On Nov 14, 2014 9:19 AM, “Steve Kovach” <skovach@businessinsider.com> wrote:

>

> First, thank you for responding. This is great and really clarifies your tweets from yesterday and I think everyone will get a lot out of it.

>

> A few things:

>

> Yes, there’s great competition among the wireless carriers right now. The four major ones are available just about everywhere. And the competitive landscape is mostly working there and benefitting customers. Look at T-Mobile. The changes Legere has made there over the last 2 years have caused the big guys like Verizon and AT&T to react and change pricing plans and what they offer. That’s good!

>

> But wireless broadband is not designed to be a replacement for your wired broadband. It’s designed to let you sip data on the go. Depending on the carrier, data plans can cost ~$60 for 3 GB of data per month. If you go over that, the carrier either throttles your speed or charges you extra for more data. That’s way more expensive than getting 250 GB or unlimited data on wired broadband for about the same price.

..

What on the Internet ends up being used in the way it was designed ? The Internet was designed for everything but video. There are networks designed to carry video signals and they deliver digital TV channels every second of the day

You may not like the depth of competition wireless currently provides , but then wireless networks are getting better by the day and standards are being set for 5g that will compete with wired broadband

There will come a time in the next decade when cutting the cord refers to cutting your broadband cord. It’s inevitable. How will Title 2 deal with that ? Will Title 2 sunset in 5 or 7 or 10 years or will we find the future of broadband cut off at the knees because title 2 of 2015 didn’t anticipate broadband of 2022?

Unwired WiFi networks are being created There are thousands of broadband Hotspots. How is that happening ? How far will it go and how will Title 2 impact their growth

>

> It’s unfair to say wireless and wired broadband providers compete with each other. They don’t. They will some day, maybe, but not now.

It’s unfair because it doesn’t fit your argument

>

> I also disagree that broadband has gotten as good as you think it has. Yes, it’s incrementally better, but still far behind other developed countries. Investment in broadband networks is declining, not going up. And the ISPs have no reason to build out their networks because there aren’t any viable competitors. (Google Fiber is an exception, but it’s only available in a handful of cities.) I also don’t consider free hotspots at coffee shops, etc. a competitor because they use the same ISPs folks use in their homes. Plus, I doubt ISPs are very worried about people sitting in Starbucks all day using free WiFi.

>

Nonsense. How much wired bandwidth do you have today to your home vs 3 years ago what’s the comparative throughput?

And add some context

Netflix started streaming in earnest 5 years ago and the usage exploded. It went from DVD to consuming 30pct of prime time bandwidth. Networks built out to cover it and as a result Netflix is able to support 10s of millions of subscribers

If the networks aren’t keeping up why are the number of over the top video provider start ups exploding right now ? Are they all stupid ?

The amount if video consumed on the net is growing how fast ? Right ? How has that happened if networks are so bad ?

How is it that 4k video is now being streamed. 4k. Seriously if there was a fear of unequal access how in the world would 4k over the even be possible ? That’s 4x the bandwidth of HD

What about cloud computing ? How did it explode from nothing to huge ?

Millions of companies trusting the net to provide access to any digital type of content and amazon Microsoft Google IBM and others trusting the net to provide access to their clouds and hosting servers on the networks you want to regulate

What is the impact of net neutrality going to be on clouds ?

What about cyber security , the minute there is an attack that does damage, you can bet that title 2 will be used as a weapon by politicians and we will have discussion of title 3 start.

What about CDNs? With NN in place CDNs will explode. They will pay the networks a ton of money to host their servers and then charge the same people that you think will buy high end commercial fast lanes a ton of money to assure their streams are better to the last mile than Smaller competitors are. Should we regulate CDNs?

And of course what about the many other reasons beyond lack of choice in the last mile that impact consumer experience ?

When your next door neighbor streams his live gaming all day to his friends at 50mbs and everyone else on that last mile buffers all that the time who takes responsibility?

Should title 2 throttle upstream bandwidth to make sure the last mile isn’t impacted by bandwidth hogs ?

What happens if after title 2, investment doesn’t keep up for the last mile and people start complaining that their service suffers because their neighbors stream all the time and the question is why should they suffer so their neighbors can watch streaming video rather than tv ? Why should a non OTT subscriber pay more so streamers get their video ?

What about non essential but ground breaking bandwidth hogging applications

Things like machine vision , high bit rate IOT applications , self driving cars , peered sensors ? What if there is a groundbreaming collaborative computing app that eats a ton of bandwidth ?

If you want to see bandwidth and innovation throttled, have the government regulate network management and investment

> Your example of bandwidth for medicine and healthcare. Obama’s proposal would prioritize traffic for essential services like that. So that’s not an issue.

NOT True. First in line in a traffic jam is still slow and buffering.

And how are you going to regulate quality of service settings ?

Will Title 2 decide how last mile consumer usage will be prioritized vs downstream ?

Who is going to say what an essential service is ?

>

> I do agree with you that we don’t know what the Internet will become, and what kinds of services it will power down the road. But I think it’s a narrow view saying net neutrality advocates just want faster Netflix. They don’t. Netflix is often used an example, but those who support Title II see the internet the same way you do. Who knows where we’ll be in a few years! And I think that gives us even more reason to make sure it’s protected now.

You can’t protect what you don’t know. If that is the right approach why not further regulate everything ?

>

What happens when some new Internet service takes on a political tint or is perceived as impacting an election

What if they get the legislation wrong ?

No one trusts the politicians we have in place to do anything right, but we think they can take on a difficult issue like this?

, Based on what you’ve written, I think our goals are the same, but we differ on how to get there. I find that comforting!

No they aren’t.

There is a place for more

government If the net wasn’t working. it’s working

The issues above are just the ones I can think of off the top of my head

I’m sure there are thousands more

The net is working. There is no better platform for innovation in the world right now than the net and you think further regulating it is good ?

You keep on saying that more money is being spent elsewhere on networks than here in the USA. Show me those numbers I see more per capita being spent here

And you talk about our ranking in the developed world. You and many are being intentionally obtuse

All the surveys are based on average speed. We rank 11th I think , but the difference between 11 and 2nd is 3 mbs

3mbs and that’s based on averages

When you look at peak speed it’s a smaller delta

And all the countries above us are denser and less populous

As far as growth in speed , we are increasing 9pct or more quarter over quarter

How is that bad ?