I'm not sure that the FCC really has the jurisdiction to tell apple what app restrictions to place on the iPhone. Apple isn't a network operator -- apple sells phones and computers. i would think that the FCC's jurisdiction would be limited to the network providers. So I would think that this app rule would mean that AT&T or Verizon can't restrict the use of apps they don't like, but that says nothing about Apple or Microsoft or Google. But exactly which government agency has jurisdiction over what is difficult to keep track of, so I could be wrong.
While the short-term notion of unthrottled and unrestricted access to all content is appealing, I fear that allowing the government in would be a slippery slope that would ultimately curtail what we can do online.
.
Right. Because leaving corporations to their own devices just serves us SO well.
I, for one, believe that the free marketplace should be allowed to be the source of influence over ISPs.
...
If enough of the consumer base demands that ISPs not restrict their access to particular content, the providers will have to either comply or lose market share to competitors with a more consumer-centric philosophy.
Under normal circumstances I would agree with you. But if you think choice and competition doesn't exist for health care, there is even less for broadband internet access options. If Comcast decided to restrict my access to certain content, I have limited options for taking my money elsewhere. And I probably have more options than most people, but still limited.
Most municipalities still control cable franchises in their cities, and usually that means one choice. Most people also have only one choice for DSL (granted, you could contract with someone who wholesales from your phone company, but it's still your phone company's infrastructure providing the service). Verizon's FIOS and ATTs Uverse are still in rather limited geographies. Once the cell carriers deploy 4G networks, there may be more competition; but that's likely to be a very expensive option for several years.
One only needs to look at the cell phone industry in the US to see an example of how, even with competition, "consumer demand" doesn't always have enough influence on how service providers behave.
I realize that the point in your post is quite different (and much broader), but I wanted to respond to this statement (since I hear people often making a similar point): If that were true, what would explain all the amazing internet-related innovations we've had this past decade-and-a-half? After all, we've not had 'net neutrality' during all this time?
I'm not going to take up the specifics of your argument, but I have to point out it's a logical fallacy in and of itself.
There could be tons of innovation that's not happening because things are "the way they are now" and there is no way to know what that would be in the absence of things being "different from they are now."
For instance copyright law as it now exists could (and is argued by many to actually do so), also completely stifle innovation and invention, or it could actually aide it as is currently argued by it's proponents. However, no one can know the answer to that question until the situation is changed.
It's wrong to assume that the presence of some innovation now can be ascribed exclusively to the current state. We could have had innovation *despite* the assumed dampening effects of a lack of net neutrality or that innovation could also be ascribed to the assumed lack of net neutrality.
Overall however, the internet started off as "neutral" in exactly the way being proposed here, so it's a safer bet that keeping it that way will give the same result it's always had (innovation) than it is that restricting it will create *more* innovation.
I realize that the point in your post is quite different (and much broader), but I wanted to respond to this statement (since I hear people often making a similar point): If that were true, what would explain all the amazing internet-related innovations we've had this past decade-and-a-half? After all, we've not had 'net neutrality' during all this time?
I see what you mean, but I actually think we have had net neutrality in the past, it's just we've not needed to give it a name - it's just how things were.
It's only recently that we've been hearing about the idea of a two tier internet whereby ISP's could give priority to certain data over other. Previously all data was treated the same, hence the development of things like streaming audio, then video, VOIP etc. etc.
I'm reasonably sure things like streaming audio and video would have happened anyway, but VOIP? I'm not so sure the cable providers will like the fact that they have lost phone revenue by people using their own infrastructure this way.
How happy will we be with SlingBox on the road if the network quality is so poor that it barely runs?
I question how much it would actually slow down the network. Sure there are a lot of people slinging, but it's probably not even 1 out of 10 iPhones. Even if it were 1 out 10 iPhones slinging media, what are the chances they are all doing it simultaneously?
When we're "on the go", why not allow me to use Slingbox on my phone. If I'm allowed to use it on a computer wit a 3G card, why not a an iPhone with 3G connection? If we are going to limit the phone's 3G capabilities, they should say it upfront.
Perhaps there should be a little footnote that says. iPhone 3Gs - 3G speed for e-mail and web browsing... only.
I actually agree with this. I really really want to see an end to preventing competitive applications and the like--that's just not cool--but if these companies are forced to allow these bandwidth-hogging applications with no limitation and no regard to network performance, we will be the ones who pay the price. How happy will we be with SlingBox on the road if the network quality is so poor that it barely runs?
I think a good first step is making sure that applications aren't denied because they're competitive, but forcing things on networks has to happen when the networks can support it. AT&T's, obviously, cannot. All you have to do is travel through a major point of use (e.g. parts of Manhattan, San Francisco) and the problem is obvious enough.
AT&T better work hard on upgrading their networks...
The Beauty of Physics, Material Science and Chemistry is that it is always moving towards greater capacities.
Number six, transparency, is the key principle here. If we actually do find out how ISPs will manage customer usage, we have the information we need to decide wether we want to pay for it.
I'm all for metered Internet pricing, providing the cost per GB is cheap enough for the average person to afford it. I like most average users would see their monthly access bills reduced because we use very few GBs per month.
I don't expect the ISPs would want metered billing unless they could increase the cost per GB at least 20 fold. They elected to go the anti P2P capping route because they know these heavy users are a small fraction of their customer base.
To meter usage at current average bandwidth prices would seriously cut into their cash cow. When you increase charge by 20x to the majority of consumers, who are using the fewest GBs, above the outrageous price they have currently, you'd be biting off your nose to spite your face.
I'm betting the ISPs would rather accept the FCC's brand of net neutrality regulations because it doesn't effect ISP's status quo pricing which is currently gorging the consumer.
Net Neutrality will mean nothing until the FCC forces Cable/Telecoms to divest themselves of all content. Cable/telecom should be dumb pipes, and treated as the utility they are.
It doesn't take a genius to see that the approach Comcast et al are taking of throttling on usage, as opposed to (yeah, sure) content, they are just setting up defensive barricades against the inevitable assault on their control of content. With increased bandwidth, we will finally get to subscribe directly to the channels we want from the networks. Ala carte streaming. No more of the obscene 'packages' to which we're held hostage by the Cable companies. No more home shopping and evangelist networks (unless you want them.)
Cable/Telco traffic isn't regarded as generic ISP data and as such is exempt. In fact I'd go so far as to say Telcos supported this outcome. Trying to run realtime services across non-QoS data networks guarantees voice & media services will fall way short of acceptable standard and the FCC have effectively outlawed QoS.
Well played Telcos - using geeks obsession with freedom & ignorance of realtime systems against them - very, very clever!
I'm not going to take up the specifics of your argument, but I have to point out it's a logical fallacy in and of itself.
There could be tons of innovation that's not happening because things are "the way they are now" and there is no way to know what that would be in the absence of things being "different from they are now."
For instance copyright law as it now exists could (and is argued by many to actually do so), also completely stifle innovation and invention, or it could actually aide it as is currently argued by it's proponents. However, no one can know the answer to that question until the situation is changed.
Wow, I guess you really do believe in costly social experiments just to prove some logical point, huh? Cool.
But what if the experiment - in this case, availability of broadband capacity from logical risk-assessment based capital provided by telecom service providers - gets undersupplied? You think Skype, Apple, Google, P2Ps et al. will cough up the $$ to make up the difference?
You know the answer that question, so the logical follow-up to that is: And, if they don't (and already-bitten telecom service providers are not willing to go back to business-as-usual)? What happens to 'innovation and invention' on the internet then?
I see what you mean, but I actually think we have had net neutrality in the past, it's just we've not needed to give it a name - it's just how things were.
Yeah, but as I recall, those were also the days of copper wire and dial-ups. Cable and telecom (DSL) services had not incurred all the expensive capex to install broadband access to homes and businesses yet. And, there were truly digital haves and have-nots (a phenomenon that still exists, but much less so, today).
Also, some would argue that supply of all that capacity drove its own demand ('Says Law') - i.e., the pipes propelled the innovation.
Nowhere in his 6 principles does it say that an ISP cannot limit individuals to a given amount of bandwidth - only that ISPs cannot discriminate based on content or the application being used. So as long as an ISP states up front that with Plan A you get xGB/month and Plan B you get 2xGB/month, there's been no discrimination. And they are free to use the quota system to distribute bandwidth to everyone equally (at least in theory).
Too many people think "net neutrality" means they get to use as much bandwidth as they want and that ISPs who manage their networks are breaking net neutrality. Not true. "Neutrality" only means that your ISP can't tell you what apps you can/can't use and they can't interfere with particular content streams. They can't tell you that you can't use BitTorrent and they can't interfere ONLY with torrent packets. But they do have the right to throttle ALL users to pre-agreed caps (then there's no discrimination).
Hey, you can use the iphone anyway you want --- you can even get free tethering. But nobody ever tells you that AT&T is not going to do what the Italian carriers do --- give you a 250 MB data allowance per month.
You end up paying $800 for the iphone, then pay for the privilege of getting the right to have 250 MB data allowance that you are going to blow in a few hours of tethering.
Net Neutrality will mean nothing until the FCC forces Cable/Telecoms to divest themselves of all content. Cable/telecom should be dumb pipes, and treated as the utility they are.
Then the carriers will just not build any new networks.
That's the whole problem in Europe and Australia right now. These countries forced their formerly landline monopoly to lease their DSL lines to competitors so that these competitors can sell DSL internet access. Now nobody wants to build fiber optics in Europe and Australia. The Australian government (left leaning labor party) is willing to spend $30+ billion US of the public's money to build a national fiber optics network because no commercial carrier wants to do it. The UK government just shot down a plan to tax every landline $12 a year to fund their national broadband dream.
Don't get conned by idiotic statistics that Scandinavian countries are leading pretty much the world (outside Japan) on fiber optics. Yes, they have some of the lowest population density in the world --- but they are like Canada where most of their population is in their biggest 3 cities. You cover the city of Copenhagen with fiber optics network --- you cover 1/3 of Denmark's populations. Makes the whole statistic about them leading the world in fiber optics deployment a joke.
Trust me --- I am a Canadian --- who reads how Canada is regularly in the top 10 countries in terms of broadband penetration. Pretty useless statistics --- you cover Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver --- you cover 1/3 of Canada's population.
In Australia our previous government sold off the entire National Telco (Telstra), which led to the biggest wholesaler (and retailer) selling retail broadband at a lower price than they sold wholesale broadband, which really inspired competition.
Meanwhile Telstra led by Sol Trujilo (who went back to the US with a massive severance payout after driving the share price down substantially while he was at the helm), refused to come to the party and thumbed their noses at the new Government's proposals for a National infrastructure as they wanted to retain control over everything.
Now the current Government is looking at splitting the wholesale network apart from the retail business which is how it should have happened in the first place.
The Government is also looking into filtering the Internet to "protect the children", so in the US you can expect an influx of Aussies who will want to run VPN's via proxies, there might be a few dollars in this for enterprising, entrepreneurial types.
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab
Then the carriers will just not build any new networks.
That's the whole problem in Europe and Australia right now. These countries forced their formerly landline monopoly to lease their DSL lines to competitors so that these competitors can sell DSL internet access. Now nobody wants to build fiber optics in Europe and Australia. The Australian government (left leaning labor party) is willing to spend $30+ billion US of the public's money to build a national fiber optics network because no commercial carrier wants to do it. The UK government just shot down a plan to tax every landline $12 a year to fund their national broadband dream.
I see this as forcing the hand of pipe providers to up the ante or get pushed by the wayside by (hopefully) more competition. Telco's will no longer be able to oversell their services, or they will have to be more upfront about the services they CAN provide.
There have been too many shady contracts and penalties to consumers who are simply trying to use what they were sold.
This could also add additional costs to the consumer, but the simple truth is, that right now most people get acceptable performance on their connections, even with the current media frenzy/P2P load. Telco's will either have to expand their pipes, or avoid overselling their capacity, which is what they should have been doing all along.
In Australia our previous government sold off the entire National Telco (Telstra), which led to the biggest wholesaler (and retailer) selling retail broadband at a lower price than they sold wholesale broadband, which really inspired competition.
Meanwhile Telstra led by Sol Trujilo (who went back to the US with a massive severance payout after driving the share price down substantially while he was at the helm), refused to come to the party and thumbed their noses at the new Government's proposals for a National infrastructure as they wanted to retain control over everything.
Now the current Government is looking at splitting the wholesale network apart from the retail business which is how it should have happened in the first place.
The Government is also looking into filtering the Internet to "protect the children", so in the US you can expect an influx of Aussies who will want to run VPN's via proxies, there might be a few dollars in this for enterprising, entrepreneurial types.
The Australian government still indirectly owns about 17% of Telstra.
They could have broken Telstra 20 years ago like the US government breaking apart AT&T.
Share price drop happened during that time for everybody --- even the best run telecom company in the US (Verizon) during that time period. Can't blame Trujilo for that.
You can look at Europe --- they have all kinds of separation --- whether functional separation, legal separation... It doesn't work --- nobody in Europe is building fiber optics network.
Under normal circumstances I would agree with you. But if you think choice and competition doesn't exist for health care, there is even less for broadband internet access options. If Comcast decided to restrict my access to certain content, I have limited options for taking my money elsewhere. And I probably have more options than most people, but still limited.
Most municipalities still control cable franchises in their cities, and usually that means one choice. Most people also have only one choice for DSL (granted, you could contract with someone who wholesales from your phone company, but it's still your phone company's infrastructure providing the service). Verizon's FIOS and ATTs Uverse are still in rather limited geographies. Once the cell carriers deploy 4G networks, there may be more competition; but that's likely to be a very expensive option for several years.
One only needs to look at the cell phone industry in the US to see an example of how, even with competition, "consumer demand" doesn't always have enough influence on how service providers behave.
That's the thing: consumer demand does have influence and does make changes the right way?but the reason you have few choices for broadband access in your locale isn't because companies aren't eager to get your business. It's because government intervention through public utilities contracts makes it difficult for ISPs to enter the market.
Comments
While the short-term notion of unthrottled and unrestricted access to all content is appealing, I fear that allowing the government in would be a slippery slope that would ultimately curtail what we can do online.
.
Right. Because leaving corporations to their own devices just serves us SO well.
No 'slippery slope' there, huh?
I, for one, believe that the free marketplace should be allowed to be the source of influence over ISPs.
...
If enough of the consumer base demands that ISPs not restrict their access to particular content, the providers will have to either comply or lose market share to competitors with a more consumer-centric philosophy.
Under normal circumstances I would agree with you. But if you think choice and competition doesn't exist for health care, there is even less for broadband internet access options. If Comcast decided to restrict my access to certain content, I have limited options for taking my money elsewhere. And I probably have more options than most people, but still limited.
Most municipalities still control cable franchises in their cities, and usually that means one choice. Most people also have only one choice for DSL (granted, you could contract with someone who wholesales from your phone company, but it's still your phone company's infrastructure providing the service). Verizon's FIOS and ATTs Uverse are still in rather limited geographies. Once the cell carriers deploy 4G networks, there may be more competition; but that's likely to be a very expensive option for several years.
One only needs to look at the cell phone industry in the US to see an example of how, even with competition, "consumer demand" doesn't always have enough influence on how service providers behave.
I realize that the point in your post is quite different (and much broader), but I wanted to respond to this statement (since I hear people often making a similar point): If that were true, what would explain all the amazing internet-related innovations we've had this past decade-and-a-half? After all, we've not had 'net neutrality' during all this time?
I'm not going to take up the specifics of your argument, but I have to point out it's a logical fallacy in and of itself.
There could be tons of innovation that's not happening because things are "the way they are now" and there is no way to know what that would be in the absence of things being "different from they are now."
For instance copyright law as it now exists could (and is argued by many to actually do so), also completely stifle innovation and invention, or it could actually aide it as is currently argued by it's proponents. However, no one can know the answer to that question until the situation is changed.
It's wrong to assume that the presence of some innovation now can be ascribed exclusively to the current state. We could have had innovation *despite* the assumed dampening effects of a lack of net neutrality or that innovation could also be ascribed to the assumed lack of net neutrality.
Overall however, the internet started off as "neutral" in exactly the way being proposed here, so it's a safer bet that keeping it that way will give the same result it's always had (innovation) than it is that restricting it will create *more* innovation.
I realize that the point in your post is quite different (and much broader), but I wanted to respond to this statement (since I hear people often making a similar point): If that were true, what would explain all the amazing internet-related innovations we've had this past decade-and-a-half? After all, we've not had 'net neutrality' during all this time?
I see what you mean, but I actually think we have had net neutrality in the past, it's just we've not needed to give it a name - it's just how things were.
It's only recently that we've been hearing about the idea of a two tier internet whereby ISP's could give priority to certain data over other. Previously all data was treated the same, hence the development of things like streaming audio, then video, VOIP etc. etc.
I'm reasonably sure things like streaming audio and video would have happened anyway, but VOIP? I'm not so sure the cable providers will like the fact that they have lost phone revenue by people using their own infrastructure this way.
How happy will we be with SlingBox on the road if the network quality is so poor that it barely runs?
I question how much it would actually slow down the network. Sure there are a lot of people slinging, but it's probably not even 1 out of 10 iPhones. Even if it were 1 out 10 iPhones slinging media, what are the chances they are all doing it simultaneously?
When we're "on the go", why not allow me to use Slingbox on my phone. If I'm allowed to use it on a computer wit a 3G card, why not a an iPhone with 3G connection? If we are going to limit the phone's 3G capabilities, they should say it upfront.
Perhaps there should be a little footnote that says. iPhone 3Gs - 3G speed for e-mail and web browsing... only.
I actually agree with this. I really really want to see an end to preventing competitive applications and the like--that's just not cool--but if these companies are forced to allow these bandwidth-hogging applications with no limitation and no regard to network performance, we will be the ones who pay the price. How happy will we be with SlingBox on the road if the network quality is so poor that it barely runs?
I think a good first step is making sure that applications aren't denied because they're competitive, but forcing things on networks has to happen when the networks can support it. AT&T's, obviously, cannot. All you have to do is travel through a major point of use (e.g. parts of Manhattan, San Francisco) and the problem is obvious enough.
AT&T better work hard on upgrading their networks...
The Beauty of Physics, Material Science and Chemistry is that it is always moving towards greater capacities.
I'm all for metered Internet pricing, providing the cost per GB is cheap enough for the average person to afford it. I like most average users would see their monthly access bills reduced because we use very few GBs per month.
I don't expect the ISPs would want metered billing unless they could increase the cost per GB at least 20 fold. They elected to go the anti P2P capping route because they know these heavy users are a small fraction of their customer base.
To meter usage at current average bandwidth prices would seriously cut into their cash cow. When you increase charge by 20x to the majority of consumers, who are using the fewest GBs, above the outrageous price they have currently, you'd be biting off your nose to spite your face.
I'm betting the ISPs would rather accept the FCC's brand of net neutrality regulations because it doesn't effect ISP's status quo pricing which is currently gorging the consumer.
Net Neutrality will mean nothing until the FCC forces Cable/Telecoms to divest themselves of all content. Cable/telecom should be dumb pipes, and treated as the utility they are.
It doesn't take a genius to see that the approach Comcast et al are taking of throttling on usage, as opposed to (yeah, sure) content, they are just setting up defensive barricades against the inevitable assault on their control of content. With increased bandwidth, we will finally get to subscribe directly to the channels we want from the networks. Ala carte streaming. No more of the obscene 'packages' to which we're held hostage by the Cable companies. No more home shopping and evangelist networks (unless you want them.)
Cable/Telco traffic isn't regarded as generic ISP data and as such is exempt. In fact I'd go so far as to say Telcos supported this outcome. Trying to run realtime services across non-QoS data networks guarantees voice & media services will fall way short of acceptable standard and the FCC have effectively outlawed QoS.
Well played Telcos - using geeks obsession with freedom & ignorance of realtime systems against them - very, very clever!
McD
I'm not going to take up the specifics of your argument, but I have to point out it's a logical fallacy in and of itself.
There could be tons of innovation that's not happening because things are "the way they are now" and there is no way to know what that would be in the absence of things being "different from they are now."
For instance copyright law as it now exists could (and is argued by many to actually do so), also completely stifle innovation and invention, or it could actually aide it as is currently argued by it's proponents. However, no one can know the answer to that question until the situation is changed.
Wow, I guess you really do believe in costly social experiments just to prove some logical point, huh? Cool.
But what if the experiment - in this case, availability of broadband capacity from logical risk-assessment based capital provided by telecom service providers - gets undersupplied? You think Skype, Apple, Google, P2Ps et al. will cough up the $$ to make up the difference?
You know the answer that question, so the logical follow-up to that is: And, if they don't (and already-bitten telecom service providers are not willing to go back to business-as-usual)? What happens to 'innovation and invention' on the internet then?
I see what you mean, but I actually think we have had net neutrality in the past, it's just we've not needed to give it a name - it's just how things were.
Yeah, but as I recall, those were also the days of copper wire and dial-ups. Cable and telecom (DSL) services had not incurred all the expensive capex to install broadband access to homes and businesses yet. And, there were truly digital haves and have-nots (a phenomenon that still exists, but much less so, today).
Also, some would argue that supply of all that capacity drove its own demand ('Says Law') - i.e., the pipes propelled the innovation.
Too many people think "net neutrality" means they get to use as much bandwidth as they want and that ISPs who manage their networks are breaking net neutrality. Not true. "Neutrality" only means that your ISP can't tell you what apps you can/can't use and they can't interfere with particular content streams. They can't tell you that you can't use BitTorrent and they can't interfere ONLY with torrent packets. But they do have the right to throttle ALL users to pre-agreed caps (then there's no discrimination).
Hey, you can use the iphone anyway you want --- you can even get free tethering. But nobody ever tells you that AT&T is not going to do what the Italian carriers do --- give you a 250 MB data allowance per month.
You end up paying $800 for the iphone, then pay for the privilege of getting the right to have 250 MB data allowance that you are going to blow in a few hours of tethering.
Net Neutrality will mean nothing until the FCC forces Cable/Telecoms to divest themselves of all content. Cable/telecom should be dumb pipes, and treated as the utility they are.
Then the carriers will just not build any new networks.
That's the whole problem in Europe and Australia right now. These countries forced their formerly landline monopoly to lease their DSL lines to competitors so that these competitors can sell DSL internet access. Now nobody wants to build fiber optics in Europe and Australia. The Australian government (left leaning labor party) is willing to spend $30+ billion US of the public's money to build a national fiber optics network because no commercial carrier wants to do it. The UK government just shot down a plan to tax every landline $12 a year to fund their national broadband dream.
Don't get conned by idiotic statistics that Scandinavian countries are leading pretty much the world (outside Japan) on fiber optics. Yes, they have some of the lowest population density in the world --- but they are like Canada where most of their population is in their biggest 3 cities. You cover the city of Copenhagen with fiber optics network --- you cover 1/3 of Denmark's populations. Makes the whole statistic about them leading the world in fiber optics deployment a joke.
Trust me --- I am a Canadian --- who reads how Canada is regularly in the top 10 countries in terms of broadband penetration. Pretty useless statistics --- you cover Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver --- you cover 1/3 of Canada's population.
Meanwhile Telstra led by Sol Trujilo (who went back to the US with a massive severance payout after driving the share price down substantially while he was at the helm), refused to come to the party and thumbed their noses at the new Government's proposals for a National infrastructure as they wanted to retain control over everything.
Now the current Government is looking at splitting the wholesale network apart from the retail business which is how it should have happened in the first place.
The Government is also looking into filtering the Internet to "protect the children", so in the US you can expect an influx of Aussies who will want to run VPN's via proxies, there might be a few dollars in this for enterprising, entrepreneurial types.
Then the carriers will just not build any new networks.
That's the whole problem in Europe and Australia right now. These countries forced their formerly landline monopoly to lease their DSL lines to competitors so that these competitors can sell DSL internet access. Now nobody wants to build fiber optics in Europe and Australia. The Australian government (left leaning labor party) is willing to spend $30+ billion US of the public's money to build a national fiber optics network because no commercial carrier wants to do it. The UK government just shot down a plan to tax every landline $12 a year to fund their national broadband dream.
There have been too many shady contracts and penalties to consumers who are simply trying to use what they were sold.
This could also add additional costs to the consumer, but the simple truth is, that right now most people get acceptable performance on their connections, even with the current media frenzy/P2P load. Telco's will either have to expand their pipes, or avoid overselling their capacity, which is what they should have been doing all along.
In Australia our previous government sold off the entire National Telco (Telstra), which led to the biggest wholesaler (and retailer) selling retail broadband at a lower price than they sold wholesale broadband, which really inspired competition.
Meanwhile Telstra led by Sol Trujilo (who went back to the US with a massive severance payout after driving the share price down substantially while he was at the helm), refused to come to the party and thumbed their noses at the new Government's proposals for a National infrastructure as they wanted to retain control over everything.
Now the current Government is looking at splitting the wholesale network apart from the retail business which is how it should have happened in the first place.
The Government is also looking into filtering the Internet to "protect the children", so in the US you can expect an influx of Aussies who will want to run VPN's via proxies, there might be a few dollars in this for enterprising, entrepreneurial types.
The Australian government still indirectly owns about 17% of Telstra.
They could have broken Telstra 20 years ago like the US government breaking apart AT&T.
Share price drop happened during that time for everybody --- even the best run telecom company in the US (Verizon) during that time period. Can't blame Trujilo for that.
You can look at Europe --- they have all kinds of separation --- whether functional separation, legal separation... It doesn't work --- nobody in Europe is building fiber optics network.
Under normal circumstances I would agree with you. But if you think choice and competition doesn't exist for health care, there is even less for broadband internet access options. If Comcast decided to restrict my access to certain content, I have limited options for taking my money elsewhere. And I probably have more options than most people, but still limited.
Most municipalities still control cable franchises in their cities, and usually that means one choice. Most people also have only one choice for DSL (granted, you could contract with someone who wholesales from your phone company, but it's still your phone company's infrastructure providing the service). Verizon's FIOS and ATTs Uverse are still in rather limited geographies. Once the cell carriers deploy 4G networks, there may be more competition; but that's likely to be a very expensive option for several years.
One only needs to look at the cell phone industry in the US to see an example of how, even with competition, "consumer demand" doesn't always have enough influence on how service providers behave.
That's the thing: consumer demand does have influence and does make changes the right way?but the reason you have few choices for broadband access in your locale isn't because companies aren't eager to get your business. It's because government intervention through public utilities contracts makes it difficult for ISPs to enter the market.
Their feigned innocence about their role in the iTunes rejection (or pendency) of Google Voice is looking more and more suspicious to me.
This article talks about how AT&T wants to use net neutrality regulation to attack Google Voice.
Their feigned innocence about their role in the iTunes rejection (or pendency) of Google Voice is looking more and more suspicious to me.
All 3 parties --- Apple, AT&T and Google --- said that AT&T had nothing to do with the rejection of GV.