t’s great to have a nation with China’s resources developing technology products that can be used all over the world. This keeps US firms such as Cisco and European firms like Ericsson on their toes. But at the end of the day, users of these products need to be allowed to choose on the basis of product quality rather than nation-of-origin leverage.
A recent study by the Berkman Klein Center shows that publicly-funded broadband networks are cheaper – but slower – than those built with private capital. On average, consumers who buy broadband service from a government provider pay $10 per month less than those who patronize commercial providers, but their download speeds are close to 7 Mbps slower.
Figures released by US Telecom on Tuesday showed reduced spending on broadband infrastructure for the second year in a row. While 2014 was the best year for broadband investment since the fiber bubble…
When usage, delay tolerance, and loss tolerance are all unknowns, we fall to an unknown level of quality. While this simplifies billing, it doesn’t do justice to the needs of applications, innovation, or investment.
A side effect of switching from the current billing model to a quality-based model is that the unproductive net neutrality debate summarily ends. When users have control over the end-to-end quality of each application transaction, the means used by the provider to deliver the desired quality are unimportant.
What the FCC can do is help to keep large swathes of the American population from falling behind. And it can do this by saying yes to network deployment and innovation. A good first step in that process is to let go of the vacuous virtuous cycle of networks + apps innovation. That argument is illogical.
The FCC was designed as an independent agency because the public is always biased in favor of the status quo. As Henry Ford may have said about his Model T, the public just wanted faster horses because they were scared of cars.