The argument of this article seems to be, "We can't fix how the FCC regulates IP services so we must force AT&T to stay in the dark ages."
You can't simultaneously decry America's networking innovation and complain that AT&T is moving to IP. Everything is moving to IP. Circuit switching is dead. They're even putting TDM over IP nowadays(ITU Y.1588v2 and SyncE).
If you really want to improve the situation don't act all Luddite. Start the conversation on overhauling common carrier legislation. Bring Judge Greene back from the dead and break these carriers into thousands of competing tiny operators.
Retaining any optimism when it comes to ATT and the FCC is a difficult task. Every FCC hearing involving ATT seems to be the same old song and dance. So yes, having a conversation would be nice, but it won't be allowed. Not a real conversation or even small talk about the weather.
Genachowski (and whoever his replacement happens to be) will smile and do what Randall Stephenson tells him to do. McDowell will threaten to sue himself and the FCC, saying the FCC has no right to do anything, under any circumstances and any action is a socialist affront to God and Country. Clyburn will do her "what does this do for the black community" bit and if we miss the saving throw a few red necks will get pissed off, further derailing things. Unsure of Rosenworcel and Pai, hopefully one of them will say something useful, but that is only praying for Judy and Punch.
Meanwhile both representatives standing in front of the chair persons will really be lobbyists for ATT. One will say that any action suggested will never be enough and the other will say that any action will be too much. Blah, blah, blah, some things never change.
I'd genuinely love to see a conversation (on anything), but that conversation will never really happen.
I don't get it. How can anyone look at the subsequent explosion of IP and mobile services and conclude that telecom deregulation in 1996 wasn't a smashing success? I'm sure there's room for improvement, but I'm not sold on a radical restructuring.
>Bring Judge Greene back from the dead and break these carriers into thousands of competing tiny operators.
That would be one option. A more pragmatic option might be to just have the FCC classify last mile IP telecommunications service as a telecommunications service that would be subject to mild regulation instead of an information service that doesn't even have to meet common carrier requirements.
If you split AT&T land lines up, how would they be competing with each other? They'd just be 1,000 separate local monopolies. There is no monopoly on internet access at a national level. Go to any carrier hotel in the nearest major city an you'll have 10-200 options. The issue is government granted monopolies on the last mile.
This is a truly ignorant article. There is no support given for any of the extreme positions taken. Additionally, it presumes that any change in regulations will reduce requirements instead of transferring those not already covering last mile IP, which is the obvious action.
The requirements for running the telephone system do not end just because the transport medium is IP. In many cases, the transition to IP services makes the existing IP infrastructure beholden to higher uptime and connectivity requirements.
Try telling federal regulators that you did not deliver an emergency call because you were in a peering dispute. Today, American backbone IP NSPs are required to deliver outage information to the FCC, and this is prior to any assumption of life-critical services.
It's costly, it's an awful use of resources, for no good benefit.
POTS is a huge ruby-goldberg device, it's almost laughable sometimes. All that so that the terminal can use 19 century tech (yep, not 20th century, 19th century)
Regulation shouldn't be about the technology details, it should be about the service provided.
Oh by the way, the US Postal Service is being driven to bankrupcy by regulation as well (I'm not saying all is bad though)
> the US Postal Service is being driven to bankrupcy by regulation as well
More correctly they are being driven to bankruptcy due to ballooning pension payments (and a congressional mandate to actually fund those obligations).
I'm not sure I agree with all the logic in this article?
Higher Prices: This is not a deregulation, surely it would make AT&T have to compete with other VOIP services? The issue are the necessary safety/security services and hiw these are not well governed in the TCP/IP world?
Service Disruptions: I can't see how both AT&T and smaller operators both using public IP would disrupt? I think there's a trade off between between price and quality of service, those that go with a Cadillac service vs those that know they are getting a slower service albeit at a lower rate?
Inequality and discrimination: This on eis an issue, it's the Governance of "essential service", My sense is the legislation needs to change to a) Force this be be carried over IP (I know there are technical issues) b) Subsidize or keep a lid on prices?
On your point regarding higher prices: I think the idea is that AT&T would be able to charge whatever access fees they want for service to rural and low income areas. They would have to compete with other VoIP services, sure, but those services need to be delivered over some infrastructure.
Re higher prices; the recent evidence in in California where the Public Utility Commission decided to no longer regulate tariffs for normal phone service, I believe they still have a tariff for low cost service for low income households. Not surprisingly, AT&T has raised their prices. Sure there's some competition, but I can't continue DSL service from my preferred ISP (Sonic.net) without an AT&T land line, because I'm behind a remote terminal.
Normally, I'm the first to scream bloody murder about AT&T and their shenanigans, but I wonder what the author's point is to be honest.
In the first case, he seems to be decrying IP regulation and wishing us back to a non-IP world (which we haven't been in since the dawn of DSL). In the second case, he seems to believe that having copper telephone service is essential to survivability for the elderly. The latter point is more apt and the former has had little bearing for almost 20 years.
No, what the author should've said, instead of keep copper alive, was "let's regulate IP communications". The US suffers because of a lack of modern common carriage laws, and we will continue to lag in technical development until this problem is fixed.
Forget copper, stop fighting a war from the 80's. Let's regulate IP.
Access duopolies are the problem and have nothing to do with core network tech. Give us multiple access pipe options (IP access of course) and the telcos can do whatever they feel like in their cores (and most already use IP cores).
This is really just an attempt by ATT to get us to help subsidize their retiring of the legacy systems that we helped subsidize in the first place.
I wonder if this total deregulation theory is correct. Didn't the FCC apply some kind of "walks like a duck" test to Vonage to determine that it is subject to telco regulation? If so, the same principle should apply to AT&T. Of course, you may need $200/month broadband to run your regulated VoIP over...
Who owns the telecom infrastructure in question? Who built it? Who paid for it? I am very skeptical of anything referred to as "public." What exactly is "public" about it?
Let it die. I haven't had POTS in probably ten years. I don't want to have to support that infrastructure financially through taxes (or whatever). Despite the fear mongering in the article we are far better off today than we were many years ago.
The US comms infrastructure seems to move and evolve slower than at smaller countries for very simple reasons. When you take the lead you give late comers the advantage of looking at what you have done to improving upon. Our infrastructure is absolutely massive when compared to, say, Estonia's (not to pick on them at all, great country). This means that rolling out step improvements is very costly. There's something pro-government folk seem to insist on ignoring: ROI. Companies can't roll out new massive infrastructures and throw away investment from the prior generation. Yes, progress in the context of a significantly larger system will look and feel slower. Our next generation IP infrastructure is being incubated today through experiments and evolution. Perhaps it will take the form of 1Gb/s fiber to the home or something less radical but equally awesome. Only private for-profit enterprise can bring us this.
> There's something pro-government folk seem to insist on ignoring: ROI. Companies can't roll out new massive infrastructures and throw away investment from the prior generation.
It's interesting then when some actual competition comes along speeds increase and prices lower. Look at what happened with Google Fiber in KC. This is an often repeated point that has been proved wrong time and time again. Sure, there is some truth to it on a basic level, upgrading services cost money. In reality the companies have the regulatory bodies under control, the politicians under control, and they don't have to innovate or invest to make insane amounts of money. Why not just improve services in cities where the population is very dense? Why not in places like New England where there are many cities close together? Why if I call to cancel my service my prices can be cut in half? They have the money, there is just zero competition so they don't care.
>Our infrastructure is absolutely massive when compared to, say, Estonia's (not to pick on them at all, great country). This means that rolling out step improvements is very costly.
You have the math exactly backwards. If you have ten million customers instead of ten thousand then you have a thousand times more customers to spread your costs over and you get greater economies of scale.
>Companies can't roll out new massive infrastructures and throw away investment from the prior generation.
Sure they can. They just don't ever want to, which is why they don't and why regulators are needed to make them do it.
>Our next generation IP infrastructure is being incubated today through experiments and evolution. Perhaps it will take the form of 1Gb/s fiber to the home or something less radical but equally awesome. Only private for-profit enterprise can bring us this.
Kindly explain how some foreign countries with highly regulated or state-operated telecommunications companies already have faster internet connections at lower prices than major American cities.
[+] [-] smutticus|13 years ago|reply
You can't simultaneously decry America's networking innovation and complain that AT&T is moving to IP. Everything is moving to IP. Circuit switching is dead. They're even putting TDM over IP nowadays(ITU Y.1588v2 and SyncE).
If you really want to improve the situation don't act all Luddite. Start the conversation on overhauling common carrier legislation. Bring Judge Greene back from the dead and break these carriers into thousands of competing tiny operators.
[+] [-] steauengeglase|13 years ago|reply
Genachowski (and whoever his replacement happens to be) will smile and do what Randall Stephenson tells him to do. McDowell will threaten to sue himself and the FCC, saying the FCC has no right to do anything, under any circumstances and any action is a socialist affront to God and Country. Clyburn will do her "what does this do for the black community" bit and if we miss the saving throw a few red necks will get pissed off, further derailing things. Unsure of Rosenworcel and Pai, hopefully one of them will say something useful, but that is only praying for Judy and Punch.
Meanwhile both representatives standing in front of the chair persons will really be lobbyists for ATT. One will say that any action suggested will never be enough and the other will say that any action will be too much. Blah, blah, blah, some things never change.
I'd genuinely love to see a conversation (on anything), but that conversation will never really happen.
[+] [-] twoodfin|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] AnthonyMouse|13 years ago|reply
That would be one option. A more pragmatic option might be to just have the FCC classify last mile IP telecommunications service as a telecommunications service that would be subject to mild regulation instead of an information service that doesn't even have to meet common carrier requirements.
[+] [-] jmccree|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zero_intp|13 years ago|reply
The requirements for running the telephone system do not end just because the transport medium is IP. In many cases, the transition to IP services makes the existing IP infrastructure beholden to higher uptime and connectivity requirements.
Try telling federal regulators that you did not deliver an emergency call because you were in a peering dispute. Today, American backbone IP NSPs are required to deliver outage information to the FCC, and this is prior to any assumption of life-critical services.
[+] [-] raverbashing|13 years ago|reply
It's costly, it's an awful use of resources, for no good benefit.
POTS is a huge ruby-goldberg device, it's almost laughable sometimes. All that so that the terminal can use 19 century tech (yep, not 20th century, 19th century)
Regulation shouldn't be about the technology details, it should be about the service provided.
Oh by the way, the US Postal Service is being driven to bankrupcy by regulation as well (I'm not saying all is bad though)
[+] [-] fr0sty|13 years ago|reply
More correctly they are being driven to bankruptcy due to ballooning pension payments (and a congressional mandate to actually fund those obligations).
[+] [-] chollida1|13 years ago|reply
Not sure if that was intentional or a mistype but it made me laugh:)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rube_Goldberg
[+] [-] Wista|13 years ago|reply
Higher Prices: This is not a deregulation, surely it would make AT&T have to compete with other VOIP services? The issue are the necessary safety/security services and hiw these are not well governed in the TCP/IP world?
Service Disruptions: I can't see how both AT&T and smaller operators both using public IP would disrupt? I think there's a trade off between between price and quality of service, those that go with a Cadillac service vs those that know they are getting a slower service albeit at a lower rate?
Inequality and discrimination: This on eis an issue, it's the Governance of "essential service", My sense is the legislation needs to change to a) Force this be be carried over IP (I know there are technical issues) b) Subsidize or keep a lid on prices?
[+] [-] michael_h|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] toast0|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sokrates|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] josh2600|13 years ago|reply
In the first case, he seems to be decrying IP regulation and wishing us back to a non-IP world (which we haven't been in since the dawn of DSL). In the second case, he seems to believe that having copper telephone service is essential to survivability for the elderly. The latter point is more apt and the former has had little bearing for almost 20 years.
No, what the author should've said, instead of keep copper alive, was "let's regulate IP communications". The US suffers because of a lack of modern common carriage laws, and we will continue to lag in technical development until this problem is fixed.
Forget copper, stop fighting a war from the 80's. Let's regulate IP.
[+] [-] gz5|13 years ago|reply
This is really just an attempt by ATT to get us to help subsidize their retiring of the legacy systems that we helped subsidize in the first place.
[+] [-] wmf|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] matterhorn|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pyre|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fishercs|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] robomartin|13 years ago|reply
The US comms infrastructure seems to move and evolve slower than at smaller countries for very simple reasons. When you take the lead you give late comers the advantage of looking at what you have done to improving upon. Our infrastructure is absolutely massive when compared to, say, Estonia's (not to pick on them at all, great country). This means that rolling out step improvements is very costly. There's something pro-government folk seem to insist on ignoring: ROI. Companies can't roll out new massive infrastructures and throw away investment from the prior generation. Yes, progress in the context of a significantly larger system will look and feel slower. Our next generation IP infrastructure is being incubated today through experiments and evolution. Perhaps it will take the form of 1Gb/s fiber to the home or something less radical but equally awesome. Only private for-profit enterprise can bring us this.
[+] [-] chez17|13 years ago|reply
It's interesting then when some actual competition comes along speeds increase and prices lower. Look at what happened with Google Fiber in KC. This is an often repeated point that has been proved wrong time and time again. Sure, there is some truth to it on a basic level, upgrading services cost money. In reality the companies have the regulatory bodies under control, the politicians under control, and they don't have to innovate or invest to make insane amounts of money. Why not just improve services in cities where the population is very dense? Why not in places like New England where there are many cities close together? Why if I call to cancel my service my prices can be cut in half? They have the money, there is just zero competition so they don't care.
[+] [-] AnthonyMouse|13 years ago|reply
You have the math exactly backwards. If you have ten million customers instead of ten thousand then you have a thousand times more customers to spread your costs over and you get greater economies of scale.
>Companies can't roll out new massive infrastructures and throw away investment from the prior generation.
Sure they can. They just don't ever want to, which is why they don't and why regulators are needed to make them do it.
>Our next generation IP infrastructure is being incubated today through experiments and evolution. Perhaps it will take the form of 1Gb/s fiber to the home or something less radical but equally awesome. Only private for-profit enterprise can bring us this.
Kindly explain how some foreign countries with highly regulated or state-operated telecommunications companies already have faster internet connections at lower prices than major American cities.
[+] [-] unknown|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]