31–40 of 437 posts
No last mile unbundling: does it mean that every operator has to deploy its own cable from street to home?
That's my (rather depressing) understanding. I still dream of a non-profit or municipal cable plant, serviced by multiple ISPs. The last mile is a natural monopoly, and we need to stop pretending otherwise.
No last mile unbundling: does it mean that every operator has to deploy its own cable from street to home?
That's my (rather depressing) understanding. I still dream of a non-profit or municipal cable plant, serviced by multiple ISPs. The last mile is a natural monopoly, and we need to stop pretending otherwise.
This net neutrality victory is something to celebrate, but we need to keep the bigger goals in mind for this to not be suboptimal longer term.
Using this authority, I am submitting to my colleagues the strongest open internet protections ever proposed by the FCC. These enforceable, bright-line rules will ban paid prioritization, and the blocking and throttling of lawful content and services. I propose to fully apply—for the first time ever—those bright-line rules to mobile broadband. My proposal assures the rights of internet users to go where they want, wh…
Same here. It almost seems to good to be true. I don't want to sound gloomy doomy when this is excellent news, but I can't help but think what are we missing. I keep waiting for the "but...".
I personally learned the importance of open networks the hard way. In the mid-1980s I was president of a startup, NABU: The Home Computer Network. My company was using new technology to deliver high-speed data to home computers over cable television lines....But NABU went broke while AOL became very successful....While delivering better service, NABU had to depend on cable television operators granting access to thei…
The only reason Google accomplished it is by throwing money at the problem and laying new infrastructure, bypassing the existing in most cases. The barrier to entry of a competitor is so high from the infra cost alone.
Using this authority, I am submitting to my colleagues the strongest open internet protections ever proposed by the FCC. These enforceable, bright-line rules will ban paid prioritization, and the blocking and throttling of lawful content and services. I propose to fully apply—for the first time ever—those bright-line rules to mobile broadband. My proposal assures the rights of internet users to go where they want, wh…
These enforceable, bright-line rules will ban paid prioritization, and the blocking and throttling of lawful content and services of 'lawful content and services'. I don't mean to ruin a good thing, but is it implied here that ISPs may become the gatekeepers? I don't want what happened to YouTube (automatic content blocking because it's "unlawful") to take place with the general internet. One of the most important as…
All he is saying is, if an ISP gets a court order, that they can then block access to content like they do now, and the FCC won't go after them as a result.
It isn't a new power or an expansion, just continuing the current situation that exists.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I read it to mean that FCC will not force last mile unbundling. Whether they go further and write a rule that will act to prevent state a local unbundling rules is another matter.
Isn't last mile unbundling a bigger deal than Title II for ultimately delivering better broadband service? Common carrier provisions are obviously very good, but excluding the possibility of last mile unbundling seems like a bad thing for the longer term.
This is all pretty great. For the first time in a while I feel optimistic about the future of the open internet. My only concern is a small detail: "These enforceable, bright-line rules will ban paid prioritization, and the blocking and throttling of lawful content and services." The specification of 'lawful content and services' seems a bit ominous to me. Does this imply there may be ways to monitor/limit/restrict i…