The debate over net neutrality got a touch more heated this week as IBM, Intel, and Qualcomm joined companies like Broadcom, Panasonic, and Juniper Networks to collectively ask the government not to invoke Title II — i.e the common carrier provision — in an attempt to enforce net neutrality. In a joint letter to Congress and the FCC itself, the companies collectively argue that proposed regulation under Title II would damage corporate competitiveness, network upgrades, and the overall customer experience. They aren’t subtle, either — the letter argues that:
Reversing course now by shifting to Title II means that instead of billions of broadband investment driving other sectors of the economy forward, any reduction in this spending will stifle growth across the entire economy. This is not idle speculation or fear mongering.
Wanna bet?
Unfortunately for the authors of the letter, recent remarks by both Verizon and AT&T have blown apart the previous posturing claims that one or both companies would sharply reduce its investment in infrastructure if Title II were to pass. After initially attempting to argue that Title II would be disastrous, both firms have backed off or repudiated such statements. Readers may recall that during its failed bid to buy T-Mobile, AT&T threatened to never build out 4G LTE networks if it didn’t receive permission to buy the smaller company. After failing to secure permission, AT&T… went right on building out its 4G LTE capacity.
Fight for the Future, protesting the new FCC net neutrality laws
Fight for the Future, protesting the new FCC net neutrality laws
Dig into the supporting documents, and it’s astonishing how quickly such facts change. When Comcast went to court in 2011 to defend its proposed merger with NBC, it specifically argued that Time Warner was a significant competitor and that it needed to merge with NBC to more effectively challenge the media titan. Fast forward to 2014, and suddenly Comcast and Time Warner don’t compete at all.
There is a demonstrated link between higher bandwidth speeds and economic growth, and the rise of services like Netflix are proof that the broad availability of higher speeds can fuel new business models. What’s less talked about, however, is whether America’s broadband policies actually work against the economic uplift that higher bandwidth offers by encouraging service stratification and narrow buildouts into high-end markets, while middle- and lower-class areas are left with bottom-end service tiers and limited availability.
Furthermore, the argument that increased regulation automatically destroys competitive positioning is decisively undermined by the United States’ ranking on any number of competitive charts compared to other OECD countries. We pay more per megabit than most developed nations for both wireless and wireline service. It’s hard to argue that the United States is uniquely privileged by virtue of our regulatory environment when American wireless telcos lag worldwide deployments so dramatically. In March 2014, AT&T demonstrated an LTE-Advanced network capable of 110Mbps. Multiple European and Asian providers already offer 300Mbps capability.
AverageBroadband
Data from Canada’s government comparisons illustrate this starkly. The graphs are a bit hard to read, but the United States is the maroon line sitting well above everybody else.
No, wholesale government regulation and a return to the Ma Bell days of the mid-20th century isn’t the answer, but no one is proposing that kind of comprehensive regulatory scheme, least of all the FCC. While details remain unknown, the broad thrust of the argument is to apply Title II to specific areas where Section 706 has already been ruled invalid.
As much as I respect the companies that signed on to this letter, they’re drawing bad conclusions here. Yes, technical innovation and deployment remain essential to prosperity in the 21st century, but the fact is, America isn’t leading either wired or wireless deployments. We lag on speed, we lag on price, we lag on availability. The facts make these kind of arguments awfully hard to swallow. The President has asked the FCC to use Title II, while Tom Wheeler favors the hybrid approach, but no decision has been made at this time.
SOURCE: EXTREMETECH
Reversing course now by shifting to Title II means that instead of billions of broadband investment driving other sectors of the economy forward, any reduction in this spending will stifle growth across the entire economy. This is not idle speculation or fear mongering.
Wanna bet?
Unfortunately for the authors of the letter, recent remarks by both Verizon and AT&T have blown apart the previous posturing claims that one or both companies would sharply reduce its investment in infrastructure if Title II were to pass. After initially attempting to argue that Title II would be disastrous, both firms have backed off or repudiated such statements. Readers may recall that during its failed bid to buy T-Mobile, AT&T threatened to never build out 4G LTE networks if it didn’t receive permission to buy the smaller company. After failing to secure permission, AT&T… went right on building out its 4G LTE capacity.
Fight for the Future, protesting the new FCC net neutrality laws
Fight for the Future, protesting the new FCC net neutrality laws
Dig into the supporting documents, and it’s astonishing how quickly such facts change. When Comcast went to court in 2011 to defend its proposed merger with NBC, it specifically argued that Time Warner was a significant competitor and that it needed to merge with NBC to more effectively challenge the media titan. Fast forward to 2014, and suddenly Comcast and Time Warner don’t compete at all.
There is a demonstrated link between higher bandwidth speeds and economic growth, and the rise of services like Netflix are proof that the broad availability of higher speeds can fuel new business models. What’s less talked about, however, is whether America’s broadband policies actually work against the economic uplift that higher bandwidth offers by encouraging service stratification and narrow buildouts into high-end markets, while middle- and lower-class areas are left with bottom-end service tiers and limited availability.
Furthermore, the argument that increased regulation automatically destroys competitive positioning is decisively undermined by the United States’ ranking on any number of competitive charts compared to other OECD countries. We pay more per megabit than most developed nations for both wireless and wireline service. It’s hard to argue that the United States is uniquely privileged by virtue of our regulatory environment when American wireless telcos lag worldwide deployments so dramatically. In March 2014, AT&T demonstrated an LTE-Advanced network capable of 110Mbps. Multiple European and Asian providers already offer 300Mbps capability.
AverageBroadband
Data from Canada’s government comparisons illustrate this starkly. The graphs are a bit hard to read, but the United States is the maroon line sitting well above everybody else.
No, wholesale government regulation and a return to the Ma Bell days of the mid-20th century isn’t the answer, but no one is proposing that kind of comprehensive regulatory scheme, least of all the FCC. While details remain unknown, the broad thrust of the argument is to apply Title II to specific areas where Section 706 has already been ruled invalid.
As much as I respect the companies that signed on to this letter, they’re drawing bad conclusions here. Yes, technical innovation and deployment remain essential to prosperity in the 21st century, but the fact is, America isn’t leading either wired or wireless deployments. We lag on speed, we lag on price, we lag on availability. The facts make these kind of arguments awfully hard to swallow. The President has asked the FCC to use Title II, while Tom Wheeler favors the hybrid approach, but no decision has been made at this time.
SOURCE: EXTREMETECH
