Who owns the telephone poles?

Greetings:

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

formatting link
formatting link

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):

formatting link

--
_____________________
Christopher R. Carlen
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
CC
Loading thread data ...

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

Reply to
DJ Delorie

[snip]

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

Reply to
Genome

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.

-- john

Reply to
John O'Flaherty

What you seek (Re: censorship) already exists:

formatting link
formatting link

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

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

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.

Reply to
JeffM

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.

--
Paul Hovnanian     mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Paul Hovnanian P.E.

Paul Hovnanian P.E. typed in news:// snipped-for-privacy@hovnanian.com,

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.

--
Reply in group, but if emailing add another
zero, and remove the last word.
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
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.

--
_____________________
Christopher R. Carlen
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
CC

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."

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."

--
_____________________
Christopher R. Carlen
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
CC

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.

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.

--
Paul Hovnanian     mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Paul Hovnanian P.E.

Paul Hovnanian P.E. typed in news:// snipped-for-privacy@hovnanian.com,

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.

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?

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.

--
Reply in group, but if emailing add another
zero, and remove the last word.
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Tom Del Rosso

CC typed in news:// snipped-for-privacy@news3.newsguy.com,

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.

--
Reply in group, but if emailing add another
zero, and remove the last word.
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Tom Del Rosso

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.

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.

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     mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Paul Hovnanian P.E.

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?

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.

--
Paul Hovnanian     mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Paul Hovnanian P.E.

solutions

in

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.

Reply to
Frithiof Andreas Jensen

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

Reply to
Chris Carlen

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.