F2C: Things that should had been better covered

Yes, I should have made more noise in the Q&A periods, but they were rather limited.

Applicability of Net Neutrality:  You already know I agree with Martin Geddes – Neutrality-Schmootrality.  But if we need a net neutrality law or regulation, shouldn’t it apply only to those with "significant market power?" 

Policy in the EU, Japan & Korea:  This was a very US-centric conference. But the term “significant market power” comes from EU regulators. And many speakers alluded to the US falling further and further behind the rest of the world in broadband access.  If so, shouldn’t we at least inquire about what others are doing?

Rights-of-Way & Dark Fiber:  Everyone recognizes the advantage of obtaining additional first mile connectivity options and the subject of spectrum came up repeatedly, but spectrum discussions have been brewing for more than a decade. Even congress has noticed the success of WiFi and is starting to make the connection. But I didn’t hear about pushing dark fiber into neighborhoods or getting easier access to first mile rights of way. 

The only fiber discussion came from James Salter and he described municipal projects that were complete networks, not dark fiber, i.e. one government-managed network as opposed to the rich set of competitors that dark fiber could support. (For example: Stokab’s dark fiber in Stockholm has fostered a range of competitive services).

There were a couple of mentions of Verizon ripping out copper when they install fiber. Yes, that makes sense – it’s they’re not going to want to maintain the old copper.  But what about selling over-lashing franchises to 4–6 companies and let them battle out how to maintain the guy wire that holds up the cable(s)?  Abandon the copper, but use it’s supports for shared access by community groups, local contractors or national companies that want to over-build a neighborhood.  Just a thought, but there was no Q&A to inject it into the discussion.

All & all I’m glad I attended.  I didn’t come away with a great “Ah ha” but I learned various tit bits, met some very interesting people (and some useful contacts), and spoke with various old friends and acquaintances.

 

Comments

[Paulaner01]

Good to see I'm among friends. The EU/Japan/Korea stuff is of particular interest to me too - there's a lot we can learn from them and their success stories deserve attention. There's also a lot we can do here in the States to 'catch up' as well, provided we give our companies the flexibility they need for innovation. IMHO, any legislation or regulation (after years of government-free progress) will push us even further back in the broadband race.

[oldhats]

Yes! The government has thrived BECAUSE of the lack of regs, imho, and asking Congress to legislate at this point is a mistake.

[oldhats]

ok, clearly i meant "the internet has thrived BECAUSE..."

[pkp646]

I think it is pretty clear by now that the future success of the internet will depend upon competition (especially wi-fi and the such), but that it will in no way be helped by government regulations. As always it is a pleasure to read these well written posts.

[lessgov]

Freudian slip, oldhats? Actually, I agree with both points. Our government does best when it keeps its hand off of industries that are succeeding without its intervention. That, to me, is the key to a successful government, though some Senators would disagree with me on this. However, in this case, I think it is important to remember oldhats point (however he wrote it). We don't need more regulation of the Internet.

[oldhats]

Now that you mention it, lessgov, maybe it was Freudian! :) I think we really need to consider that once Congress starts regulating, it'll be almost impossible to make them stop. You can't unring the bell, ya know?!

[sagecast]

Readers of this comment thread should know that Paulaner01, lessgov, oldhats and pkp646 are part of a tag-team of industry shills who invade blog comments on net neutrality to argue against any government regulation of the Internet. Other names who run with this crowd are John Rice and AJ Carey. (Google any of these names in combination and you'll see how their game works).

By tag-teaming the blogs, this small handful of individuals gives the false impression of broad popular support for an industry-friendly position.

What they fail to point out is that Net Neutrality has been the rule that has governed access to the Internet since its inception. It's the reason that the Internet has become such a dynamic force for new ideas, economic innovation and free speech. What they really want is for Congress to radically re-write our telecommunications laws so that companies like AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth can swoop in and become gatekeepers to Internet content -- in a way that benefits no one except the largest ISPs.

I'd like these people to tell us how it is that they appear together (usually one after the other) spouting identical industry talking points across the blogosphere.

What gives fellas? Are you being paid? And by whom?