re FCC will tame the Internet - or Kill It

[Dave Farber <dfarber () me 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