds of 100  
Mbps or more was, as one might guess, lobbied for by Verizon. That's  
because this particular raw speed is currently only achieved by FTTH  
(Verizon's FiOS and AT&T's U-Verse) and cannot be achieved by the  
cable companies using DOCSIS 3.0, even though the actual speeds that  
these systems do deliver are more than adequate. By having this  
language inserted into the bill before it reached the floor (where the  
Democratic majority tried to prevent any amendments), the telcos  
limited cable companies' access to the funding, essentially ensuring  
that only telephone companies need apply.

I cover some of these points in the white paper mentioned in an  
earlier message; it's at http://www.brettglass.com/bbstim.pdf.

--Brett Glass





-------------------------------------------
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