Who owns the telephone poles?

[CC]

Greetings:

I've been paying a little attention to the "net neutrality" issue:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/06/09/mccurry.internet/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/06/09/newmark.internet/index.html

I'm also deeply troubled by the potential for the carriers to ultimately
cause the internet to be just like the mainstream media (MSM) in that it
is nothing but a propaganda outlet.

But I find it unfortunate that the proponents of net neutrality can only
offer government regulation as a solution. In principle I object to
regulations defining what property owners can('t) do with their property.

I think the solution to the bandwidth providers' potential restriction
of access to "non-preferred content" is to simply bypass the providers
by making another free internet. (Not free as in beer, but free as in
speech).

One can easily do this given current technology, but one cannot easily
do this due to current regulations (primarily FCC, but I suppose others
as well).

Of course, the regulations that restrict one's options for establishing
new communications channels are staunchly defended by the telcos.

What is unfortunate is that the proponents of more regulatory solutions
don't realize that the problem they are trying to solve originates in
regulations.

What is even more ironic is that the subgroup who is concerned about
freedom of speech issues and the availability of government-snoop-free
communication channels to speak freely about such things as critical
political discourse, fails to recognize that they are appealing to the
very entity they fear for help.

When will people recognize that political solutions to political
problems are an infinite loop that only ultimately increases the power
of government?

Oh, the subject says "Who owns the telephone poles?" If I wanted to
rent space from the pole owners to begin installing my own local private
LAN, what would stop me? I expect the telcos would not rent such space
to one with such intentions!

The free airwaves must be the solution!

Like this (within incredibly restrictive regulations freedom is still
seeking, like a weed sprouting out of the crack in a vast pavement):

http://www.alamedawireless.org/

 

[DJ Delorie]

Oh, the subject says "Who owns the telephone poles?" If I wanted to
rent space from the pole owners to begin installing my own local
private LAN, what would stop me?

Around here, the electric company owns the poles, and the telcos and
cables rent space from them.

 

[Genome]

Greetings:
[snip]
I've been paying a little attention to the "net neutrality" issue:

_____________________
Christopher R. Carlen
[email protected]
SuSE 9.1 Linux 2.6.5

You do realise that posting this sort of question invites lots of answers?

Have you been abducted by persons unknown or has it all become too much or
have you become old or.....?

DNA

 

[John O'Flaherty]

Greetings:

I've been paying a little attention to the "net neutrality" issue:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/06/09/mccurry.internet/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/06/09/newmark.internet/index.html

I'm also deeply troubled by the potential for the carriers to ultimately
cause the internet to be just like the mainstream media (MSM) in that it
is nothing but a propaganda outlet.

But I find it unfortunate that the proponents of net neutrality can only
offer government regulation as a solution. In principle I object to
regulations defining what property owners can('t) do with their property.

I think the solution to the bandwidth providers' potential restriction
of access to "non-preferred content" is to simply bypass the providers
by making another free internet. (Not free as in beer, but free as in
speech).

One can easily do this given current technology, but one cannot easily
do this due to current regulations (primarily FCC, but I suppose others
as well).

Of course, the regulations that restrict one's options for establishing
new communications channels are staunchly defended by the telcos.

What is unfortunate is that the proponents of more regulatory solutions
don't realize that the problem they are trying to solve originates in
regulations.

What is even more ironic is that the subgroup who is concerned about
freedom of speech issues and the availability of government-snoop-free
communication channels to speak freely about such things as critical
political discourse, fails to recognize that they are appealing to the
very entity they fear for help.

When will people recognize that political solutions to political
problems are an infinite loop that only ultimately increases the power
of government?

Oh, the subject says "Who owns the telephone poles?" If I wanted to
rent space from the pole owners to begin installing my own local private
LAN, what would stop me? I expect the telcos would not rent such space
to one with such intentions!

The free airwaves must be the solution!

Like this (within incredibly restrictive regulations freedom is still
seeking, like a weed sprouting out of the crack in a vast pavement):

http://www.alamedawireless.org/

It seems to me that those who would restrict what they carry are also
carrying lots of stuff that depends on public services and facilities.
I say, don't restrict what people can do with their own property, but
make it a condition of connection to any government supported service
that all content be carried without prejudice. Then they can decide to
have their own private service, and provide all their own content, and
search for customers.

 

[JeffM]

I've been paying a little attention to the "net neutrality" issue:

I think the solution to the bandwidth providers'
potential restriction of access to "non-preferred content"
is to simply bypass the providers by making another free internet.
(Not free as in beer, but free as in speech).
Christopher R. Carlen

What you seek (Re: censorship) already exists:
http://www.google.com/search?q=Freenet+Entropy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freenet

I see the bandwidth-throttling issue as largely monetary.
..
..

I'm also deeply troubled by the potential for the carriers
to ultimately cause the internet to be just like the mainstream media
(MSM) in that it is nothing but a propaganda outlet.

The Golden Rule: He who has the gold, makes the rule.
Until the stockholders put freedom above profits,
don't hold your breath.
..
..

But I find it unfortunate that the proponents of net neutrality
can only offer government regulation as a solution.

Until techies clue-in non-techies who use technology
about what they are about to lose (as you say, MSM isn't going to),
the future is obvious:
Currently, the corporations who own the infrastructure
AND have the govn't in their pockets will continue to control it
--and until the electorate votes for freedom, the trend is obvious.

 

[Paul Hovnanian P.E.]

I looked out my window a moment ago and guess what? No poles! The city
owns the right of way in which the cable, power and telephone is buried.
Musta been really deep holes to get a 40 foot pole buried with none
stickin' out. ;-)

Seriously, it traditionally was the power company that owned the poles
if they had power lines on them. The teleco and cable companies paid a
rental fee. The rental fee is negotiated between the teleco and power
company (or pole owner). But it is set by federal legislation in the
case of cable TV. Recently, some private power companies have
transferred their 'structures' (i.e. poles) to real estate holding
companies. These (unregulated) holding companies charge each entity a
negotiated fee for rental, including the power company. This enables
them to bypass utility commission regulations governing maximum rates of
return on capital investments and also keeps teleco and cable rental fee
income on the unregulated side of the house.

As far as network neutrality goes, I have mixed opinions on this topic.
The telephone companies want the same kinds of deals the cable companies
have had for years and the power companies offering broadband services
are getting now. That is; the ability to obtain a maximum rate of return
on their investments. That includes the ability to tie their partners'
products into their service packages and exclude services that compete
with them. As congress has not seen fit to take this right away from
cable and power companies, why should the telephone companies be
encumbered?

The whole 'net neutrality' issue is better addressed by antitrust
legislation than laws or regulations aimed at a single industry. IANAL,
but I think that bundling products and imposing indefinite contract
requirements on customers should already be illegal and its just a
matter of the justice department and courts throwing a few butts in
jail. Not just in the telecommunications industry, but any businesses.

 

[Tom Del Rosso]

The whole 'net neutrality' issue is better addressed by antitrust
legislation than laws or regulations aimed at a single industry.

That's the danger as I see it. Some people *want* a solution aimed at the
industry because it's so unregulated now, and they're looking for a way to
get the camel's nose in the tent.

As for the bandwidth issue, why can't an ISP charge by the packet? If the
present switches can't do that, then I'd bet Cisco could make it possible
with a firmware upgrade. The price of bandwidth is being used as an excuse
to extend regulations to a new area.

 

[CC]

That's the danger as I see it. Some people *want* a solution aimed at the
industry because it's so unregulated now, and they're looking for a way to
get the camel's nose in the tent.

As for the bandwidth issue, why can't an ISP charge by the packet? If the
present switches can't do that, then I'd bet Cisco could make it possible
with a firmware upgrade. The price of bandwidth is being used as an excuse
to extend regulations to a new area.

Aren't they already effectively charging by the packet? I mean, various
ISPs charge according to monthly throughput. Thus, the thing about
"Google getting a free ride" strikes me as likely disinformation if not
an outright lie.

 

[CC]

What you seek (Re: censorship) already exists:
http://www.google.com/search?q=Freenet+Entropy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freenet

Interesting. There is more going on than I realized. But Freenet is
still not a physical layer network, so it is vulnerable to having its
data flow "deprioritized."

Until techies clue-in non-techies who use technology
about what they are about to lose (as you say, MSM isn't going to),
the future is obvious:
Currently, the corporations who own the infrastructure
AND have the govn't in their pockets will continue to control it
--and until the electorate votes for freedom, the trend is obvious.

I don't anticipate the electorate ever "voting for freedom." How could
they, unless someone who stood for freedom was a candidate. And even if
such a candidate existed what could they do? "I hearby propose to
disband the departments of Education, Transportation, etc., etc....;
shut down Social Security, Medicare, etc., etc."

People have made the fatal mistake of equating free social benefits with
freedom.

I read a statement somewhere that neatly sums it up:


"The American people would happily hand over the entire Bill of Rights
if they were only promised guaranteed annual 10% gains on their home
prices."

 

[Paul Hovnanian P.E.]

That's the danger as I see it. Some people *want* a solution aimed at the
industry because it's so unregulated now, and they're looking for a way to
get the camel's nose in the tent.

The camel is on the other side of the tent and is trying to get out.
Cable TV and other broadband providers are minimally regulated and have
no obligation to provide neutrality. If they offer their own brand of
VoIP, there is nothing stopping them from throttling back or cutting off
Vonage, for example.

As for the bandwidth issue, why can't an ISP charge by the packet? If the
present switches can't do that, then I'd bet Cisco could make it possible
with a firmware upgrade. The price of bandwidth is being used as an excuse
to extend regulations to a new area.

What if the price they quote you depends on your being one of their
'preferred partners' or otherwise kicking back some money or business to
them?

On the other hand, the lack of 'net neutrality' and other regulations
promoting equal service seems to be working in the Blue States favor.
Access to broadband seems to be highly biased in favor of Democratic
strongholds. As the internet is becoming a more important tool in
political activism, the present bias may help tip the scales against the
GOP. So, if I was a Democrat, I wouldn't scream too loud about the
current state of legislation right now.

 

[Tom Del Rosso]

The camel is on the other side of the tent and is trying to get out.
Cable TV and other broadband providers are minimally regulated and
have no obligation to provide neutrality. If they offer their own
brand of VoIP, there is nothing stopping them from throttling back or
cutting off Vonage, for example.

Until they actually do so, we can't be sure nothing is stopping them. Their
own customers want full access to everything. Making a law about something
that has never happened and very possibly never will is not good policy.

What if the price they quote you depends on your being one of their
'preferred partners' or otherwise kicking back some money or business
to them?

That's business, and business is what brought it this far. Their own
employees are their partners too, so what's the problem if they want to give
the employees a discount?

On the other hand, the lack of 'net neutrality' and other regulations
promoting equal service seems to be working in the Blue States favor.
Access to broadband seems to be highly biased in favor of Democratic
strongholds. As the internet is becoming a more important tool in
political activism, the present bias may help tip the scales against
the GOP. So, if I was a Democrat, I wouldn't scream too loud about the
current state of legislation right now.

How do you mean? I don't see where the asymmetry originates from. I don't
know why, but it's Democrats and organizations like Moveon that are pushing
for this.

 

[Tom Del Rosso]

Aren't they already effectively charging by the packet? I mean,
various ISPs charge according to monthly throughput. Thus, the thing
about "Google getting a free ride" strikes me as likely
disinformation if not an outright lie.

It's not the same as charging by the packet though, since some people stream
video all day. On a cable system, that not only means they are pushing the
ISP to maintain more infrastructure, but it also means that their neighbors
are getting less bandwidth than they paid for.

I don't think the government should tell ISPs how to charge though.

 

[Paul Hovnanian P.E.]

Until they actually do so, we can't be sure nothing is stopping them. Their
own customers want full access to everything. Making a law about something
that has never happened and very possibly never will is not good policy.

Its already happening. Cable companies are already allowed to act both
as content providers and common carriers and discriminate against any
parties that compete with their own product. Telephone companies want
the same rights. I'd rather see that right removed from cable operators
than granted to the telcos.

That's business, and business is what brought it this far. Their own
employees are their partners too, so what's the problem if they want to give
the employees a discount?

First of all, the current business model is putting us way behind the
rest of the developed world. So I wouldn't hold our business model up as
a shining example. Second, there are two ends to an internet connection.
You might be getting a cheap connection compared to your neighbor, but
what the telcos are trying to do is to squeeze money out of the big
online content providers. Should they be allowed to price a block of
bandwidth or quality of service based on how much money you have?

Currently, utilities are bound by franchise agreements with local
governments for the use of their rights of way. These require, among
other things, that service must be provided equally throughout the
jurisdiction for a uniform rate and new service must be provided to any
who request it based on some non-discriminatory pricing policy. The
telcos (and cable companies) want to get out from under these
requirements. Picture what might happen if you own a parcel of land that
you want to develop (or sell to a developer), but the utilities say,
"Nope. Not interested in serving that area. Go away." In this last case,
I wouldn't mind it so much if the municipality were allowed to install
their own system instead. But the telcos have (successfully, to date)
fought this in Congress.

How do you mean? I don't see where the asymmetry originates from. I don't
know why, but it's Democrats and organizations like Moveon that are pushing
for this.

Just who is 'Moveon'? The big money elites. Who has the best internet
service, the most choice? The precincts that vote their way. Is that
right? Based on what the telcos want, you bet. If you want access, you
buy it.

 

[Paul Hovnanian P.E.]

It's not the same as charging by the packet though, since some people stream
video all day. On a cable system, that not only means they are pushing the
ISP to maintain more infrastructure, but it also means that their neighbors
are getting less bandwidth than they paid for.

Some people stream videos all day from their cable companies VOD
service. Should they pay more, less, or the same as, the person who
streams those videos from the cable companies competitor?

I don't think the government should tell ISPs how to charge though.

Use of a public right of way should be for the benefit of the public
that owns it. A utility should be able to charge whatever they want, so
long as they do so uniformly among the members of that public, if that's
what the public wants. The public expresses its wishes through its
government. So, if I want to impose some conditions on a utility, I have
that right. Otherwise, string your cable on private property.

ISPs are only 'utilities' when they operate physical plant within the
public right of way. Otherwise (like with dial-up ISPs) they aren't
bound by the interests of the owners of the right of way (the public).

If the telcos were smart, they would have seen this problem coming a
long time ago and split into several parts. One being a regulated
operator of facilities within the public rights of way. These operators
would wholesale their capacity to various service providers (the other
parts), some being regulated to various degrees and some unregulated.
Much like power companies are splitting into unregulated suppliers and
single monopoly (regulated) distribution system operators.

 

[Frithiof Andreas Jensen]

What is unfortunate is that the proponents of more regulatory solutions
don't realize that the problem they are trying to solve originates in
regulations.

Human nature: "The Solution" is always more of whatever caused the
problem in the first place ;-)

Like running out of memory in $PRODUCT-IN-FORMER-JOB - so The Solution
(tm) is to add about 60 MB of Management Code && Java VM to "Manage" 3
MB worth of applications use of "ressources". Yeah, sure.

 

[Chris Carlen]

It's not the same as charging by the packet though, since some people stream
video all day. On a cable system, that not only means they are pushing the
ISP to maintain more infrastructure, but it also means that their neighbors
are getting less bandwidth than they paid for.

That's why cable is stupid. I prefer to pay more for reliable DSL. I
get >3Mbps for about $50/mo from SBC. The commercials about DSL being
slow are bunk. They may be true only for the really cheap crummy
<384kbps DSL packages coming out these days.


--
Good day!

________________________________________
Christopher R. Carlen
Principal Laser&Electronics Technologist
Sandia National Laboratories CA USA
[email protected]
NOTE, delete texts: "RemoveThis" and
"BOGUS" from email address to reply.