FCC Sets Deadline For Small ISPs To Adhere To New Transparency Rules

[Guest]

Should smaller ISPs adhere to the transparency rule, just like larger ISPs?

FCC Sets Deadline For Small ISPs To Adhere To New Transparency Rules : Read more

 

[knowom]

Why can't we see municipal broadband services act as a middle man to aid in the growth of the private sector to a point where they can compete on their own effectively?

 

[Warsaw]

I don't really understand how being transparent would hurt or harm small ISP's? What is the reasoning behind this? I believe that the more upfront and the more you communicate with your customers the better they will stand behind you. If my small ISP promised me 100 Mbps and had to throw me down to 50 Mbps due to unforeseen circumstances but they had a plan of fixing it in a certain time frame I can't really be upset about that.

Currently as we stand ISP's DO NOT communicate that anyways and you still get throttled or hampered however they please. I'm sure most are all for more competition and there are a decent amount of people that will try and support the small guys.

 

[rhysiam]

Unless I'm missing something your title doesn't match the article: "FCC sets deadline...", but the article is about the FCC debating about whether or not to set a deadline. They haven't set a deadline at all and in fact, according to the article itself, may never do so.

 

[WFang]

@Warsaw, depending on the exact details, it would harm small ISP's because it takes logging, monitoring (which they likely do) but adds on requirements of distilling and filtering this information and disseminating that in a format that makes sense to the average joe. This takes work. Then you'll likely have additional overhead for confused consumers calling in, adding hours to the help-desk services. I don't think we are talking 'huge costs', but it might be additional straws that can really make it hard for a new up and coming company to get off the ground. Also, many times, software and services exists to help automate or facilitate such things, but also many times such software cost too much for the smallest companies that can benefit from them, leaving them the choice of trying to do it manually (labor intensive) trying to develop in-house tools (risky and potentially very expensive) etc. -all that said, I don't know the details of the regulation, so if the reporting is not required to be dynamic information (e.g. daily updates or something) and more of a 'this service can be throttled' one-liner in the contract.. then the cost becomes more of an opportunity cost.. the small guy can't afford to purchase sufficient over provisioning capacity to guarantee all its customers max speed all the time, so they have to put that line in their marketing, the larger guys can afford to over provision and don't need that line... guess who the consumer will pick every time? Also, I'm not at all taking a position on right/wrong on this matter. I know not nearly enough about it.. but I do know enough to see many ways that such things could harm small fish trying to start/grow.

 

[surphninja]

The assumption is that smaller ISPs need to be able to exaggerate what they deliver in order to compete. Couldn't they just offer superior services? Or at least adequate services at lower rates?

 

[Joker41NAM]

I don't think this author lives in the US. He seems to think that competition already exists. How many of the people reading this article do you think have multiple choices for broadband? I sure don't...and I'm not paying the $140/mo that single choice costs.

 

[Daniel Ladishew]

Google has shown that it is possible to provide a superior service to most major ISPs in the small regional context. The problem is that most small companies or startups don't have the capital Google has to bring that product to market. That being said, I would be very willing to pay more for a small locally based service with real people to talk to and better speeds and/or service, than get a product that has been averaged out to the lowest common denominator of profit/customer by a larger ISP.

 

[IInuyasha74]

I don't think this author lives in the US. He seems to think that competition already exists. How many of the people reading this article do you think have multiple choices for broadband? I sure don't...and I'm not paying the $140/mo that single choice costs.

Actually, I do live in the US. I live in Ohio. I know that competition isn't really occuring between ISPs right now, as I have written in my other FCC related articles. However, the FCC is trying to foster competition between them, so knocking players out of the game doesn't help achieve that.

As for how many have multiple broadband services available, most of the nation has two options. Typically a local company, and then a large nation wide company like Comcast. Some areas only have one option, but it varies from town to town.

 

[stevenrix]

Smaller ISPs do not have the financial backbone to compete with bigger ISPs, that is simple. Smaller ISPs have been bought out by larger ISPs or went out of business after the end of the modem and the beginning of the DSL era, that happened 15 years ago.

 

[Vestin]

The assumption is that smaller ISPs need to be able to exaggerate what they deliver in order to compete.

This kinda sounds like debating whether only those who need to should be allowed to wear push-up bras.

 

[Joker41NAM]

As for how many have multiple broadband services available, most of the nation has two options. Typically a local company, and then a large nation wide company like Comcast. Some areas only have one option, but it varies from town to town.

I would seriously question the accuracy of this statement, since the new definition of broadband came into play. DSL can't qualify anymore, leaving cable as the only player in most areas (fiber still doesn't have very good coverage outside of large cities).