[opendtv] Re: Bob Frankston: It's Time to Move From 'Broadband' to 'Infrastructure'
- From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2018 04:52:22 +0000
Monty Solomon posted:
BroadbandBreakfast.com: Bob Frankston: It's Time to Move From 'Broadband'
to 'Infrastructure'
http://broadbandbreakfast.com/2017/12/bob-frankston-its-time-to-move-from-broadband-to-infrastructure/
Just reading that far, I thought, uh-oh. Sounds like major confusion to follow.
Quoting at the beginning:
"The debate over network neutrality is framed within traditional
telecommunications policy. As such it considers the internet to be just another
service like phone calls or cable television. The internet is different. When
we used dialup modems we did internetworking as users. With DSL and cable
modems the telecommunications (and cable) companies got into the business of
providing 'internet'."
False premise. First, it's extremely false to state that Internet service is
like cable TV. The neutrality debate absolutely disputes any such nonsense. And
secondly, Internet broadband service is like telephone service, in that it
provides access to the Internet "infrastructure," exactly the same as telephone
service provides access to the global voice telephone "infrastructure." Both of
these are local services, which are designed to provide access to a global
infrastructure.
How individuals or businesses use the global infrastructure is up to them, and
has always been. A business which uses voice telephony may well not want to
allow long distance or international service. Entirely up to them. Just as
individuals may not want to use long distance telephone service. The crucially
important aspect has to be, the local access service has to be neutral. In both
examples. Not in cable TV, for heaven's sake.
Of course, if the local telephone service or broadband service provider also
wants to provide other services, they are free to do so. As long as they don't
block or degrade other competitors, for those services.
"We have today's regulatory system because the business model of
telecommunications and the needs of the country for connectivity were not a
good match. In the days of telegraphy and then telephony, the high capital
costs and little differentiation required a regulatory agency to assure an
orderly marketplace,"
No. We have the regulatory framework because 110 years ago, and today, the
services providing local access to the global infrastructures tend to be
monopolies, and for sound economic reasons (ROI). If this ceases to be the
case, competition may avoid the need for as much regulation as we have now.
"The internet is not something we get through a broadband pipe. Instead we turn
the pipe around and originate the services from within our own homes (or
offices). We use that broadband pipe and any other facilities as commoditized
resources."
Exactly the same as we did with telephone service. The Internet is something we
ACCESS via a broadband pipe, today, just as we ACCESSED the global telephone
infrastructure before, via a local telco. Best to revisit what the Hepburn and
Mann-Elkins Acts were all about. Neutrality of access to the global
infrastructure.
"This means we need locally owned infrastructure that is more like sidewalks
and roads than like train tracks."
At least, this much is true enough. But then, issues of "metered access" and
such get confused, for no valid reason. There's no reason why broadband service
should be intrinsically unmetered, or intrinsically metered, to allow a totally
valid comparison with other utilities. Either way, the comparison holds.
"Water and electricity are metered by usage. It doesn't make sense to talk
about using up a supply of ones and zeros. There is no scarcity of 'internet.'"
Sorry, but that's just too absurd. A broadband pipe can certainly become
overbooked, and connections to the Internet infrastructure can become
overbooked. And then, this:
"Just think about what would happen if we just reduced everyone's internet and
cellular phone bills by perhaps $100/month and returned nearly a thousand
dollars a year to every family in America while providing a level playing field
for new businesses."
Hilarious. So, without a neutrality guarantee, from your local Internet
broadband access provider, reasonable people would expect a huge reduction in
monthly fees and a "level playing field for new businesses"? Wow. Exactly the
opposite. Just take a peek at legacy cable TV realities, to see how much sense
that makes.
Anyway, too many false premises kind of make this exercise too laborious.
Bert
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at
FreeLists.org
- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
unsubscribe in the subject line.
Other related posts: