Time for the FCC to hit the reset button on Internet regulation

Congressional Democrats jump into net neutrality mix - Tony Romm and Brooks Boliek - POLITICO.com: AT&T, meanwhile, launched a counteroffensive. Executives from the company warned the FCC in a Thursday meeting not to reclassify broadband as a telecommunications service, saying such a step “would ignite multiyear regulatory controversies on a variety of issues,” according to a filing with the commission. Telecoms dislike that approach because they fear new regulations would unfairly restrict their business.

By classifying Internet service on a par with telephone service subject to common carrier mandates that all premises be offered service, the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) would not be restricting telecoms. Just the opposite. It would be opening up their markets beyond where they want to go by forcing them to embrace the fact that the Internet is the new telecommunications system. Notably, that's something the telcos themselves acknowledge in petitioning the FCC for relief from rules governing analog plain old telephone service (POTS) so they can allocate more capital investment to Internet infrastructure. With this reclassification of the Internet as a telecommunications service, telcos would be barred from their current market segmentation practices that arbitrarily redline parts of neighborhoods and even discrete roads and streets.

Telcos have been trying to hold onto the past by acting as if it's still 1996 and the Internet is a novel information service and not the global telecommunications service it has now become, carrying voice, data and video. It's time for the FCC to do an intervention and point to a calendar that reads 2014 (and for the Obama administration to fire the enablers who help the telcos cling to the past.) And at the same time, develop a new regulatory framework that allows a fair and orderly settlement scheme across all network layers and boundary points as called for by industry expert Michael Elling. As Elling correctly points out, that's what the "net neutrality" debate is really all about.

Net neutrality controversy based on chimera of limited bandwidth

Netflix Reaches Interconnection Deal With Verizon - WSJ.com: Netflix had been at odds with broadband providers such as Verizon and Comcast for months in a debate over who would pay for the huge volumes of traffic Netflix sends over their networks. Netflix has offered to pay for the cost of deploying equipment that will help deliver its videos more efficiently, but the biggest broadband companies have resisted, citing the heavy load Netflix traffic puts on the "last mile" of network infrastructure to their customers' homes.

This claim is utter hogwash and goes to the heart of the net neutrality controversy, which is based on this chimera. Internet providers have created the myth that the Internet is like the electrical grid and its capacity strained on warm days when people crank up their air conditioners. Too many Netflix-powered "air conditioners" are running and taxing our distribution system, ISPs maintain. Therefore we need demand-based pricing to finance upgrades to our last mile infrastructure to handle the additional demand being generated by Netflix and other core network providers that generate substantial bandwidth demand. And it's only fair as a big bandwidth user, Netflix pay a surcharge.

Baloney. Bandwidth is not megawatts or kilowatts and the Internet is not a consumption-based utility like electricity or natural gas. It's no skin off the noses of the ISPs to deliver big bandwidth. If it doesn't transport well over an outmoded and inadequate last mile landline plant to homes and small businesses, consumers and not ISPs pay the price in terms of a poor online experience. And those customers in most cases have no better alternative if they don't like that experience and their ISP chooses to pocket any extra revenues paid by core providers like Netflix to finance fat shareholder dividends instead of last mile infrastructure.

Creating a Two-Speed Internet - NYTimes.com

Creating a Two-Speed Internet - NYTimes.com: Mr. Wheeler is seeking public comment on this option, but he is not in favor of it. Even though the appeals court has said the F.C.C. has authority to reclassify broadband, the agency has not done so because phone and cable companies, along with their mostly Republican supporters in Congress, strongly oppose it.

The incumbent telephone and cable companies want to do this because they want to keep alive the fantasy that the Internet is not a telecommunications service but rather a "broadband" or "information" service. It's the same old "fight the future" strategy they've employed for at least a decade.

In 2007, President Obama said one of the best things about the Internet “is that there is this incredible equality there” and charging “different rates to different websites” would destroy that principle. The proposal from Mr. Wheeler, an Obama appointee, would do just that.

Quite a damning indictment of the Obama administration's telecommunications policy -- or absence thereof.

Net neutrality debate underlies strategic tensions between legacy telcos, cablecos and content providers

Underlying the public policy issue of whether the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has legal authority to bar Internet service providers from treating the Internet as a private toll road and charging higher fees for digital express lanes – a policy known as “net neutrality” – are deep tensions between legacy telephone and cable companies and content providers. The courts are now addressing the legality of this policy, with the question to potentially come before the U.S. Supreme Court. But how the tensions between big telephone and cable companies and Internet content and social media services are resolved in the marketplace could ultimately have a much bigger impact than the courts.

The telephone and cable companies maintain they need revenue from content providers to offset CAPex and OPex costs of the infrastructure to deliver the services and as such are entitled to payment for access to their networks. In short, their position is they can charge for access on both ends of the Internet: where services like Netflix enter their “pipes” as then-AT&T Chairman Ed Whitacre famously described them in 2007 and also at consumer premises where they are delivered. From the perspective of the content and service providers, given end users pay for access, they too shouldn’t have to pay to get content on network. And to boot, a network they view as technologically deficient and unable to provide sufficient current and future bandwidth as evidenced by Google’s limited venture into fiber the premise (FTTP) infrastructure via its Google Fiber unit. The incumbent inferiority gap has been recognized by former FCC official Blair Levin, who observes that big telco and cable companies have no plans to meaningfully upgrade and build out their networks.

While the courts will ultimately provide a tactical win to one side or the other on the issue of net neutrality, the strategic market tension between the sides over who owns and operates Internet infrastructure and who pays for it will nevertheless remain. How might it be resolved?

A possible scenario is the formation of an alliance among the big content providers and the Internet backbone transport players with the mission of dislodging the telco/cable cartel and its moribund, slow-moving pre-Internet business model. Call it the nuclear FTTP overbuild option. Given the hundreds of billions of dollars required to build out FTTP in the United States, a strategic initiative on such a massive scale would likely have to be a public-private partnership with private members such as like Level 3, Cogent Communications, Google, Amazon, Netflix, Ebay,Yahoo!, LinkedIn, Twitter as well as entities involved in the telehealth, distance education and the emerging markets of smart homes and the device-driven “Internet of things.” The federal government would be the public partner, providing capital through long term bonds to finance a strategic national Internet initiative to replace lethargic, highly contentious subsidy efforts such as the Connect America Fund that could take decades –if ever – to construct adequate Internet infrastructure serving all Americans.

Fiber to the premise obsoleting net neutrality debate

A ruling this week by a federal appellate court blocking U.S. Federal Communications Commission rules barring Internet service providers from effectively erecting toll gates and speed bumps as revenue enhancement mechanisms is likely to fuel the policy debate on the proper role of the Internet: whether it should be regulated like a public thoroughfare -- the infrastructure of an increasingly digital economy -- or as a private, profit producing asset.

Investor owned, rent seeking providers such as telcos and cable companies will naturally gravitate toward business models that treat digital Internet traffic as a limited commodity that must be broken down, packaged and sold in discrete bundles and flow rates. The more data and the faster the flow rate, the higher the price.

The big problem for this business model is it's being obsoleted by technology. Fiber to the premise (FTTP) infrastructure is the emerging standard for delivering Internet to homes and business customers. It does not have the inherent limitations of metal wire and cable infrastructure, where a rational, technology-based argument can be made for treating bandwidth as a limited commodity. Once FTTP infrastructure is in place, adding more capacity can be accomplished at relatively negligible cost.