Google Strikes an Upbeat Note with FCC on Title II | Hacker News Reader

Google Strikes an Upbeat Note with FCC on Title II

blogs.wsj.com

42 pointszastrowm13 comments

This article prompted me to read more about pole access rights, and this article[1] seems interesting and informative.

The question it begs, though, is why must a pure ISP be classified as a cable provider or telecommunications provider? It seems clear (and is made explicit in the article I have linked) that a good portion of the problems surrounding this issue come from applying yesterday's regulations to today's technologies.

Why is the following not an option: Add a new classification of utility for ISPs and allow them utility pole access at either one of the existing rates or a new one.

Why is regulation according to Tittle II (a contentious issue) a necessary prerequisite for ISP access to utility polls (a competitive boon wanted by pretty much all internet customers)?

[1]http://www.kandutsch.com/articles/access-to-utility-poles-fo...

> a good portion of the problems surrounding this issue come from applying yesterday's regulations to today's technologies.

And that is why a functioning congress would be nice.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do not believe that the FCC would need congressional approval to do anything proposed in the parent article or what I've mentioned. They are a regulatory commission that designs and implements regulation.

I may be wrong on that, and if I am a good primer (from anyone or just link) would be nice.

See the 1996 Telecom Act. It explicitly laid out the classifications the FCC can use: telecom, broadcast, cable and information service. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_Act_of_199...

Per the courts, the FCC does not have the authority to create a new classification, only Congress can do that. The FCC must apply one of the classifications to ISPs and regulate them according to that classification per the 1996 act. The FCC currently classifies ISPs as information services, and information services can discriminate because they offer a service that requires a greater level of control in order to function.

Also see the court case where the FCC attempted to apply special regulations to the ISPs, and the courts shot the FCC's special regulations down: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verizon_Communications_Inc._v...

Thanks much. This is helpful for me.

The FCC is only authorized to regulate within the bounds of the laws that granted it powers. "Title II" is not something the FCC made up, it's a law passed by congress.

'Kay, cool. I guess I am a bit misled by the amount of power they have to just arbitrarily redefine what the statute refers to.

Current coverage is the north side of Kansas City, a suburb of Provo, Utah, and part of Austin, TX. That's all. Google talks big, Google Fiber seems to be more about hype and politics than installation.

Verizon got a lot further with fiber-to-the-home, with coverage for about 12% of households in their territory, before they gave up on FIOS expansion. It wasn't making money.

Sonic.net makes money with their fiber to the home system, but they only have a few cities around Santa Rosa, CA installed, and are trying for three neighborhoods in San Francisco. Maybe it pays because they don't spend so much on PR.

The purpose of Google Fiber isn't to make Google the world's ISP, it's partly to demonstrate the feasibility of fiber to the home (in a big, public way) and partly to create demand (by being big and public).

Yes, it's more about hype and politics than installation. I thought that was obvious. If the hype and politics doesn't get the big ISPs off the dime, then it may have to become about installation, in which case the experience Google Fiber is obtaining will become important.

I think the point of Google Fiber is to give Google a lever on big telcos. They have a credible capability to come in to just about any area and totally disrupt the ISP / cable TV market there.

Right now, all those ISPs are directly in between Google and their users. In any discussion about net neutrality, this gives Google a powerful and highly visible next-best alternative to a negotiated outcome.

Due to Google Fiber being available as a threat, Google will never have to pay net neutrality fees like Netflix does, because they can simply come in to an area and cause a huge amount of pain for the incumbent ISP that threatened them. Even just publicly discussing moving in to an area causes significant expenses for existing ISPs.

It will be difficult to make any change in this to open up for alternatives like Google; there's so much entrenched interest/power among cable MSOs and telcos. Hence, the best shot at succeeding is just reclassifying. This would be fantastic, and flip a switch to enable significantly more competition.

I wonder how much of this statement, if any, is intended to scare the telecoms into not pressing this issue any more. Ina strategy that was probably intended to get Google to commit or get out of the market, they might not like the direction Google takes.

Meanwhile in civilized world (Europe): Poland/Warsaw, Regulatory body prevented UPC Cablecom, European cable giant, from completely taking over local competitor. UPC was forced to sell hardware infrastructure gained in the merge, and obligated to lease it for at least 12 months after the sale.

"In May 2013 Netia acquired from UPC Polska a part of former Aster cable operator’s network, which was classified for resale according to the decision of the President of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection (UOKiK) as of September 5, 2011 approving the acquisition of Aster cable operator by UPC Polska. Netia purchased from UPC Polska and UPC Poland Holding BV 100% of shares in Centrina Sp. z o.o. and Dianthus Sp. z o.o., which own cable networks in Warsaw and Krakow reaching a total of 446,000 homes passed. The transaction has been treated as a purchase of network assets and related liabilities with a net valuation of PLN 5.8m. Simultaneously, UPC Polska concluded with Centrina and Dianthus a 12-month network rental agreement in order to ensure service continuity to its customers during a transition period. Total consideration payable to Netia Group for this network rental amounts to PLN 4.5m. Moreover, Netia will receive discounts on certain ongoing commercial agreements between the Netia Group and UPC Polska. These discounts are estimated to amount to PLN 16.4m and will be recognized as they are received."

Office of Competition and Consumer Protection (UOKiK) - sounds pretty alien to all USians, doesnt it? :)

Result: 300Mbit/s internet is $17/month. 300Mbit internet + A la carte TV (YES, about $1.5 per 1-17 channel bundles you can freely pick from, 170 channels in total) starts at $20/month.

http://giga-kablowka.pl/

Reply on news.ycombinator.com