AT&T defends Verizon-Google mobile exemption from net neutrality
AT&T has jumped into the fray on net neutrality, pointing out that mobile networks are fundamentally different from broadband and saying they should be largely free of any regulation as an internet service rather than being classified as a telecom service under the oversight of the FCC.
Talking sides in net neutrality
Advocates of net neutrality are concerned that the relatively limited competition among major service providers (often a duopoly in many markets) will result in unfairly prioritized, limited or censored services and exclusive hardware deals and device restrictions that hurt consumers and free markets. They want regulation in place that prevents providers from discriminating against certain applications, content and devices in order to keep the Internet open to new and innovative products and business models.
Critics of net neutrality claim the government can't adequate regulate network services, and may impose rules that do more harm than good. They also assert that companies can regulate themselves. Major providers, including AT&T, Comcast, and Verizon have long railed against any new rules imposing net neutrality principles, and have been supported by business-friendly conservatives who support deregulation.
In between consumers and service providers, companies like Apple and Google have more moderate positions on net neutrality. Both sell their products or services directly to consumers and benefit from open networks. However, both also partner with the service providers to bring their products to market. That arrangement compels Apple, for example, to enforce whatever rules and limitations its carrier partners choose to invoke over users.
Google changing sides in net neutrality
While Apple has remained largely silent on the issue of net neutrality, Google has taken a strong advocacy position promoting the concept of open networks that do not impose restrictions on the type of content carried, the type of devices that can be used on them, and the sources and destinations of the content.
However, Google and Verizon recently worked together to craft a proposal to the FCC that forwards the cause of net neutrality on wired broadband networks while largely exempting wireless providers from any oversight. That has resulted in a maelstrom of new complaints against Google, asserting that the company's new position is grossly hypocritical because it is intended to create a distraction of progress while pinching off net neutrality on mobile networks, the future of the Internet.
The reason for Google's change of heart on net neutrality on mobile networks, critics say, is wholly related to its new position as a mobile platform vendor with Android, which has its fortunes currently tied to Verizon's mobile network. Google says that progress on broadband net neutrality is too important to imperil on an insistence that mobile networks be similarly put under the same level of oversight by regulators.
Apple directly benefits from net neutrality, as it can prevent the company and its minority Mac OS X and iOS platforms from being locked out of network access, keeps access open to its iTunes media and software services and its cloud streaming solutions, and allows the company to innovate with services such as rich email and FaceTime video calling, both of which directly threaten the mobile network's own "pay per message and call minutes" business models.
Without net neutrality regulations in place, AT&T could theoretically block such new services such as VoIP and tethering on its mobile networks; it is has already worked to do this on the iPhone to make its mobile traffic more manageable, relenting only as Apple pushed the carrier to support the features. A smaller partner with less clout wouldn't be likely to win such concessions from major carriers.
Unlike Apple, Google doesn't sell mobile devices (following the aborted failure of the Nexus One); it sells ads on mobile devices. That makes Google more sensitive to the demands of mobile providers and their efforts to scuttle any popular political efforts to keep networks free and open through legal regulation. And while Google benefits from openness on broadband networks, it could actually benefit from potential deals with Verizon to either prioritize traffic to Android devices or block or handicap services to rival mobile platforms.
AT&T on mobile net neutrality
As a service provider, AT&T can't be expected to embrace net neutrality regulation, but its stated position on the matter does explain why it, and by extension Verizon and Google, are working to exempt mobile networks from any new regulation that might come into effect.
In an official public policy blog posting by AT&T Vice President of Federal Regulatory Joan Marsh, the company outlines that wireless networks are inherently different than wired networks because of the bandwidth limitations of the radio spectrum.
Unlike fiber optic cables, which can easily carry 25 million Mbps, AT&T notes that "the theoretical top speed of a LTE carrier is 100 Mbps." AT&T's current UMTS 3G mobile networks only support a theoretical maximum of 7.2 Mbps down and 5.8 Mbps up, but even after paying billions to roll out next generation HSPA+ and LTE networks over the next few years, the maximum capacity of wireless networks will be a tiny fraction of the capacity available when customers have access to a wired broadband connection.
At the same time, AT&T says that wireless demand is projected to increase exponentially, not only with the rapid growth of smartphones, but also in units of other wireless devices, which are expected to balloon from 8 million in 2008 to 86 million by 2014. The company says it expects wireless carriers' traffic to expand from last years' 90,000 terabytes per month to 3.6 million terabytes by 2014.
"We are constantly striving to increase the efficiency of our spectrum resources," Marsh wrote, "but the amount of available spectrum in any given market is finite. And while we regularly split cell sectors and add additional cell towers, there are very real limits placed on cell site construction by zoning and local approval boards."
AT&T's recommendations on net neutrality
To meet the needs of tremendous growth, the company say it is "doing its part" by investing billions into network upgrades and new technologies, building out "complementary network infrastructure" using WiFi hotspots and microcells, and adding capacity to backhaul its existing facilities.
AT&T recommends that policymakers reallocate more spectrum for Commercial Mobile Radio Service and "even more importantly" act to "protect wireless broadband networks from onerous new net neutrality regulations."
Marsh writes that "wireless carriers must to be able to dynamically manage traffic and operate their networks in an environment free from burdensome, arbitrary and unnecessary regulations."
"But perhaps what might help most of all," Marsh concludes, "is for agreement to be reached on net neutrality so we can finally satisfy concerns and put that issue behind us. Then we could focus all our attention on a more urgent matter struggling for oxygen right now, and that?s the National Broadband Plan."
Net neutrality proponents recommend new policy
"The FCC cannot carry out the National Broadband Plan or protect Internet users unless it restores its authority to regulate broadband," wrote S. Derek Turner, the research director at Free Press, cited in an article by PCMag on the issue.
"The authority of the FCC to act on its national broadband plan or net neutrality was called into question earlier this year when a court ruled that the FCC did not have the authority to hand down a 2008 network management enforcement action against Comcast," the article explained. "The FCC has since proposed a 'third way' to regulate broadband, and consumer group Free Press on Friday urged the commission to move ahead with that plan."
"America has already lost too much waiting for the agency to formulate a national broadband policy," Turner added. "And it would be irresponsible to delay further simply because industry wishes for the FCC to have no authority over broadband communications."
The Open Internet Coalition (which includes Google as a member) has endorsed the FCC's current plan to re-classify broadband as a telecom service rather than an information service, allowing it the power to, as the OIC is urging, "act quickly to establish a common-sense, predictable framework that ensures that the connections to the Internet remain open and free from discriminatory or anticompetitive practices."
The CTIA, which represents the interests of carriers including AT&T and Verizon, opposes the change.
Talking sides in net neutrality
Advocates of net neutrality are concerned that the relatively limited competition among major service providers (often a duopoly in many markets) will result in unfairly prioritized, limited or censored services and exclusive hardware deals and device restrictions that hurt consumers and free markets. They want regulation in place that prevents providers from discriminating against certain applications, content and devices in order to keep the Internet open to new and innovative products and business models.
Critics of net neutrality claim the government can't adequate regulate network services, and may impose rules that do more harm than good. They also assert that companies can regulate themselves. Major providers, including AT&T, Comcast, and Verizon have long railed against any new rules imposing net neutrality principles, and have been supported by business-friendly conservatives who support deregulation.
In between consumers and service providers, companies like Apple and Google have more moderate positions on net neutrality. Both sell their products or services directly to consumers and benefit from open networks. However, both also partner with the service providers to bring their products to market. That arrangement compels Apple, for example, to enforce whatever rules and limitations its carrier partners choose to invoke over users.
Google changing sides in net neutrality
While Apple has remained largely silent on the issue of net neutrality, Google has taken a strong advocacy position promoting the concept of open networks that do not impose restrictions on the type of content carried, the type of devices that can be used on them, and the sources and destinations of the content.
However, Google and Verizon recently worked together to craft a proposal to the FCC that forwards the cause of net neutrality on wired broadband networks while largely exempting wireless providers from any oversight. That has resulted in a maelstrom of new complaints against Google, asserting that the company's new position is grossly hypocritical because it is intended to create a distraction of progress while pinching off net neutrality on mobile networks, the future of the Internet.
The reason for Google's change of heart on net neutrality on mobile networks, critics say, is wholly related to its new position as a mobile platform vendor with Android, which has its fortunes currently tied to Verizon's mobile network. Google says that progress on broadband net neutrality is too important to imperil on an insistence that mobile networks be similarly put under the same level of oversight by regulators.
Apple directly benefits from net neutrality, as it can prevent the company and its minority Mac OS X and iOS platforms from being locked out of network access, keeps access open to its iTunes media and software services and its cloud streaming solutions, and allows the company to innovate with services such as rich email and FaceTime video calling, both of which directly threaten the mobile network's own "pay per message and call minutes" business models.
Without net neutrality regulations in place, AT&T could theoretically block such new services such as VoIP and tethering on its mobile networks; it is has already worked to do this on the iPhone to make its mobile traffic more manageable, relenting only as Apple pushed the carrier to support the features. A smaller partner with less clout wouldn't be likely to win such concessions from major carriers.
Unlike Apple, Google doesn't sell mobile devices (following the aborted failure of the Nexus One); it sells ads on mobile devices. That makes Google more sensitive to the demands of mobile providers and their efforts to scuttle any popular political efforts to keep networks free and open through legal regulation. And while Google benefits from openness on broadband networks, it could actually benefit from potential deals with Verizon to either prioritize traffic to Android devices or block or handicap services to rival mobile platforms.
AT&T on mobile net neutrality
As a service provider, AT&T can't be expected to embrace net neutrality regulation, but its stated position on the matter does explain why it, and by extension Verizon and Google, are working to exempt mobile networks from any new regulation that might come into effect.
In an official public policy blog posting by AT&T Vice President of Federal Regulatory Joan Marsh, the company outlines that wireless networks are inherently different than wired networks because of the bandwidth limitations of the radio spectrum.
Unlike fiber optic cables, which can easily carry 25 million Mbps, AT&T notes that "the theoretical top speed of a LTE carrier is 100 Mbps." AT&T's current UMTS 3G mobile networks only support a theoretical maximum of 7.2 Mbps down and 5.8 Mbps up, but even after paying billions to roll out next generation HSPA+ and LTE networks over the next few years, the maximum capacity of wireless networks will be a tiny fraction of the capacity available when customers have access to a wired broadband connection.
At the same time, AT&T says that wireless demand is projected to increase exponentially, not only with the rapid growth of smartphones, but also in units of other wireless devices, which are expected to balloon from 8 million in 2008 to 86 million by 2014. The company says it expects wireless carriers' traffic to expand from last years' 90,000 terabytes per month to 3.6 million terabytes by 2014.
"We are constantly striving to increase the efficiency of our spectrum resources," Marsh wrote, "but the amount of available spectrum in any given market is finite. And while we regularly split cell sectors and add additional cell towers, there are very real limits placed on cell site construction by zoning and local approval boards."
AT&T's recommendations on net neutrality
To meet the needs of tremendous growth, the company say it is "doing its part" by investing billions into network upgrades and new technologies, building out "complementary network infrastructure" using WiFi hotspots and microcells, and adding capacity to backhaul its existing facilities.
AT&T recommends that policymakers reallocate more spectrum for Commercial Mobile Radio Service and "even more importantly" act to "protect wireless broadband networks from onerous new net neutrality regulations."
Marsh writes that "wireless carriers must to be able to dynamically manage traffic and operate their networks in an environment free from burdensome, arbitrary and unnecessary regulations."
"But perhaps what might help most of all," Marsh concludes, "is for agreement to be reached on net neutrality so we can finally satisfy concerns and put that issue behind us. Then we could focus all our attention on a more urgent matter struggling for oxygen right now, and that?s the National Broadband Plan."
Net neutrality proponents recommend new policy
"The FCC cannot carry out the National Broadband Plan or protect Internet users unless it restores its authority to regulate broadband," wrote S. Derek Turner, the research director at Free Press, cited in an article by PCMag on the issue.
"The authority of the FCC to act on its national broadband plan or net neutrality was called into question earlier this year when a court ruled that the FCC did not have the authority to hand down a 2008 network management enforcement action against Comcast," the article explained. "The FCC has since proposed a 'third way' to regulate broadband, and consumer group Free Press on Friday urged the commission to move ahead with that plan."
"America has already lost too much waiting for the agency to formulate a national broadband policy," Turner added. "And it would be irresponsible to delay further simply because industry wishes for the FCC to have no authority over broadband communications."
The Open Internet Coalition (which includes Google as a member) has endorsed the FCC's current plan to re-classify broadband as a telecom service rather than an information service, allowing it the power to, as the OIC is urging, "act quickly to establish a common-sense, predictable framework that ensures that the connections to the Internet remain open and free from discriminatory or anticompetitive practices."
The CTIA, which represents the interests of carriers including AT&T and Verizon, opposes the change.
Comments
Interestingly the spokesperson from AT&T pointed out why. It is directly related to the idea of finite space. In this context the space we are talking about is the usable spectrum for cell type services. Even more interesting is that the arguement directly supports one of the reasons for the existance of the FCC in the first place. That is the management of that spectrum. It is rather difficult for the telcos to say the FCC shouldn't be involved when that is one of the reasons we have the FCC in the first place.
In the end Verizons and AT&Ts arguements directly support the the reason the FCC exists in the first place. In the end to keep the mobile internet functional the FCC will have to become very strict with respect to what can be transfered over the mobile networks. This to keep the services available to everyone.
In the end i think the FCC will have to outlaw many streaming services over the mobile networks. To put it simply there is not enough bandwidth for everybody in this country to have their own personal Radio or TV station over a cell network. There never will be either due to the nature of the RF spectrum and the publics tolerance of cell towers. The AT&T rep pretty much says so in the article. The problem is he comes to the wrong conclusion. The only way to manage a limited resource is through regulation. Frankly it is how all the different radio frequency services have remained viable and free of interference all these years.
Dave
It is obviously true that wireless networks face greater bandwidth constraints than wired networks. But I'm not sure that it necessarily follows that net neutrality can therefore not apply to wireless networks. What does follow logically is that providers cannot sell fixed-price "unlimited" data plans. Instead, they must either charge by the byte or have tiered pricing based on usage (which is just a discretized version of charging by the byte). Unlike many of the whiners who post in forums such as this, I actually applaud AT&T for their new tiered data plans for the iPhone -- I'm saving money with the new plan, and it should help AT&T better deal with demand for bandwidth. And perhaps there are other aspects of data plans that should also involve varying price -- for example, AT&T could charge more for low-latency/high speed data than for high-latency/low speed data (I can definitely see why that would be necessary). So it seems to me that so long as net neutrality allows carriers to charge users more money when more data is accessed and more money when data is accessed more quickly/immediately, then there is no problem with net neutrality and the Verizon/AT&T position is bogus. But if net neutrality would make it impossible for carriers to charge more for faster data access, then net neutrality needs to be modified.
They only face greater bandwidth limitation due to the present limitation in RF technology to manage that bandwidth and refine it. In ten years the bandwidth they have will be no different, yet the services and coverage will have expanded rapidly.
AT&T wants a bandwidth grab that they will never give up [same with Verizon, Sprint and T-Mobile] and that means the Military and DoD would have to relinquish hold over some of it.
IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. You've been coddled for 50 years. Get over yourselves Telcos and start paying back all your subsidies and tax sheltering the US has given to you. The money alone could pay for a large chunk of these useless wars.
First; mobile or cell based services are not the future of the internet. It will be a popular component of the internet but it certainly isn't the future.
Interestingly the spokesperson from AT&T pointed out why. It is directly related to the idea of finite space. In this context the space we are talking about is the usable spectrum for cell type services. Even more interesting is that the arguement directly supports one of the reasons for the existance of the FCC in the first place. That is the management of that spectrum. It is rather difficult for the telcos to say the FCC shouldn't be involved when that is one of the reasons we have the FCC in the first place.
In the end Verizons and AT&Ts arguements directly support the the reason the FCC exists in the first place. In the end to keep the mobile internet functional the FCC will have to become very strict with respect to what can be transfered over the mobile networks. This to keep the services available to everyone.
In the end i think the FCC will have to outlaw many streaming services over the mobile networks. To put it simply there is not enough bandwidth for everybody in this country to have their own personal Radio or TV station over a cell network. There never will be either due to the nature of the RF spectrum and the publics tolerance of cell towers. The AT&T rep pretty much says so in the article. The problem is he comes to the wrong conclusion. The only way to manage a limited resource is through regulation. Frankly it is how all the different radio frequency services have remained viable and free of interference all these years.
Dave
I completely agree. The major growth comes from Fixed Networking when it moves into the Fiber space.
I still can't get over how bad Google screwed everyone over to get into this little club.
One thing you'll find most common on issues like this is Hypocrisy. Everybody pursuing their own agenda nowadays amid all the smokescreen and sweet talk especially when billions are on the table. Company be allowed to regulate themselves? Seriously, it never turn out good in the long run. What required is authority and balanced regulation full stop.
Companies don't need regulation. They have our best interests at heart. The Market will magically sort out all of our problems. Look at Wall Street -it is a shining example of how the push for deregulation (especially derivatives - which never had any at all) results in a prosperous economy that all benefit from.
Oh, wait.... *ring ring* "Hello Mr Greenspan. Yes, we know you have guided public policy towered deregulation under both parties. Yes, 40 years, uh huh. What do you mean, you were wrong? But..." *click*
Bummer
It is obviously true that wireless networks face greater bandwidth constraints than wired networks. But I'm not sure that it necessarily follows that net neutrality can therefore not apply to wireless networks.
Actually i'm sure that it does. Net nuetrality only works if there is enough bandwidth available at anyone time for the current users to freely engage whatever service is available. Cell networks on the otherhand can only handle limited workloads as anybody that has tried to use a cell phone at a convention or airport during a snow delay can attest to. In the end to many users in one location means congestion with respect to the available bandwidth. Now look at this in the context of Facetime and streaming television, the bandwidth isn't there and frankly is probably why AT&T resists running facetime over 3G.
What does follow logically is that providers cannot sell fixed-price "unlimited" data plans. Instead, they must either charge by the byte or have tiered pricing based on usage (which is just a discretized version of charging by the byte).
In the end that won't work either as bandwidth would go to people with big bucks trying to use services that make no sense on a mobile network.
For example why should the "broadcast" of television shows be permitted on cell networks when there is already spectrum allocated for Broadcast TV. Even more so the same question can be asked about FM and AM radio. Streaming will kill cellular networking if it is adopted widely. The question then becomes who should regulate what is transmitted over such services. To put it bluntly it is a mistake to leave that decision up to the telcos.
Unlike many of the whiners who post in forums such as this, I actually applaud AT&T for their new tiered data plans for the iPhone -- I'm saving money with the new plan, and it should help AT&T better deal with demand for bandwidth.
Except this isn't what AT&T is doing. Instead they regulate by control of what you can do on their network. For example no Facetime over 3G, no tethering unless you pay $20 for NO BANDWIDTH. The list goes on but it is a huge mistake to buy into AT&Ts excuse for the new plans. If such plans where about controlling access the why these silly restrictions?
And perhaps there are other aspects of data plans that should also involve varying price -- for example, AT&T could charge more for low-latency/high speed data than for high-latency/low speed data (I can definitely see why that would be necessary). So it seems to me that so long as net neutrality allows carriers to charge users more money when more data is accessed and more money when data is accessed more quickly/immediately, then there is no problem with net neutrality and the Verizon/AT&T position is bogus. But if net neutrality would make it impossible for carriers to charge more for faster data access, then net neutrality needs to be modified.
Net neutrality is fine for wired networks and frankly i don't care if it is unlimited acccess or by the byte as long as the fees are reasonable. The problem with cell or mobile networking is its finite bandwidth and the purpose of those cellular network connections in the first place.
More precisely should a user have to give up Facetime in preference the streaming of TV shows. One has to look at this in context, the cellular system was built around the idea of personal communications yet in the case of AT&T they seem to have a preference for TV over Facetime. So already AT&T is blowing it with respect to what many users see the system as.
In the end AT&Ts new billing system can only be seen as a scam if they don't allow free access to that bandwidth you are supposedly paying for. Think about it real hard what is the point in their plan if i can't access the bandwidth intensive services i want anyway?
In the end I really believe that the only way to keep mobile networking viable is to heavily regulate the services and keep the telcos competeing on a level playing field. This due to the monopoly nature of the companies and the nature of the spectrum which in and of itself limits competition. In part that will mean that the FCC will have to apply a heavy hand in a couple of ways. First they will have to outlaw broadcasting over mobile when such broadcasts are offered over other services. This means no FM or TV stations broadcasting over mobile networks. The second part is that an individual should get the bandwidth he pays for and be free to use it anyway he likes that hasn't been specifically prohibited by the FCC.
The sad reality is that the telcos don't effectively compete and never have. They are more likely to follow each others plan rather than compete with them.
Oh by the way I'm a conservative person politically but i haven't been paid off by the telcos yet!
Dave
First; mobile or cell based services are not the future of the internet. It will be a popular component of the internet but it certainly isn't the future.
Interestingly the spokesperson from AT&T pointed out why. It is directly related to the idea of finite space. In this context the space we are talking about is the usable spectrum for cell type services. Even more interesting is that the arguement directly supports one of the reasons for the existance of the FCC in the first place. That is the management of that spectrum. It is rather difficult for the telcos to say the FCC shouldn't be involved when that is one of the reasons we have the FCC in the first place.
In the end Verizons and AT&Ts arguements directly support the the reason the FCC exists in the first place. In the end to keep the mobile internet functional the FCC will have to become very strict with respect to what can be transfered over the mobile networks. This to keep the services available to everyone.
In the end i think the FCC will have to outlaw many streaming services over the mobile networks. To put it simply there is not enough bandwidth for everybody in this country to have their own personal Radio or TV station over a cell network. There never will be either due to the nature of the RF spectrum and the publics tolerance of cell towers. The AT&T rep pretty much says so in the article. The problem is he comes to the wrong conclusion. The only way to manage a limited resource is through regulation. Frankly it is how all the different radio frequency services have remained viable and free of interference all these years.
Dave
What I think is that Ehternet providers (wired or wireless) has no right to control my flow of information. The same way as telephone lines providers. And the role of FCC is to enforce it and protect my privacy rights.
If it will turn out that wireless bandwidth is a scarce resource then it means only that buffet model (all you can eat for fixed price per month) is not applicable. Like public utilities wireless providers can charge me for usage ( first few hundred MB for fixed price and then tiered price schedule). This way those people who want to watch "Avatar 3D" on their iPhone will be able to do so, but it will cost them plenty.
Insistence on buffet model means draconian restriction on usage with invasion of customer's privacy.
DieWalkure
They only face greater bandwidth limitation due to the present limitation in RF technology to manage that bandwidth and refine it. In ten years the bandwidth they have will be no different, yet the services and coverage will have expanded rapidly.
This is a huge issue and frankly nobody in Washington is standing up and backing the agressive regulation required. Without somebody slapping some sense into the telcos and by extension some of the stupid users the system will turn into a mess of poor performance and very high prices for what you get.
AT&T wants a bandwidth grab that they will never give up [same with Verizon, Sprint and T-Mobile] and that means the Military and DoD would have to relinquish hold over some of it.
I really don't believe most people understand the issue of bandwidth or what it is. Nor do they understand its fixed nature when dealling with RF systems. Like it or not the telcos will have to learn to live with the bandwidth they have now. They might find a little more usable spectrum but it certainly won't be enough to have a major impact. This is especially the case if the telcos continue to support broadcasting on their cell towers.
As a side note there use to be towers all over the place supporting microwave telco links. Many of these have disappeared due to the performance of fiber based communications. Interference was one problem but a big issue is bandwidth, fiber is a bear compared to RF systems.
IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. You've been coddled for 50 years. Get over yourselves Telcos and start paying back all your subsidies and tax sheltering the US has given to you. The money alone could pay for a large chunk of these useless wars.
Corruption in government is a big issue, and the telcos are a big lobbyest. Unfortunately there is much apathy here in America. Maybe that is due to bearable pricing for services people think that they can't do without.
Sadly with mobile i don't really agree with anyside in this arguement. First; you need regulation simply due to the nature of the problem. There is no way around that and it is one of the primary functions of the FCC. Second net neutrality is impossible on mobile, it will eventually lead to heavy congestion and unusable networks. This is directly related to the limited practicle bandwidth for such services. The regulation required here will not make anybody happy on either side of the various fences, but in the end i see little choice. Third; public expectations must be dealt with. The number one thing here is an educational opportunity to get across the idea that there are no free lunches. By that I mean that the freedom of mobile networking will have to come with limitations if a good portion of the population will leverage the capability.
Right now we live in an age of early adopters as far as mobile goes. If a much larger portion of the population goes mobile the system will have problems as currently used. There is no sound way around that, that doesn't involve some control over that mobile access.
Dave
From what I understand net neutrality to mean (equal speed and access for all sites on the net) wireless spectrum does not matter. Who cares if I stream shit from YouTube or Vimeo or my own Personal site? It takes up the same amount of wireless spectrum. Even if my site is blocked it does not free up any space for youtube, cause only bandwidth is finite, not the number of sites on the net.
It seems like the wireless "ISPs" just want FCC to let them do whatever on "mobile" internet, which would mean that you only get google search on Verizon and good luck trying to connect to Bing or Yahoo as it would take all day.
The fact that google signed up for this makes it even more scary.
What I think is that Ehternet providers (wired or wireless) has no right to control my flow of information. The same way as telephone lines providers. And the role of FCC is to enforce it and protect my privacy rights.
Then you don't understand the role of the FCC. One of its primary functions is to regulate the use of the RF spectrum. A spectrum made up of many different users. The telcos only have a small portion of the RF spectrum.
If it will turn out that wireless bandwidth is a scarce resource then it means only that buffet model (all you can eat for fixed price per month) is not applicable.
To quote Steve you need to educate yourself. The entire RF spectrum is highly regulated and always has been. Every single service has bandwith limitations be it AM radio, ham radio, marine, public safety or whatever. You realky should understand what you are talking about before speaking.
Like public utilities wireless providers can charge me for usage ( first few hundred MB for fixed price and then tiered price schedule). This way those people who want to watch "Avatar 3D" on their iPhone will be able to do so, but it will cost them plenty.
That doesn't solve the bandwidth problem and just leads to high prices. In the end you have to limit what services can run over the allocated bandwidth. The big question is who sets the standards for what is accessible, with my point being that you don't want the telcos involved.
Insistence on buffet model means draconian restriction on usage with invasion of customer's privacy.
DieWalkure
Frankly what I'm saying is that there is no model available that will lead to acceptable system performance once we get beyound the early adopter stage. The telcos will have to be forced into curtailing high bandwidth services inorder to keep mobile economical and performance viable. In part that will have to involve keeping broadcast services off mobile because it is at odds with the whole idea of mobile in the first place
Dave
It's called dedicated access, and runs around $500/mo per T1 (1.5 Mbps)
Even co-located Internet access (no data transmission to your premises involved) runs around $70/mo per Mbps.
The cheap rates we are used to get, come from the fact that we are using shared Internet access. Even DSL is shared, only not on your line but at the CO.
Only to keep ISPs viable, any net-neutrality even-pricing regulations would necessarily increase cost and/or reduce bit rates for all.
ISPs would not lose, as they pass to the customer their Internet access costs, and their increased regulation-dealing costs to boot.
Be careful what you wish, as it may occasionally come true, and you may not like it.
Right... Mobile internet is so different from normal internet that we need to limit the number of sites you can access to keep up other sites from filling up all this finite space.
Yes exactly! In order for mobile to work in its allocated spectrum there has to be limitations on what is handled on that band width. This is no different than any other FCC managed part of the spectrum
From what I understand net neutrality to mean (equal speed and access for all sites on the net) wireless spectrum does not matter.
Sure it does, if wireless is not managed bandwidth goes to the people paying the big bucks. Don't believe me then look at what AT&T is doing now. No Factime, extra for tethering and the general screwing we get.
Who cares if I stream shit from YouTube or Vimeo or my own Personal site?
Just about anybody using that tower.
It takes up the same amount of wireless spectrum. Even if my site is blocked it does not free up any space for youtube, cause only bandwidth is finite, not the number of sites on the net.
It seems like the wireless "ISPs" just want FCC to let them do whatever on "mobile" internet, which would mean that you only get google search on Verizon and good luck trying to connect to Bing or Yahoo as it would take all day.
The fact that google signed up for this makes it even more scary.
The problem is as you point out with the telcos. This is whyvregulation from the FCC is needed. The only effective contol would be a limitation on streaming which takes up a considerable amount of spectrum. My point is that control is needed to keep mobile viable and that the telcos are not the ones that should be excercising that control.
It is a question of which is worst in the long run. I believe the FCC could do a better job if permitted. First they could deal with these silly limitations and data plans. Second they can effectively ban services that use other portions of the spectrum. Point blank there is no good reason for a radio or TV station to be broadcasting over a cell network, they already have transmitters for that on their own soectrum. It is simpky a waste of spectrum
Dave
First; mobile or cell based services are not the future of the internet. It will be a popular component of the internet but it certainly isn't the future. Dave
Devices are clearly going mobile. People aren't going to be tethered to Ethernet. Local area wireless, including WiFi, and existing mobile services are likely going to merge into hybrid networks where you get both bandwidth and mobility.
This is going to continue to improve. Looking at existing limitations is a distraction. There isn't going to always be a cell tower problem. You can't send an infinite amount of data across the air over a fixed area, but you can keep adding mini towers until you have a wireless mesh that's plugged into a fast backhaul at regular intervals.
Imagine a nanotech object you spray like pebbles along roads, where each acts as a node on a mesh network, tied into broadcasting nodes that interface with fibre links. Sounds far out now, but that's where things are headed eventually.
Rather than having 200 towers in a city, you'll have something closer to a nervous system that exists everywhere, and uses short distance radio uplinks to efficiently allocate wireless spectrum.
You're thinking like somebody fixed in the past.
---
Of course we also need some basic and strong regulation codified as a bill of rights for consumers, as carriers don't have the public interest in mind. They're around to make money. And with most utilities needing a monopoly status to exist, that's not likely going to change.
The problem there is that the US government is now serving corporations, not people. Any attempt to look out for the welfare of citizens is vilified as "socialism," while the Supreme Court's activist conservative judges hand corporations the right to buy elections under the guise of "freedom of speech." The US will fail and be replaced with something else if this nonsense continues. Look, we almost elected a cranky fossil and a retarded weather girl because of fears that intelligent leadership might be too "elite" and not "maverick" enough. Jesus Christ.
Also, note that Net Neutrality has nothing to do with "all you can eat" service. Is means service providers can't discriminate as common carriers of data. They can still say "more data costs more," they just can't charge you one rate to push the same amount of data if you're X and another if you're Google. And they can't say you have to have certain equipment to use it (potentially making cross carrier roaming on LTE a future prospect) and so on.
Also, note that Net Neutrality has nothing to do with "all you can eat" service. Is means service providers can't discriminate as common carriers of data. They can still say "more data costs more," they just can't charge you one rate to push the same amount of data if you're X and another if you're Google. And they can't say you have to have certain equipment to use it (potentially making cross carrier roaming on LTE a future prospect) and so on.
Exactly, they are always trying to confuse these two issues. Of course more data costs more. But if you censor my communications, be prepared to have the government correct you, and pay a settlement to the victims of the censorship. Ultimately the president can replace the CEO of the companies and have them broken up.
On spectrum, Verizon clearly attempted to monopolize spectrum proactively. There is PLENTY of spectrum still unused. It should be allocated on a rental basis not ownership. There is an overall surplus of spectrum. We won't run out in our lifetime. But, some of it may need to be nationalized and rented out again, because it was improperly sold. Imagine if we sold the entire water supply to the USA. We could be blackmailed for trillions of dollars to use that water. Or, instead, the government could rule that the "scarcity" of drinking water is an illegal collusive behavior, and the asset should be broken up, without a possibility of price collusion.