Free Newsletter
No surprise: Country's largest network operators not applying for stimulus money
Free newsletter via e-mail
Tools
Not surprisingly, The Washington Post is reporting the country's largest network operators are refraining from applying for any broadband stimulus money.
The reasons differ, but most likely believe that taking federal money would mean bigger probes into their business practices. They aren't happy about the net-neutrality rules either.
"We are concerned that some new mandates seem to go well beyond current laws and [Federal Communications Commission] rules, and may lead to the kind of continuing uncertainty and delay that is antithetical to the president's primary goals of economic stimulus and job creation," said Walter B. McCormick Jr., president of trade group USTelecom.
The question is, will these firms' lack of participation hinder the Obama administration's plan to bring the Internet to underserved areas?
"If you want to get broadband out, you have to do it with [those] who brought you to the dance in the first place, and in this case it is the incumbent cable and telephone carriers who have 85 percent of lines in the country," Robert Atkinson, president of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, told the paper. "This is not basket weaving. This is really complex and intensive technical stuff that takes a fair amount of sophistication and scale to be able to do right and to continue to upgrade."
For more:
- see The Washington Post
Related articles:
Net neutrality roaring in under new FCC chairman
Broadband stimulus rules released, net neutrality a requirement
CTIA: Net neutrality should not apply to wireless networks built with stimulus money
Comments
Posted by Fred Dyste | September 2, 2009 - 12:29pm
The incumbents already got their digs in at the application level by setting the bar so low as to what is unserved and underserved that they've already managed to subvert the intent of the bill. Their lobbyist and guys like Walter B. McCormick Jr. got their hands all over our politicians when it came time to write the parameters.
1) Highspeed broadband is 780/200 kbps? Excuse me. Who wrote that one in - a lobbyist or two.
2) The incumbents get to rely on 'advertised' speeds and rates, not actual speeds and rates delivered to the customer. My census block by census block research proves the incumbents have sand bagged this one.
3) The incumbents have 30-days to challenge any "declared" unserved or underserved areas. How did that get in there? Why do they get a chance to dispute it? If they do, I better get a chance to see their numbers too.
They want this to fail because it is a direct threat to their entrenched and monopolistic practices.
Comments (1) | Post a comment