Ok lets get something straight. We here at ThirdPipe are FOR a Net Neutrality requirement for carriers. But the current ‘Net Neutrality’ option winding its way thru the halls of the FCC is NOT Net Neutrality. Its nothing but a power grab by the Beltway Bandits to squelch dissent.
Oh but it gets worse. The economics of its do not bode well either —
The study, authored by Charles Davidson and Bret Swanson, forecasts that the nation would hemorrhage 500,000 jobs in a best-case scenario were broadband reclassified as a Title II telecommunications service. That just so happens to be an objective currently under pursuit by members of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) with support from backers of “net neutrality” policy.
The forecasted job losses are likely to make for unpleasant headlines for the FCC at a time when jobs and the economy remain paramount in the minds of most voters and legislators.
“Especially at time when the national economy is attempting to recover from a major and enduring downturn and private sector job creation remains a concern, the destabilizing impacts of the FCC’s proposals place the nation’s economy at even greater risk,” the study reads.
Telecommunications companies have for months now warned that a formal adoption of the FCC’s reclassification proposal could hamper innovation and infrastructure investment, and observers say this study could provide them with fresh ammunition in the fight against reclassification and net neutrality.
“If this Title II regulation looks imminent, we have to re-evaluate whether we put shovels int he ground,” AT&T chief executive Randall Stephenson said earlier this month in an interview with the Wall Street Journal.
From 2003 to 2009, broadband service providers invested, on average, an annual $30 billion for deployment, which created or sustained some 431,000 jobs. Were that level of investment to dip by a conservative 10 percent in the wake of reclassification, 502,000 jobs would disappear and the nation’s GDP would shrink $62 billion. At 30 percent, the study projects the U.S. GDP would drop by $80 billion, for a loss of 602,000 jobs.
Following suit of their Republican colleagues, a growing chorus of senior Democrats have in recent weeks expressed opposition to the FCC’s regulatory rewrite, asking they instead pursue a legislative solution. Cross-chamber whip counts reveal at least 285 legislators disapprove of the measure.
Flush 500k jobs? Sure could. Do the major Telcos have that many jobs? No. But what is not known by many in the beltway crowd is that a large percentage of the Outside Plant work is today done by contract firms. They would be the first to be laid off on the street if the current proposals are adopted. But even at the Telcos there would be follow on layoffs in the management ranks. Why keep an outside plant manager or a facility supervisor if nobody is laying any FIOS cable? They too would be on the street.
The Net Neutrality move is as bad as the DISCLOCE Act in many ways. But to lose a half a million jobs to boot? Somebody get a broom. The FCC needs sweeping out.
The white paper is located here.
Sorta, as in right now its register, then get an invite. Its not a bad strategy either. Run a test case with a small body of users to get the kinks out. A method I would heartily support.
But the question I have is it it worth $10? For the money you get –
Now ole Fuddy-Duddy here says maybe its worth $10. Fact if they would ditch the ads I would give a serious thumbs up. I would also suggest they consider bringing in other partners like USA Network as well. Finally I could really care less that HuluPlus runs on an Xbox or PS3. I don’t game.
But with a little jiggering of the content. Dropping of the ads. Then getting some of the channel partners like HBO on board in an ala carte fashion this could fly. There is only one problem. HD already exists over the air and that ole trusty Tivo is still there with the FF button. So questions boils down to does access to the archive of shows worth the $10.
My last Ah-Ha. Does HuluPlus set the new price model for broadband content? Personally I think it does. Not because I think the content is competitive as what $40/mo cable provides. No, its a market perception thing. Once the public gets it in their mind that $10 is the value proposition the cable Cos won’t be able to shake it. Serious downward pressure waits in the wings.
Now, do the networks have the guts to pull content off the cable providers?
Have you read about using utility computing and how it offers scalable flexibility over traditional server architecture? IT conversations recently interviewed Scalr’s Sebastian Stadil who demystifies the cloud and talks up his open source cloud resource manager.
I’ve been monitoring the chatter about a Senate panel that is pushing the Obama administration’s request for an internet kill switch. I had believed that such an ill conceived idea wouldn’t be with us for long after a little rational debate. Unfortunately, the legislation is advancing. The bill’s front man, Senator Joe Lieberman, insists that the authority is needed and claims his panels legislation will actually impose more limits on the president.
Senator Joe Lieberman and other bill sponsors have refuted the charges that the Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act gives the president an Internet “kill switch.” Instead, the bill puts limits on the powers the president already has to cause “the closing of any facility or stations for wire communication” in a time of war, as described in the Communications Act of 1934, they said in a breakdown of the bill published on the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee website. (Techworld)
For me, there’s a contradiction in the senators claims. The act not only grants authority to seize control of non-telecom public networks (something it is not currently allowed to do), it also creates a new bureaucracy with limited accountability.
The bill, introduced earlier this month, would establish a White House Office for Cyberspace Policy and a National Center for Cybersecurity and Communications, which would work with private US companies to create cybersecurity requirements for the electrical grid, telecommunications networks and other critical infrastructure.
The bill also would allow the US president to take emergency actions to protect critical parts of the Internet, including ordering owners of critical infrastructure to implement emergency response plans, during a cyber-emergency. The president would need congressional approval to extend a national cyber-emergency beyond 120 days under an amendment to the legislation approved by the committee.
The legislation would give the US Department of Homeland Security authority that it does not now have to respond to cyber-attacks, Lieberman, a Connecticut independent, said earlier this month. (Techworld)
I’m sorry Joe, this is a very bad idea. I doubt you and the other bill sponsors even manage you own email, let alone possess even the most cursory knowledge on securing networks. In fact Joe, the federal government repeatedly under performs the free market in securing its own networks and systems. In other words you’re just not qualified to create best practices, let alone implement them.
As a very young infrastructure, the internet has been phenomenally resilient and secure. It’s no secret that private control has made the net as secure as it is today. Having said that, there is a need to harden all of our systems nationwide. We are under investing in security. One of the largest obstacles to increasing IT budgets to improve security has been the escalating costs of compliance with federal IT regulation. Most of these regulations come down from well meaning folks like Joe Lieberman and the bureaucracies they work tirelessly to create. Turning over control of critical networks to an under performing agency like DHS is just insane. The agency can’t even effectively enforce something as simple as a no fly list.
Joe, if you want to help, you should roll back the compliance load you have already placed on private IT and networks and encourage companies to invest some of that money in security. In the event of emergency, private network managers who are already up to the task will be able to respond much more quickly and effectively without the burden of complying with even more federal oversight. If you really think the bureaucracy can do a better job of securing systems then start with the ones you are already responsible for. When you can prove that the feds really are up to hardening their internal systems we can discuss that kill switch. Until you can get your own house in order, hands off ours please!
The battle between IPTV and cable providers is about to begin as this Wired article intones. —
The stage is set for a showdown between television networks and cable/satellite TV services, thanks to the internet. It won’t happen overnight, but your monthly cable or satellite bill could eventually be replaced by a monthly bill from Hulu, an online service that streams TV shows on demand.
For $10 a month, viewers will reportedly have access to a wider selection of shows than the free, ad-supported version Hulu currently offers. The service would work on PCs and specialized devices such as the iPad, videogame consoles and set-top boxes. The company plans to test a version of this “Hulu Plus” subscription, an expected development, with select users as early as this month to find out whether they’ll will bite, according to sources cited by the Wall Street Journal and All Things Digital.
In order for consumers to pay for a video service like that, it will need to be reasonably comprehensive. So it’s no accident that the same week Hulu’s subscription plans came to light, a Bloomberg report surfaced that the company is talking with CBS, Viacom and Time Warner’s television studio divisions to add their shows. That would be on top of a line-up that already includes “Fox, NBC Universal, ABC, ABC Family, Biography, Lionsgate, Endemol, MGM, MTV Networks, National Geographic, Digital Rights Group, Paramount, PBS, Sony Pictures Television, Warner Bros. and more,” including Wired.com.
There is one piece that I believe will not bode well —
Cable and satellite are classic middlemen. When the internet meets the middleman, the middleman tends to disappear — or at least be replaced by a thinner middleman. We’ve seen it with record stores, classified ad-dependent newspapers, video-rental stores, bookstores and any other business that delivers something that the internet can deliver more efficiently.
If you look at the Supply Chain Collapse that have gone before, in industries like retail, trucking, warehousing, etc, there is no such thing as a thinner middleman. There were only dead middlemen. There is a twist to this scenario however. For IPTV to work one has to have a fat pipe. That means Cable, FIOS, or WISP as a provider. So the carriers may not be dead but they certainly will be wounded. So how does this all play out –
The content choices are going to explode here very quickly. The beauty is you may only pay for what you want. Out of a million choices you may only subscribe to 40 channels for $15-30/mo or less. I can’t wait.
It also makes Verizon’s choice to go with a Cable-like pricing model the wrong move. They should have derived the FIOS pricing on the cost to deliver the pipe as a data only service. Just like they have done for the last 150 years. Like the knight in ‘Indiana Jones’ related — “He chose poorly.” Indeed they did.