Net neutrality war begins...

[ChicosBailBonds]

Innovation and investment have always, and will continue to, occur in any markets, even in risky situations if the pay-off is there. If ATT feels things are beginning to change and they don't see it as the same lucrative investment it's been, fine. Someone will take their place eventually. There's a market there that needs companies and there is money to be made.

Granted, you are almost assuredly the expert on this board. But you post this and make it sound like a big threat. To the point it almost seems like extortion - "don't threaten us or we'll do things you don't like"

That's the point, will the payoff be there?  Look, this is just a large Telco firing a warning shot at POTUS comments.  It's the right play.  Last year AT&T spent $20billion in capital to improve their business (more cell towers, more fiber, etc, etc), but if they don't have the chance to recoup those expenses, they aren't going to do it....nor should they.   It's not extortion, it's good business.  Will some innovation continue?  Some investment?  Of course, but it may be bit players, or tertiary enterprises while those that could bring some true innovation decide to invest elsewhere.  For now, I'd call it just a warning shot and I think there will be others.  The idea of a public utility is so beyond stupid in so many ways....business is simply reacting to that stupidity, as they should.

At the end of the day, all of this goes to the courts for many years.

[brandx]

Innovation and investment have always, and will continue to, occur in any markets, even in risky situations if the pay-off is there. If ATT feels things are beginning to change and they don't see it as the same lucrative investment it's been, fine. Someone will take their place eventually. There's a market there that needs companies and there is money to be made.

Granted, you are almost assuredly the expert on this board. But you post this and make it sound like a big threat. To the point it almost seems like extortion - "don't threaten us or we'll do things you don't like"

Broadband is the future - if A T T is bailing, it is because they know they can't compete right now. These guys aren't dumb. My guess is that they will still be investing in broadband companies

As more channels offer a la carte, cable providers will start to shift their businesses to focus more and more on broadband services. They will gradually evolve to rely less on video and to become more broadband-centric. That is the big point. This is all about broadband. That will leave satellite companies like DirecTV and Dish Network as the guys with the most to lose.

Cable companies will fight the changes at first, but they know where the future lies – and they plan to be a part of it. millions of people will still want the convenience and value of a bundled package without the attendant hassles inherent in a la carte. But the cable companies will continue to do what they need to make sure that they have a big voice in what the future will be – as they obviously want to stay as on top as the big player.

[mu_hilltopper]

Wait .. so .. all this time AT&T has been getting "internet revenue" from selling its Uverse / DSL services, charging folks for their backbone connections, and using that to build out its network, right?  (or wrong?).

As far as I can recall, they don't have a kickback from someone like Netflix (yet.)

So .. somehow AT&T has been able to have a funding mix of 100% consumers of their product, and 0% from the big-data-senders.  

Why would that model not work in the future?   If the suggestion is that they can't raise rates on their end-internet video-hungry customers, I have a bridge to sell you.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Wait .. so .. all this time AT&T has been getting "internet revenue" from selling its Uverse / DSL services, charging folks for their backbone connections, and using that to build out its network, right?  (or wrong?).

As far as I can recall, they don't have a kickback from someone like Netflix (yet.)

So .. somehow AT&T has been able to have a funding mix of 100% consumers of their product, and 0% from the big-data-senders.  

Why would that model not work in the future?   If the suggestion is that they can't raise rates on their end-internet video-hungry customers, I have a bridge to sell you.

Title II requirements if a public utility and pricing.  That's the whole point, if it becomes a public utility and companies are forced to adhere to Title II requirements, then the model doesn't work...especially true if pricing is also regulated.  Why would any company want to risk their capital for that?  They absolutely wouldn't...which is why a public utility idea is so dumb.

you are thinking about the very high level stuff like throttling and data fast lanes....I'm talking about what it means to be a public utility.

[muwarrior69]

That's the point, will the payoff be there?  Look, this is just a large Telco firing a warning shot at POTUS comments.  It's the right play.  Last year AT&T spent $20billion in capital to improve their business (more cell towers, more fiber, etc, etc), but if they don't have the chance to recoup those expenses, they aren't going to do it....nor should they.   It's not extortion, it's good business.  Will some innovation continue?  Some investment?  Of course, but it may be bit players, or tertiary enterprises while those that could bring some true innovation decide to invest elsewhere.  For now, I'd call it just a warning shot and I think there will be others.  The idea of a public utility is so beyond stupid in so many ways....business is simply reacting to that stupidity, as they should.

At the end of the day, all of this goes to the courts for many years.

Yup! Got to keep those lawyers employed.

[Henry Sugar]

Why would that model not work in the future?   If the suggestion is that they can't raise rates on their end-internet video-hungry customers, I have a bridge to sell you.

Data is projected to grow by 5-10x current capacity.

You interested in paying 5-10x your current broadband bill? How about just 2x your current bill? How about just your current bill increasing by 50%?

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Forgive me if I'm being stupid, won't wireless internet coverage eventually solve some of the infrastructure issues?

I know businesses are usually going to require a wired feed, but in theory, couldn't wireless speeds continue to increase enough where residential customers won't require a wired connection at all.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Forgive me if I'm being stupid, won't wireless internet coverage eventually solve some of the infrastructure issues?

I know businesses are usually going to require a wired feed, but in theory, couldn't wireless speeds continue to increase enough where residential customers won't require a wired connection at all.

Who is paying for those innovations, that infrastructure, etc?  PCell technology, towers, spectrum auctions, etc?  It's the same issue, especially if you force title II regulations on these companies.  Why on earth would they want to spend all that capital and take on all that risk, plus have to build out in areas where they would be so under water (which title II requires) it would destroy them.  This is why public utility classification is so dumb that even Wheeler, who was appointed by POTUS, politely had to state how stupid it is.  Now let's see if he caves because of who appointed him.

I find it fascinating that the same POTUS that as a Senator and POTUS believes that trucking companies, etc that move heavy commerce across roads and puts heavy usage on our transportation networks and thus charges surcharges, taxes, etc for that, is opposed to network companies charging extra for those clogging their networks (i.e. video aggregators, etc).   Netflix didn't build that network, but wants a free ride with the same treatment as Johnny 8th grader's blog.

[Henry Sugar]

Forgive me if I'm being stupid, won't wireless internet coverage eventually solve some of the infrastructure issues?

I know businesses are usually going to require a wired feed, but in theory, couldn't wireless speeds continue to increase enough where residential customers won't require a wired connection at all.

Wireless is worse! Three things:
#1 - There are only three ways to increase wireless capacity. Improved physics can get 2x current. Adding spectrum can get 2x current (and it's fricking expensive because auctions cost billions). The only way to handle wireless data growth projections is via building more cell sites (called small cells like in the AT&T commercials)
#2 - Wireless connections go from the cell tower to a switch, where the traffic just becomes wireline traffic anyway.
#3 - Even with LTE wireless speeds, which get close to some cable modem speeds, some carriers are rolling out fiber, which will be 100s of times faster than wireless.

Having said that, one of the key things we project is a convergence of wireless and wireline. This would be via your home broadband connection, wireless access, and then public/private wifi hotspots. The idea is to access any content you want on any device.

[mu_hilltopper]

Data is projected to grow by 5-10x current capacity.

You interested in paying 5-10x your current broadband bill? How about just 2x your current bill? How about just your current bill increasing by 50%?

Answer:  I wouldn't like that at all.  Can I vote for the plan where other people pay for stuff instead of me?

.. Anyone know how other super-fast countries pay for their infrastructure?  Like South Korea, where you get 100megs to the home for like two chickens per month.

[Henry Sugar]

Answer:  I wouldn't like that at all.  Can I vote for the plan where other people pay for stuff instead of me?

.. Anyone know how other super-fast countries pay for their infrastructure?  Like South Korea, where you get 100megs to the home for like two chickens per month.

The answer is primarily geography. Korea is much smaller than the US.

[MU82]

Is the net neutrality war anything like the War on Christmas?

[Badgerhater]

The answer is primarily geography. Korea is much smaller than the US.

and significantly more dense.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Answer:  I wouldn't like that at all.  Can I vote for the plan where other people pay for stuff instead of me?

.. Anyone know how other super-fast countries pay for their infrastructure?  Like South Korea, where you get 100megs to the home for like two chickens per month.

That already exists in the good old USA....you're just not allowed to say it.  Every April 15th is my reminder.

[brandx]

That already exists in the good old USA....you're just not allowed to say it.  Every April 15th is my reminder.

Another typically stupid comment regarding this subject. Now back to reality!!

Thanks to tax loopholes, many companies paid nothing to the IRS — but still received tax breaks in the billions. Among the worst offenders are telecoms that are also busy trying to strip Internet users of their online freedom:


Between 2008 and 2010, Verizon received $12.3 billion in tax subsidies from the federal government and had an effective tax rate of –2.9 percent.


In the same period, AT&T received nearly $14.5 billion in federal tax breaks, second only to Wells Fargo, which received nearly $18 billion. It had an effective tax rate of 8 percent.


The telecom industry as a whole paid an effective tax rate of 8.2 percent during the 2008–2010 period — far below the standard 35 percent corporate tax rate.


It’s telling that AT&T and Verizon stand out so prominently in this report. These are the same companies that don’t want Washington to stop them from taking advantage of Internet users. Just as they are finding loopholes to avoid paying taxes, they’re on the constant lookout for loopholes that will allow them to block our right to speak freely online.

[ChicosBailBonds]

The answer is primarily geography. Korea is much smaller than the US.

Ding ding...winner winner

[jficke13]

If only companies paid their taxes. That'd sort out this net neutrality thing right away.

[jficke13]

Another typically stupid comment regarding this subject. Now back to reality!!

Thanks to tax loopholes, many companies paid nothing to the IRS — but still received tax breaks in the billions. Among the worst offenders are telecoms that are also busy trying to strip Internet users of their online freedom:


Between 2008 and 2010, Verizon received $12.3 billion in tax subsidies from the federal government and had an effective tax rate of –2.9 percent.


In the same period, AT&T received nearly $14.5 billion in federal tax breaks, second only to Wells Fargo, which received nearly $18 billion. It had an effective tax rate of 8 percent.


The telecom industry as a whole paid an effective tax rate of 8.2 percent during the 2008–2010 period — far below the standard 35 percent corporate tax rate.


It’s telling that AT&T and Verizon stand out so prominently in this report. These are the same companies that don’t want Washington to stop them from taking advantage of Internet users. Just as they are finding loopholes to avoid paying taxes, they’re on the constant lookout for loopholes that will allow them to block our right to speak freely online.

What I mean by my above tongue in cheek comment is:

It sounds like you're saying that bad government policy appears to provide an advantage to the ISPs, therefore we should enact more government policy to harm them, thus balancing out in the end.

1. I'm not convinced that the failings (and there are many) of the tax code are directly applicable to this discussion.
2. I'm not convinced that a good regulatory scheme should be a system where we continually enact poorly thought out policies with the objective being balancing out negative impacts.

Wouldn't a better idea be to 1, reform the tax code so as to prevent the abuses you describe* and 2, come up with a reasoned way to address "net neutrality" issues with an eye towards balancing all of the issues at play rather than just black and white siding with one side or another?**

* Yes, easier said than done. This I realize.
** Yes, easier said than done. Also, it doesn't play into our if you're not on my side of the aisle you must be put down rhetorical system of the last generation so it's never going to happen. I guess, both sides should just resume sniping at each other. Carry on.

[brandx]

What I mean by my above tongue in cheek comment is:

It sounds like you're saying that bad government policy appears to provide an advantage to the ISPs, therefore we should enact more government policy to harm them, thus balancing out in the end.

1. I'm not convinced that the failings (and there are many) of the tax code are directly applicable to this discussion.
2. I'm not convinced that a good regulatory scheme should be a system where we continually enact poorly thought out policies with the objective being balancing out negative impacts.

Wouldn't a better idea be to 1, reform the tax code so as to prevent the abuses you describe* and 2, come up with a reasoned way to address "net neutrality" issues with an eye towards balancing all of the issues at play rather than just black and white siding with one side or another?**

* Yes, easier said than done. This I realize.
** Yes, easier said than done. Also, it doesn't play into our if you're not on my side of the aisle you must be put down rhetorical system of the last generation so it's never going to happen. I guess, both sides should just resume sniping at each other. Carry on.

It was nice your comment was tongue in cheek since my little mini-rant was meant as semi-tongue-in-cheek. It was not meant as a remark about gov't policy - but about people in general.

It was in response to a post how everybody wants free stuff and I was just pointing out that everybody (just about) gets free stuff already. They get it regardless of what side of the aisle they are on or if they are rich or poor. I just added the examples because that is the subject of the thread. So as we don't have too much sympathy for the billion dollar players in this thing who also have their hands out.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Wireless is worse! Three things:
#1 - There are only three ways to increase wireless capacity. Improved physics can get 2x current. Adding spectrum can get 2x current (and it's fricking expensive because auctions cost billions). The only way to handle wireless data growth projections is via building more cell sites (called small cells like in the AT&T commercials)
#2 - Wireless connections go from the cell tower to a switch, where the traffic just becomes wireline traffic anyway.
#3 - Even with LTE wireless speeds, which get close to some cable modem speeds, some carriers are rolling out fiber, which will be 100s of times faster than wireless.

Having said that, one of the key things we project is a convergence of wireless and wireline. This would be via your home broadband connection, wireless access, and then public/private wifi hotspots. The idea is to access any content you want on any device.

Thanks Sug.

I realize incremental gains become more and more expensive, but I was hoping newer and newer technology would help reduce the costs.

Laying cable is expensive. It's expensive now. It's expensive 10 years from now. I was thinking wireless transmitter technology could ease some of the infrastructure costs.

Sounds like I'm dreaming. (for now anyways).

[Benny B]

Wireless is worse! Three things:
#1 - There are only three ways to increase wireless capacity. Improved physics can get 2x current. Adding spectrum can get 2x current (and it's fricking expensive because auctions cost billions). The only way to handle wireless data growth projections is via building more cell sites (called small cells like in the AT&T commercials)
#2 - Wireless connections go from the cell tower to a switch, where the traffic just becomes wireline traffic anyway.
#3 - Even with LTE wireless speeds, which get close to some cable modem speeds, some carriers are rolling out fiber, which will be 100s of times faster than wireless.

Having said that, one of the key things we project is a convergence of wireless and wireline. This would be via your home broadband connection, wireless access, and then public/private wifi hotspots. The idea is to access any content you want on any device.

I don't know actual numbers, but it would seem that any bottleneck in data is going to be in the download bandwidth.  In theory, why couldn't you deliver all or a portion of the heavy-traffic (i.e. video) download bandwidth via UHF/VHF, thus freeing up the fiber for regular traffic?  Is that what you're talking about in the underlined portion?

[WellsstreetWanderer]

What about equipment obsolescence?  I was involved in cable decades ago and I seem to remember that there was a finite period of
time and then the infrastructure needed to be replaced. Am I remembering this correctly and is this the case now?

[ChicosBailBonds]

What about equipment obsolescence?  I was involved in cable decades ago and I seem to remember that there was a finite period of
time and then the infrastructure needed to be replaced. Am I remembering this correctly and is this the case now?

Happens all the time.  Whether it is compression hardware, receiving hardware, etc.  Yes, equipment can become obsolete as data protocols change, what spectrum (Radio Frequencies) are going to be used, etc. 

[brandx]

Is the net neutrality war anything like the War on Christmas?

More like the successful battles we waged in the War on Drugs.

[jficke13]

More like the successful battles we waged in the War on Drugs.

Or the War on Poverty?

sniping at one another on issues that are only tangentially related to the topic of the thread is fun.