<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 02/21/2014 10:32 AM, tom wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:530771A1.6030407@gmail.com" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Wonder what the downside of reclassifying broadband as a public utility
would be? Unintended consequences?</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
Amen. Thoughts on FCC intervention near the end of this note.<br>
<br>
<br>
On 02/21/2014 10:45 AM, Jeff Frontz wrote:<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAGvwsDn6en2V4AN0mkx1gSJi7XrNZZ2OqTPbmDU6=QM8qQOV=Q@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div class="gmail_extra">The only negative I can think of is that
the incentive to innovate goes away -- you're guaranteed a rate
of return regardless of how much you push the envelope.</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Government as the corporate master ... see experiment with union of
nations from Eastern Europe and parts of Northern Asia for most of
the 20th century. Experiment failed. Vestiges remain in the form of
(apparent) organized crime (or just simple corruption), which we
enjoy in our own "experiment" anyway.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAGvwsDn6en2V4AN0mkx1gSJi7XrNZZ2OqTPbmDU6=QM8qQOV=Q@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div class="gmail_extra">Given our data rates (compared to most
third-world nations), I'm not too worried about stifling
innovation-- it seems to have died a while ago.
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Amen! But see below for observations about Ma Bell.<br>
<br>
<br>
On 02/21/2014 10:48 AM, Angelo McComis wrote:<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:01a401cf2f1c$5577d460$00677d20$@mccomis.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">First thought that comes to mind is governance and regulatory oversight by
PUCO, (---O at least in Ohio)</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
PUC (any state) doesn't always "get it". When they do, things work
well (IMLX), certainly somewhere north of misery.<br>
<br>
When I lived in Dallas, most telephone exchanges were SWB, but
Garland's were GTE. (As things progressed, GTE got better, but in
Garland in the 70s the phone service sucked.) They could at least
make calls. My impression of the suckage was more in terms of
customer service. I don't recall any substantial outages (but then,
per IMLX, experience was limited and I was just coming to
consciousness about these things). Those were the days when it was
"illegal" to add another phone ... to the twisted pair in your own
[expletive deleted] residence. (Where was the PUC on *that* point??)<br>
<br>
With respect to electricity (another utility subservient to the
dreaded PUC), there were few-to-no outages other than storm induced
(or unintended excavation, same as for phone service). Rates were
tolerable, seemed in-line with actual costs, and yet the power
company(ies) made great profits.<br>
<br>
In both cases, innovation was not stifled. On balance, I can't say
it wasn't "subdued" because I never worked for such companies. But I
witnessed cool/interesting/exciting/profitable developments by those
who did work for them. Ma Bell still managed to do signal processing
before digital methods were available. The Electric Company (sorry,
make that plural, and lose the reference to the PBS television show)
through consortia like EPRI created amazing things like high-current
transistors. (And eventually I learned that stereotypically bland
concepts like three-phase are actually kind of exciting.)<br>
<br>
<u>Does any of this correlate to Comcast, TWC, AT&T, or any
other digital traffic carriers of today?</u> (I leave the question
open. I don't have an answer nor much of an opinion, just a fair
amount of worry.)<br>
<br>
I'm a ham radio operator (for varying values of "operator", since
I'm rarely on the air these days). I'm sensitive to what is allowed
and what is not allowed in RF space. The electro-magnetic ether is
like a single planetary twisted pair anyone can tap into (with
substantial signal loss at the ends, by comparison). Listening is
free (and expected, so no expectation of privacy). What you "post"
is regulated (by the FCC and related international bodies). There's
real legitimacy to constraining transmission, both in terms of
content and in terms of power.<br>
<br>
In radio, originally anyone could transmit anything at any strength.
We eventually figured out to narrow our bandwidth enough to have
channels of a sort (by bands and frequencies). Then came the FCC and
a couple of world wars, but experiment was allowed and "hams"
acquiesced and became the LUG equivalent of the analog age (hackers
... in the "good kind" sense of the word).<br>
<br>
Some hams recall (through the testimony of hams older than our
grandparents) that the government tasted control of radio (via the
FCC), liked it, and didn't intend to ever give it up.<br>
<br>
The FCC has changed, has been infected by the same lobbyist illness
the rest of Washington suffers. Though I believe some commissioners
still care about the best interest (of country, consumer, and the
technology).<br>
<br>
Not sure how much of this makes sense, but it seems like the net was
more neutral when it was all science and military. [sigh]<br>
<br>
-- R; <><<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>