Sonic CEO: I Welcome Being Regulated As A Common Carrier Sonic CEO Dane Jasper is one of a growing number of ISP executives who've pointed out that the FCC's new net neutrality rules -- despite a lot of hand wringing from partisans and the mega-ISPs -- are really not a big deal. In fact, Jasper has stated, the only people they really impact are ISP executives interested in anti-competitive behavior. ISPs already have to submit data to the FCC stating they're engaged in reasonable traffic management, and if you're not doing anything anti-competitive, Title II with forbearance really won't change things for you: quote:

So, I think from a compliance perspective, if the assumption is that Title II will be by and large gutted, or rather they engage in forbearance of all provisions and begin to re-enable provisions that allow them to assure the traffic is treated equally, my expectation is those of use that treat traffic equally will have a pretty light regulatory burden . That's one of the most respected CEOs in the industry, from one of the quote: It is important to draw the distinction between regulation of the Internet, and regulation of carriers. The FCC’s order will disallow carriers from discriminating against sources of traffic that their customers choose to access via the Internet. This is common carriage at its core, and as a carrier, I am supportive of being regulated as a common carrier by the FCC. I don’t believe we would have gotten here if the access marketplace in the US was truly competitive. Regulation became necessary because consumers have so few choices for their access to the Internet. If consumers could easily choose from many carriers, I believe this would have prevented the issues we have seen. I take some responsibility for this marketplace failure, and I know that we need to work to deliver more consumers a great competitive choice from Sonic. We are working hard to expand our reach, to improve performance and to increase the value of our service. And that's an important point: net neutrality violations are a just a symptom of an uncompetitive market. In an ideal world, consumers would have ample choices and the ability to vote with their wallet to punish bad ISP behavior. It's only the monopoly/duopoly control over the last mile, which won't be going anywhere anytime soon, that makes neutrality protections necessary in the first place. They're not the perfect option, but they're the best option to protect consumers in the face of limited competition. That's one of the most respected CEOs in the industry, from one of the best reviewed ISPs in the country, unequivocally stating the circulating claims that the FCC's new rules will saddle ISPs with numerous, onerous "burdensome regulations" simply aren't true. The rules also aren't, as so many neutrality opponents argue, an attempt to "regulate the Internet," Jasper argues in a new blog post And that's an important point: net neutrality violations are a just a symptom of an uncompetitive market. In an ideal world, consumers would have ample choices and the ability to vote with their wallet to punish bad ISP behavior. It's only the monopoly/duopoly control over the last mile, which won't be going anywhere anytime soon, that makes neutrality protections necessary in the first place. They're not theoption, but they're the best option to protect consumers in the face of limited competition. Of course Comcast, AT&T, Verizon and friends get around this logic trap by pretending that the broadband market is secretly incredibly competitive and therefore regulatory involvement is totally unnecessary. We're told that if we deregulate markets -- and weaken regulatory power -- we'll soon be awash in a myriad of competitive choices and things will just work out. Except the FCC spent the last fifteen years deregulating the market at the industry's behest, and the result was the worst customer service in any industry and some of the highest broadband prices among all developed nations. As Jasper notes, it seems high time that we try a different approach if we want a different result. As Jasper notes, it seems high time that we try a different approach if we want a different result.







News Jump Are The Comcast-Charter X1 Talks Dead In The Water?; AT&T May Offer Phone Plans With Ads For Discounts; + more news Europe's Top Court: Net Neutrality Rules Bar Zero Rating; ViacomCBS To Rebrand CBS All Access As Paramount+; + more news Verizon To Buy Reseller TracFone For $7B; 5G Not The Competitive Threat To Cable Many Thought It Would Be; + more news MS.Wants Records From AT&T On $300M Project; Google Fiber Outages In Austin, Houston, Other Texan Cities; + more news States With The Biggest Decreases In Speed; AT&T Hopes You'll Forget Its Fight Against Accurate Maps; + more news AT&T's CEO Has A Familiar $olution To US Broadband Woes; EarthLink Files Suit Against Charter; + more news 5G Doesn't Live Up To Hype, AT&T's 5G Slower Than Its 4G; Cord-Cutting Now In 37% of Broadband Households; + more news FCC Cited False Broadband Data Despite Warnings; ZTE, Huawei Replacement Cost Is $1.87B, But Only $1B Allocated; + more Cogeco Rejects Altice USA's Atlantic Broadband Bid; AT&T Is Astroturfing The FCC In Support Of Trump Attack; + more news Big CBRS Auction Winners: Verizon, Windstream, Dish, Cablecos; Altice USA makes play for Atlantic Broadband; + more news ---------------------- this week last week most discussed

Most recommended from 70 comments

serge87

join:2009-11-29

New York 3 recommendations serge87 Member As well they should be Try being a small ISP in 2(?) cities in CA and negotiating with Verizon or Comcast for favorable(or even fair-gasp!) peering/transit terms.