[RTC List] [Fwd: Re: Your Future Broadband Will Cost More, for Less]

Sat Nov 8 13:32:18 PST 2008

Folks -

Here's a note from a public interest perspective:

As Tim Wu pointed out in a NYTimes piece last Summer, a helpful 
perspective to keep in mind is that the telecom industry is acting like 
"OPEC 2.0" - managing scarcity (real or virtual) to maximize profits 
over time.   The main difference is that telecom/broadband service is a 
renewable resource.  And the broadband cartel is built upon government 
franchises (cable franchises, CPUC and FCC licenses) granted to a few 
selected corporations.

Only a small fraction of the public rights of way and the public 
spectrum are reserved for public, education and government purposes - 
mostly the use of these priceless public assets are granted via 
licenses, leases, and franchises to private commercial interests.  
Essentially, these commercial telecom/broadband providers (AT&T, 
Suddenlink, etc.) are acting as communication utilities, having entered 
into a social contract to build and manage our communications 
infrastructure.  Only recently have our legislators forgotten the 
essential duty of communications, to serve the public interest 
convenience and necessity...

The option of measured service has been part of the telecom mix for a 
long time, allowed for some services - long distance telephone and cell 
phone service are longstanding examples.   Like other utilities, 
telecoms such as AT&T had guaranteed return on investment and rate 
regulation along with a host of consumer protections and other public 
interest obligations - like E911, lifeline, and services for the deaf.

The history of telecom/broadband regulation also includes a fundamental 
principle - the principle of common carriage that prohibits 
discriminatory treatment of communications and customers.  This basic 
principle is now under assault.  And as technological capabilities have 
complicated the rules implementing the Common Carrier concept, the 
battles are being described now as the fight for "Network Neutrality."   

 From a policy perspective, there are real concerns about treating 
broadband communication as a commodity rather than a social good.  Just 
like roads and highways, water systems and energy utilities, 
communications networks are an essential part of healthy democratic 
societies.  So, US laws and regulations are designed to protect three 
public interest pillars for broadband media:  Competition, Localism and 
Diversity.   These three concepts provide key points of reference for 
policy implementation by the FCC.

Yet, because commercial interests control most of the decisions about 
basic investments in broadband media infrastructure, and industry 
profits are maximized by scarcity rather than plenty, we have a 
situation that can best be described (from a social good perspective) as 
"market failure."  Just look at US broadband infrastructure in relation 
to Korea, Japan, etc...

It is past time for an intelligent National Broadband Policy that 
preserves Common Carrier principles and provides for competition, 
diversity and localism in the development and governance of broadband 
infrastructure.

#  #  #

Thanks to Kathy for bringing the voice of the Redwood Coast to broadband 
discussions in SFO and beyond!

Aloha,
Sean

Sean McLaughlin
Executive Director
Access Humboldt
P.O. Box 157, Eureka, CA 95502
tel: 707-476-1798
dir: 707-476-2873
fax: 707-476-1702
cel: 707-616-2381
e: sean at accesshumboldt.net
web:  accesshumboldt.net

"Local Voices Through Community Media"

JBilderback wrote:
>
> Kathy Moxon wrote:
>
>> I don't totally understand the rationale of user limits--or is
>> it just a new pricing structure (instead of one price you have
>> to pay for what you use) and are they moving to pay for what
>> you use because broadband capacity is scarce? Or just because
>> they can?
>>
>
> 1) They are currently running a "limited time promotion" offering
> new DSL accounts at discounted rates. (probably no lack of
> capacity) I'd imagine if you had access to account information and
> proposed new rates you'd find a serious revenue enhancer. OTOH ...
> as far as I read, this is a "trial" in the Reno area and perhaps
> the CPUC can prevent it from morphing into new rates for
> California. OTOH ... the serious bandwith hogs (file sharing, etc)
> shouldn't go unnoticed. Users going beyond a reasonably generous
> limit should pay more for the bandwidth they're using.
>
> 2) Who else are you going to use if not ATT or someone reselling
> their DSL lines? (the advantages of a deregulated monopoly owning
> infrastructure aren't always for the citizens they are supposed to
> serve) (Ok ... there's 101netlink and satellite as a couple of
> options)
>
>
>> I am at a broadband meeting in San Francisco (tomorrow) and one
>> of the topics of conversation might well be what kind of things
>> are telecoms doing that thwart the deployment of ubiquitous
>> broadband within the state and what /might/should they do
>> differently that would increase the use of broadband for
>> increased economic benefit and improved well being...
>>
>> Any messages I should carry?
>
> Perhaps something like PG&E's requirement to phase in alternate
> energy ... AT&T might be influenced to offer a percentage of
> bandwidth to small businesses (or community service districts, or
> ??) at a rate that allows them to offer service at a price
> competitive with AT&T and still make expenses/profit.  Perhaps
> they might be influenced to offer wireless broadband at
> competitive rates and even lead the way in providing open access
> to the newly available "white space".
>
>>
>> Kathleen E.Moxon CAO/Director of Programs Humboldt Area
>> Foundation 373 Indianola Road Bayside, CA 95524 707-442-2993 
>> 707-442-9072 (fax)
>>
>> -----Original Message----- From: list-bounces at redwoodtech.org
>> [mailto:list-bounces at redwoodtech.org] On Behalf Of JBilderback Sent: 
>> Friday, November 07, 2008 9:38 PM To:
>> list at redwoodtech.org Subject: Re: [RTC List] Your Future
>> Broadband Will Cost More, for Less
>>
>>> AT&T this week said it would join other broadband providers
>> in trialing tiered broadband
>>
>> from the AT&T "news release":
>>
>> " Britton said that 5 percent of AT&T's users account for 46 percent 
>> of network traffic, and the top 1 percent represents 21
>>  percent of overall use. He said the trial project would not
>> affect 95 percent of AT&T users."
>>
>> It's interesting that the above statement of the problem leads
>> to the following solution:
>>
>> " The caps for new users are tiered according to the broadband
>>  service they receive, with the lowest tier, at 768 Kbps,
>> allotted a 20-GB monthly limit. Subscribers who pay for 1.5
>> Mbps, 3 Mbps and 6 Mbps will receive monthly limits of 40, 60
>> and 80 GB, respectively."
>>
>> Which is obviously just a lame excuse to raise rates and has little 
>> if anything to do with the supposed 5% of users abusing
>>  their service agreement.
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> List mailing list
> List at redwoodtech.org
> http://redwoodtech.org/mailman/listinfo/list_redwoodtech.org
>