NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad
[ NNSquad ] re FCC will tame the Internet - or Kill It
----- Forwarded message from Dave Farber <dfarber@me.com> ----- Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 10:50:18 -0400 From: Dave Farber <dfarber@me.com> Subject: [IP] re FCC will tame the Internet - or Kill It Reply-To: dave@farber.net To: ip <ip@v2.listbox.com> Begin forwarded message: > From: Newmedia@aol.com > Date: June 23, 2010 8:24:30 AM EDT > To: dave@farber.net > Cc: dpreed@reed.com > Subject: Re: [IP] re FCC will tame the Internet - or Kill It > > David (Reed): > > Exactly! Why should anyone believe what ATT (or Comcast) say they are spending on network expansion? Why should we even care what they actually do spend? > > The "game" of making threats to regulators by telecom companies is an ancient one. Is there any evidence that changes in real capital expenditures by these large operators has had a material negative impact on Internet capacity expansion? > > Futhermore, the major issue of network bandwidth in the US today is wireless, not wired. All the major carriers are moving to LTE (i.e. Long-Term Evolution, aka 4G) buildouts. The pace of this expansion and the cutover have been decided for many years and are unlikely to be influenced by these FCC decisions. > > Agitprop is exactly what this feels like -- and on whose behalf? > > Mark Stahlman > New York City > > > In a message dated 6/23/2010 6:25:38 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, dave@farber.net writes: > > > Reply to. dave@farber.net > > "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security.” Benjamin Franklin > > Begin forwarded message: > >> From: "David P. Reed" <dpreed@reed.com> >> Date: June 22, 2010 6:44:54 PM EDT >> To: dave@farber.net >> Cc: ip <ip@v2.listbox.com> >> Subject: Re: [IP] FCC will tame the Internet - or Kill It >> > >> This email is very, very strange. AT&T *never* built the Internet in the first place - or maybe Dennis Kneale is rewriting history. >> >> In particular, *in the middle '90's* you may recall that the Internet was growing at *record* pace. What is Randall Stephenson talking about here? Does Dennis Kneale, whom I know as a rather provocative Forbes editor, but not as particularly knowledgeable about ATT or any other business, know some secret about ATT's (or SBC's) secret role in pushing the Internet forward? >> >> Seems like agitprop. Perhaps others on this list would like to explain how ATT became such a great Internet company in the 1990's without actually doing anything back then? Just write a press release in 2010 and it becomes true? >> >> On 06/22/2010 04:51 PM, Dave Farber wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> Reply to. dave@farber.net >>> >>> "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security.” Benjamin Franklin >>> >>> Begin forwarded message: >>> >>>> From: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.net> >>>> Date: June 21, 2010 11:38:55 PM EDT >>>> To: "dave@farber.net" <dave@farber.net>, Ip ip <ip@v2.listbox.com> >>>> Subject: FCC will tame the Internet - or Kill It >>>> >>> >>>> FCC Will Tame the Internet Or Kill It >>>> >>>> Published: Friday, 18 Jun 2010 | 12:07 PM ET >>>> By: Dennis Kneale >>>> CNBC Media & Technology Editor >>>> >>>> For almost two decades the U.S. government has kept its meddlesome mudhooks off the Internet, freeing it to spread its kudzu-like tendrils into the global economy. And it worked. The FCC took a big step this week to end all of that. For the first time, the Federal Communications Commission proposes using a set of 75-year-old phone regulations to oversee the Net of the 21st century and have a say in the prices that companies like AT&T and Comcast can charge. And set rules for what traffic they must carry. (Comcast is acquiring a 51 percent stake in NBC Universal' CNBC's parent company. The deal is awaiting regulatory approval.) >>>> >>>> Some telecom execs say the FCC's agenda is downright radical. It could thwart high hopes for the wireless Internet, centerstage of the next digital revolution. The agency assault could restack the pecking order of winners and losers and reshape their stock prices, affecting the portfolios of millions of retirees and investors. It would impose new burdens on big carriers, while granting new power to content purveyors like Google and Yahoo. >>>> >>>> At stake is billions of dollars that carriers like Verizon and AT&T spend each year to spruce up their networks to carry more digital bits. They will slash their spending if the feds restrain their upside; that could hurts jobs growth in high-tech, which employs well over two million people in the U.S. >>>> >>>> If the FCC foray is imminent, "We have to re-evaluate whether we put shovels in the ground," is how AT&T's chief executive, Randall Stephenson, put it this week. >>>> >>>> The last time the FCC tried such a major incursion, in the mid-1990s, Stephenson, then the company's chief financial officer, cut annual capital spending by more than half, from $12 billion to $5 billion dollars a year. That cut lasted for four years, until the courts threw out the FCC overreach. >>>> >>>> More at >>>> >>>> http://www.cnbc.com/id/37779304 >>>> >>>> >>> Archives > Archives ------------------------------------------- Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/ Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com ----- End forwarded message -----