NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad
[ NNSquad ] Regulated vs. Unregulated Telecom (and History)
Apropos Rahul's questions regarding regulated vs. unregulated telecom services and related history, below is a relevant excerpt from an e-mail message I wrote yesterday in response to comments I received from my posting of: "Search Neutrality" and Propaganda Deluxe http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000658.html - - - - - - - - [ E-mail excerpt begins ] ... You're also right that guaranteed telco rate of return, etc. are history. But I would argue that this is much less important than the fact that the privileged, monopoly history of the big telephone and cable ISPs is precisely why they remain so powerful today, and why I believe a renewed regulatory focus on their activities is called for. For example, while Verizon has certainly spent lotsa bucks on FiOS and other new technologies, I'm willing to bet that the company has also benefited nicely from existing rights of way, easements, pole attachment agreements, underground conduits and vaults, and other infrastructure that often date back to monopoly days in many served areas -- and are now being repurposed for FiOS and the like. These are all monopoly-era advantages that any newcomer wouldn't have. (I hasten to add that in most areas, the situation is similar with the original monopoly cable provider, where we've also seen massive national consolidation.) These advantages have also been useful in the building out of mobile networks, especially for the original "B" wireline mobile carriers. This is perhaps even more stark with AT&T. The buried cable running behind my house (man, do I have stories about that cable!) was placed (along with a couple of now decrepit buried drops per house -- getting more means paying for expensive trenching by customers) almost half a century ago. AT&T is now leveraging that copper and related infrastructure for unregulated U-verse services that were naturally never contemplated when arrangements were made with housing developers and the City of L.A. way back then. But if not for that history, AT&T wouldn't be in this advantageous position today vs. potential ISP competitors. Same for the local cable co. (now TWC, yet another of the big boys in control). The power of this history is also demonstrated by the relative scarcity of true competitive ISP overbuilds -- and the extreme cherry-picking of lucrative areas for those when they do occur. Will Verizon customers in West L.A. ever see U-verse? Will I in the AT&T West San Fernando Valley part of the same city ever see FiOS? Not completely impossible perhaps, but obviously we shouldn't hold our breaths. ... The bottom line on all this is that I consider it essential that the large, historically advantaged ISPs -- who wield power now directly as a result flowing from their privileged status over time -- should be appropriately regulated in ways that are not occurring currently. And I feel that attempts to drag Web services such as Google into the ISP Net Neutrality regulatory sphere (e.g. through concepts such as "search neutrality") are not justified based on either history nor ongoing practices, and that such efforts are mainly diversionary tactics fostered by some supporters of entrenched telecom interests. --Lauren-- [ E-mail excerpt ends ] - - - - - - - - On 12/31 08:58, Rahul Tongia wrote: > Lauren, > > I will mention that cell cites in developing regions are designed to > work not hours but sometimes days without grid power. > > Reliability isn't the only issue at hand. There is something subtle > that needs thinking through in terms of regulated, unrelated, and > in-between services. The COPPER of voice lines is the reason DSL came > to be, and the biggest cost in fiber is not the fiber itself but > getting it laid. We (consumers) paid for the copper via our regulated > voice services. For any carrier to put in advanced infrastructure, > will anything be left that is regulated (or that we *wish* to > regulate)? Advanced infrastructure costs more, esp. if we consider it > an overlay. They would thus require advanced services to be bought. > Can we see AT&T or any other carrier saying the "end POTS" if the only > service they had to offer was plain old voice (with voice-value adds > like voicemail)? > > The other thing I keep thinking about but don't have full data for is > how termination fees are handled. From in-state vs. out-of-state to > rural vs. urban, there were many games/distortions in the system. > What is to say the new system won't have (or need, to get started or > be viable) such cross-subsidies? > > Rahul > > On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 3:40 AM, Lauren Weinstein <lauren@vortex.com> wrote: > > > > ----- Forwarded message from Barry Gold <BarryDGold@ca.rr.com> ----- > > > > Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2009 12:41:25 -0800 > > From: Barry Gold <BarryDGold@ca.rr.com> > > Subject: Re: [ NNSquad ] AT&T Asks FCC to Kill Conventional (POTS) Phone > > Service > > > > Lauren Weinstein wrote: > >> AT&T Asks FCC to Kill Conventional (POTS) Phone Service > >> > >> http://bit.ly/6HP5r3 (GigaOM) > > > > I would oppose such a move. Although I am reasonably Internet-savvy and > > have broadband (and three desktops) in my home, I also have two POTS land > > lines. Well, not _quite_ POTS: one of them has voicemail. But that's the > > only extra service we have, and I'm thinking of dropping that. I'm > > retired, so I don't need to get messages from potential employers. And my > > parents and in-laws are dead, so I don't need to worry about getting > > messages about their health. > > > > Simply stated: if there is a power outage, the landline phone is supposed > > to have backup power for 48 hours. If I were relying on TW's phone > > service, loss of power to the house would also mean loss of phone service. > > And if I were using a cell phone, I would expect the cell towers to fail > > within 1-2 hours at most. > > > > ----- End forwarded message ----- > > > > [ There are a bunch of issues here. Availability of phone service > > in emergency situations is a *big* one. As we've seen, cellular > > service is among the first telecom asset to fail during power > > failures when microcell batteries run out and other associated > > infrastructure fails (this is apart from its very limited > > simultaneous call capacity vis-a-vis conventional landlines in > > most areas). > > > > Similarly, emergency VoIP use is dependent on every key aspect of > > complex IP networks working properly in the face of power or other > > failures. So even if we mandated battery backup for the phones, > > routers (local and remote) and so on involved, we'd also be > > dependent on those batteries actually working when needed (you've > > probably learned the hard way how often this isn't the case and > > how quickly rechargeable batteries can go bad). The reason that > > conventional copper POTS has been so reliable in emergencies is > > that traditionally it has been powered by massive arrays of > > batteries in central offices (CO battery rooms are *most > > impressive* to see.) > > > > Typical cable system topologies may also be more vulnerable to > > widespread failures than conventional copper loop POTS > > infrastructures. During an extended (several hours) local power > > failure here a couple of years ago, I saw a guy in a pickup truck > > hook up jumper cables to a nearby pole-mounted cable distribution > > panel. When I questioned him, he told me he was with the cable > > company and was trying to keep the cable up for phone > > service by revving his engine! I found this both amusing and > > horrifying at the same time. > > > > There are also *colossal* regulatory (federal vs. state, privacy, > > security, etc.) issues associated with such a transition from > > conventional POTS, that may make our current crop of net > > neutrality controversies seem to pale in comparison. More on this > > later. > > > > -- Lauren Weinstein > > NNSquad Moderator ] > > > > > > > > > > > > >