FCC's Broadband Plan May Cost You Money

At ten minutes past midnight the FCC released their National Broadband Plan. Judging by the available coverage, few reporters spent the night poring over it. The BBC at least posted something in the morning hours, but it quotes Enderle, so that gives you some idea of its sourcing. Business Week notes the plan's cool (not to say frigid) reception among broadcasters. Dave Burstein of FastNet News did some real digging. His take as of 4:00 am Eastern time is that the plan will cost most Americans money, and won't provide much if any relief to the poor. We'll see many more details and nuances emerge over the day. Update: 03/16 19:53 GMT by KD : The FCC plan (PDF) is here.

Sigh

[sonicmerlin]

I've been following news and speculation surrounding the plan for the better part of a year now. There were numerous tell-tale signs that this was going to be a flop, like Blair Levin, the head of the NBP team, discounting the importance of line-sharing, despite it being touted as the single-most effective means of promoting competition in the ISP industry by a Harvard-Berkman study commissioned by the FCC.

Also, Dave Burstein is amazing. The guy knows more about telecom than anyone else in Washington. I highly recommend you read his website at DSLPrime.com

Re:State run telecoms are AWESOME

[Jawn98685]

Having lived in and visited countries with largely state-run telecom industry and then come home to the USA, I think it should be painfully obvious to all that government does not do a good job at running telecommunications. I know this isn't an attempt at running a telecom, but it sounds like they are going to screw the pooch just by trying to influence the market. The power of the FCC to f-things up is just that immense.

And I'm going to punch the next person that tells me "Broadband is a right". The hell it is. It is a good, a service that must be paid for, same as healthcare. You can not have a right to something that is non-free. Now I'm open to discussion on whether the state should pay for people to have a certain good, but see the above on how well states run telecoms.

Erm..., you've got it wrong. In parts of the U.S. the electrical (and other) utilities are operated by a government entity, a "public utility district" or P.U.D. In other places, the electrical utilities, at least, are run by profiteers. Guess which system works better? And by better, we mean cheaper, more reliable, and of higher quality. That's right, all of the above. The reason for this is simple - accountability. In a marketplace that defines a natural monopoly, the mythical "invisible hand" of market economics is, de facto, not in play. Consumers can't shop for a better deal and, not being share holders, have no other influence on the provider. The P.U.D. customer, on the other hand, has the equivalent of share holder status. He/she has a vote that will elect the officials who will run the "company". The officials' jobs are tied to the customers' satisfaction above all else. And guess what? It works.

So why should telecom be any different? Socialize the ownership and operation of the infrastructure, and let the market, now open to all via that infrastructure, determine what sells and what doesn't.

Re:Governments never reduce costs

[HogGeek]

"no intelligent businessman would operate such a money-losing enterprise"

I wouldn't call a $1 Billion profit [about.com] a loss...

Re:State run telecoms are AWESOME

[Neuticle]

I wasn't talking about electrical or water utilities. Those do tend to be natural monopolies where competition is not feasible*, but telecommunications is most certainly NOT in that category. Competition is easily possible, and it works. There are towns near me that have multiple cable providers and they get lower prices than I do, because I'm stuck with a city-granted monopoly, or much slower DSL. Why cities keep up these agreements is beyond me.

*Although with electricity being all one grid, at my last place I had the option to buy my electricity from a "renewable energy" company. It cost more, but I'm guessing that had more to do with it's source than with any fee they paid to the owner of the powerlines.

Re:Socialist internetz

[bsDaemon]

I used to work in DC with very conservative groups, because I grew up in the household I describe, and that's just what I was brought up with. Spend enough time being forced to write propaganda against health care reform by people who don't give their employees health insurance, sick days, or anything else, and it gets to you. Spend enough time being made to write propaganda against labor protection by people who pay you less than $15/hr in a place where the median salary is like $90k or something, while they're driving BMWs, Audis and Aston-Martins to work, and you get really pissed off. I learned first-hand what a bunch of slave-driving hypocrite douche-bags so-called "conservatives" are and have adjusted accordingly. Frankly, its become more about punishing them than it is about improving my own situation at this point. I got back into the private sector and make enough money, plus benefits, etc at this point. But I'll do just about anything to make the Sam Brownbacks of the world feel pain right back.

Re:Governments never reduce costs

[geekoid]

Except the people that 'own' the backbone won't let you in.

A lot of people have tried just what you suggest.

I'm not concerned, I have 15 Mb and with the industries push to get HD online, I suspect it will be 25Mb next year.