Comments on: Is an 'open' Internet a doomed concept?

Former FCC adviser Kyle Dixon says there's a danger that the agency or Congress will decide the winners and losers of the broadband world.

[Razzl]

Rhetoric can't drive technology

It makes for a very neat rhetorical package to subsume this whole discussion under the clean, astringent term "openness", but technology is messy and scientific facts can sometimes be hard. Right now the FCC seems committed to letting every data transmission method flourish and gets annoyed when phone and cable companies try to point out the limits on how much incompatible traffic their lines can carry, or how much it has to cost to enable that, but they deal with the technical facts. The FCC is setting up the conditions for data transmission failures and insecurities in every medium through their headlong rush to sell off every wavelength in the spectrum that they control. Maintaining the soundness of the infrastructure and giving telecom companies the guaranteed profit they need as incentive to build new infrastructure is an important matter which will come back to haunt us if "oppenness" makes owning cable and phone companies unprofitable.

Open Internet doomed?

Investment is the key word. It is impossible for adults to regulate themselves. The internet is really a wonderful concept as it brings your world and everything in it, right to you. But sad to say, the human animal isn't composed of good only. There is a dark side of us that is so filthy and so evil, that it should never be allowed to be on the internet. If we stick our heads in the sand and think that is just part of life, then we best be prepared to have future generations that accepts all the degradation, evil, demoralizing, hate, corruption that our other half is composed of, and think that is just part of life. I didn't say civilized or humane, for it doesn't enter that segment of life. Yes, my world was zoomed right into my front room. I had no earthy idea that it was so vile. I could well do without it myself.

Forget Brand X, What About Naked DSL?

What effect will the FCC's decision to not require telcos to offer naked DSL have on IP-based services and the cord-cutters who use them?

The Irony of it..

I find it ironic that in the early 90's as broadband technology was beginning to evolve, the Telco's spend much time and effort to block any broadband access to their right of ways to protect their own overpriced monopolies. The "Bells / Baby Bells" forced cable providers to jump through hoops just to get a small right of way on poles and completly shot down any efforts to piggyback on their digital infastructures. So the cables companies invest billions of dollars in a complete digital infrastructure capable of routing high speed broadband services and provide a lower cost, better alternative to the telcos..

Now what happens.. the telcos start to whine and complain to congress that they are not allowed to use the low cost networks of the broadband companies.. they are being held back by regulations and they want more regulations passed to the cable providers and possibly in some areas given right of way to compete on the same digital services..

Heres my 2 cents.. these dirt bag telcos have screwed home and buisness communications for years. Charging large fees with minimal services and almost non-existant digital service enhancements.. it took competetition for them to drop even the price of crappy ISDN services. Most people in this country using a telco for phone are still using analog services over copper.. and where did all this money go over the years instead..? into fat cat pockets so a few select rich people could live nicely and buy/sell telcos as they see fit. Now the money dumps into lobbyist pockets to try to get the governement and FCC to drop tons of regulations and restrictions on cable broadband.

I say these telcos get what they deserve.. its time for death to the bells and new technology to take hold. Send the old snobby rich dirt bags packing.

[aabcdefghij987654321]

Exactly!

My thought (as a competitive Cable company employee [RCN Chicago]) was that we just spent about 800 million dollars to get our network built, and now because the outdated, inherited, networks of the baby bells can't compete, we have to lease out OUR investments?!?!

No thank you.

Besides, My understanding was that we got access to their POTS lines to encourage a competitive landscape. Today that landscape exists, and they want to use our infrastructure because they decided to invest in lobbiests (sp?) in stead of investing in their network and technology.

No, no, no Spank you very much.

Spend your own billion.

Don't regulate Broadband - Regulate MICROSOFT, RIAA, the Movie industry!

The free internet doesn't need regulation. It is Microsoft that needs to have more accountability for it's insider business practices that promote unfair and unjust imbalances in the computer market. The government needs to set security standards that Operating Systems need to meet. I believe Unix/BSD/Llinux supcede high-standards of security. Microsoft is the only company that can become rich and sell crap as a standard in the martketplace. Unknowledgable consumers need protection from a company that takes advantage of the common man's ignorance just like average citizens need protection from terrorist attacks like 9/11 and other encroachments on U.S. soil.

Regulate MICROSOFT, the RIAA, and the Movie industry! Also, the government needs to regulate Gas Prices. Broadband is too easy of a target. I believe special interests want broadband regulated so VoIP users can be charged up the wazoo like we are with phone service! The government needs to be a friend and servant of the people, not Big Money!