[opendtv] Re: ISPs denied entry into apartment buildings could get help from FCC

From: Craig Birkmaier <brewmastercraig@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2017 09:19:55 -0400

On Jun 8, 2017, at 10:44 PM, Manfredi, Albert E <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

For home use, Internet use depended 100% on guaranteed-neutral, Title II
telephone lines. AOL and Compuserve tried what everyone could have expected,
to wall up their respective service, but only thanks to Title II, We The
People rejected that model. But it wasn't for lack of trying from those ISPs.
Craig still doesn't get that. Craig still thinks it all happened by magic, or
by some sort of birth right, or because Internet neutrality was enshrined in
the Constitution.

That's it...IT'S MAGIC!

Reminds me of a presentation we did for Grass Valley Group at the 1983 or 84
NAB. Six figure Digital Video Effects processors were a big deal back then,
allowing us to squeeze, flip, and eventually manipulate video streams in 3D
space. It was a short lived business, as the ability to manipulate video
objects in software soon turned the industry on its head. It never really
recovered, other than for live production.

The technology industries always build upon the resources available at any
given time. Dial up modems were a short lived way to access the Internet at a
time that the telco digital networks were outrageously expensive under the
Title II regulation regime - think T1, fractional T1 and even more expensive
dedicated telco data services.

As John pointed out, Title II ended at the modem pools of early ISPs. A new
industry was being created using legacy technology, while vastly better options
were being created by telco competitors - think hybrid fiber/coax...

Bert's continuing infatuation with the role that POTS modems played in the
birth of the Internet, suggesting that the Internet would not have happened
without Title II is absurd. The reality is that the Internet happened because
the world was looking for something to replace the expensive monopoly telco
services that were designed almost a century earlier to allow people to talk to
each other. The original ARPANET was not built with POTS Modems. This map of
the ARPANET in 1977 from Wiki says volumes:

These interconnection were build on very expensive dedicated lines - PDP-11's
were not PCs running Internet Explorer. Ironically, it was the decision the
breakup AT&T that led to the construction of the Internet backbone, as several
of the liberated baby bells started to deploy massive amounts of fiber. The
commercial/consumer Internet had to wait for innovation, investment, and
competition, unfettered by Title II regulation.

One thing that is NOT enshrined in the Constitution, is a massive government
infrastructure at the local, State and Federal level to regulate monopolies. If
anything the Constitution was written to protect us from governmental overreach.

I have repeatedly said that Congress should create these
definitions and the FTC should be the enforcement agency.

So now Craig wants government regulation! Progress!

NO Bert. I am not asking for more regulation. You want some form of guarantee
that some core principles behind Net Neutrality will be enforced. You cannot
enforce an idea; you enforce laws. It is already obvious that the FCC
definition of Net Neutrality under Title II was flawed, especially with respect
to paid prioritization.

The proper way to deal with this is NOT to depend on five (three at the moment)
unelected regulators at an agency that sits atop shifting political sands.
Congress is the place to have an educated debate that can lead to rules that
are codified in legislation. Then it is up to the FTC to enforce these rules.

So again, competition allows self-regulation. The competing companies need to
do what their customers WANT, as opposed to what's in the companies'
self-interests only. With inadequate competition, you need regulation. Maybe
Craig is just not admitting that he finally got it?

AT LAST. It took years, but Bert is FINALLY beginning to understand that
competition is critical to innovation and technical evolution. Under Title II
the regulated telcos had little incentive to innovate, but tons of incentive to
take advantage of the LACK of competition, resulting in overpriced POTS service
with regulators piling on more taxes and fees.

Regulation does not make services more affordable - especially when the canard
of Natural Monopolies is used to justify that regulation. If you want to create
competition you deregulate, as we have been doing for the past five decades.

Bottom line, Bert is clinging to the past, and supporting a policy that is
outdated.

The simple fact is, *if* you can understand that 5G creates very small cells,
*then* you should understand why ample competition to every household is
hardly a slam dunk. For some reason, I've had to repeat this over and over
again. The ONLY companies that may have adequate infrastructure in place
would be the tiny number of fixed broadband incumbents, in the neighborhood.
So, again, "wireless" is not a guarantee for ample competition for home
broadband, if you get beyond vague banalities.

The fact is that this is not true. How is it that we now have four major
cellular carriers, and dozens of minor carriers, in a market where a national
monopoly existed for fixed telephone service? Bert will rush to tell us that
the cellular carriers are still regulated under Title II.

I will tell Bert that when companies pay the government tens of billions to use
the public spectrum resource to create services that replace the old POTS
infrastructure, they expect to be allowed to compete. The cellular industry had
to create a massive infrastructure for this new service, and they are working
together to innovate and share expensive components of that infrastructure.

The same will happened with fixed broadband services delivered via 5G.

So, in this short span of time, you have already forgotten the need for
extensive backhaul in each neighborhood? And, the spectrum these other
companies just finished buying IS NOT 5G spectrum, Craig. It is NOT conducive
to tiny cells. Concentrate, Craig!

Concentrate on reality Bert. The Internet is a network of networks. 5G will
become a significant component of the next wave of innovation, just as WiFi has
been critical to the current Internet. The companies that are buying formerly
broadcast spectrum are not stupid. They know that this spectrum will be very
useful for a range of businesses they are entering, like video streaming.

There's a reason that both Verizon and AT&T are getting into the TV content
business. They are reinventing themselves for a highly competitive world.

Regards
Craig

References:
- [opendtv] Re: ISPs denied entry into apartment buildings could get help from FCC
  - From: Manfredi, Albert E

[opendtv] Re: ISPs denied entry into apartment buildings could get help from FCC

Other related posts: