Figure 2. Broadband lines and broadband users, 1999–2006

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

Status of broadband in the US High speed lines as of December 2008: –102 million total high speed connections 84% were faster than 200 kbps in both directions.

Advertisements

Earl Comstock President and CEO COMPTEL. The World Has Changed FCC adopts Cable Modem Order and Supreme Court upholds FCC in Brand X FCC adopts Wireline.

Regulation and Innovation October 7, Issues  The Internet is a public network ;  Net neutrality  Can it be regulated? How?  Why should it.

The Future of Broadband Daniel Ballon Pacific Research Institute Broadband Summit: Connecting America FCC-NARUC Joint Conference on Advanced Services November.

Presentation to Sprint Research Symposium Lawrence, Kansas March 8-9, 2000 Dr. William Lehr Executive Director MIT Internet & Telecoms Convergence Consortium.

© 2006 | Professor Yale Braunstein | School of Information | U.C. Berkeley s l i d e 1 © 2006 | Professor Yale Braunstein | School of Information | U.C.

1 End of Regulation? Jerry Hausman Professor of Economics MIT July 2005

Policies for the Broadband Digital Migration Barbara A. Cherry Senior Counsel Office of Strategic Planning & Policy Analysis Federal Communications Commission.

ISP (INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS).  An ISP (or Internet Service Provider) is a company that offers users a connection to the internet. WHAT IS AN ISP?

10/09/071 Broadband-The Best Way Presentation to October 9, 2007 NARUC Accounting and Finance Meeting in Jackson, WY Mary Retka Director, Network Policy.

BT Partners Perspectives on Differences in the Transatlantic Approaches to Broadband Policy Aryeh Friedman Senior Competition and Regulatory Counsel BT.

Survey for Consumers Received: 364 updated. Q1: To your knowledge, is Internet service available to you? A. Yes B. No C. Don’t know.

THE BATTLE OVER NET NEUTRALITY

U.S. Telecommunications Regulation and Market Developments September 2008.

Changes in State and Federal Telecommunications Policies: How Do They Affect US All? SCAN NATOA 16 th Annual Spring Conference and Star Awards Long Beach,

Legal & Regulatory Classification of Broadband Demystifying Title II.

Overview of Network Neutrality Kyle D. Dixon Senior Fellow & Director, Federal Institute for Regulatory Law & Economics The Progress & Freedom Foundation.

Wireline Competition Bureau 2006 Annual Report January 17, 2007.

Network Neutrality Juergen Hahn MIS 304 November 23, 2010.

1 1084_06F9_c3 © 1999, Cisco Systems, Inc. The Current State Of Telecommunications Dan Barker TNT Consulting Group.

Net Neutrality: The fight to control the Internet.

Issues in New Media: Net Neutrality. What is “net neutrality?” What is Net Neutrality? (Video)(Video) Net Neutrality (Video)(Video) Save the Internet!

Views expressed are those of the author and may not reflect opinion of ITU, its members or the government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.

Network Neutrality: An Internet operating principle which ensures that all online users are entitled to access Internet content of their choice; run online.

Cancer cachexia by J.N. Gordon, S.R. Green, and P.M. Goggin QJM Volume 98(11): October 17, 2005 © The Author Published by Oxford University.

Constructing An Effective Statutory & Regulatory Framework for Broadband Networks Phoenix Center Symposium December 1, 2005 Disclaimer: Views presented.

Chelsea Fallon Special Advisor Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Federal Communications Commission FCC/USDA Rural Broadband Educational Workshop April.

 Security issues that are often faced when using a Net connected desktop or laptop computer are to be anticipated on the mobile Web.  There are concerns.

Pine Grove, California Rural CableTV affiliate of The Volcano Telephone Company (ILEC) Licensed as an MVPD by FCC exemption in1983 Serving portions of.

ISPs (Internet Service Providers). What is an ISP? An ISP (or Internet Service Provider) is a company that offers users a connection to the internet.

Comparative Telecommunications Law Spring, 2007 Prof. Karl Manheim 16: Internet III (Net Neutrality) Copyright © 2007.

The Rural Customer Speaks

From: An open day in the metric space

ACN Product Overview Broadband Australia

Net Neutrality: WhaT YOU NEED TO KNOW

Different Traffic Management Techniques for Mobile Broadband Networks

Figure 1 A decision tree diagram for problems and its German correspondences From: Corresponding lexical domains: A new resource for onomasiological.

Broadband Internet Satellite

Figure 1. Conceptual model of well-being related to involvement in theatre. From: Theatre Involvement and Well-Being, Age Differences, and Lessons From.

Figure 1 Individual Lifted from Group Photograph

Figure 1. Orthodontic set-up and location of LLLT or placebo-laser

From: What Drives Local Food Prices

From: Where do we go from here

Figure 2 Distribution of Annual Household Income for Jordan Overall, Camp Refugees, and Camp Poor From: A Profile of Poverty for Palestinian Refugees in.

Figure 1. Academic productivity and high academic income: top earners vs. the rest of academics. The average number of ‘peer-reviewed article equivalents’

Figure 1. Examples of e-cigarette discussions in social media

Fig. 1. The required sample sizes nPPV and nNPV versus the sample allocation fraction P for the case study. From: Sample size for.

From: Estimating the Location of World Wheat Price Discovery

Figure 1: Time points at which sperm samples were analysed for aneuploidy frequencies in controls and cancer patients From: Sperm aneuploidy frequencies.

Class 19 Network Industries, Spring, 2014 Broadband: Legal Framework

FCC National Broadband Plan (NBP) and Rural Universal Service Reform

ISPs (Internet Service Providers)

HIGH SPEED INTERNET COMMUNICATIONS FOR RURAL PENNSYLVANIA

Figure 1. HR (95% CI) of death from dementia associated with weight or BMI in middle age and in old age. From: Adiposity in middle and old age and risk.

Figure 4. Influence of Clerk Ideology on Justice Voting.

Note: The top and bottom payoffs belong to the principal and agent, respectively. From: Exchange in the Absence of Legal Enforcement: Reputation and Multilateral.

Markets with Market Power

Figure 1. Serum ceftazidime concentrations following intravenous administration. Unless provided in the caption above, the following copyright applies.

Figure 1 A dot plot illustrating the correlation between the yearly absolute risk difference for both MACE and major ... Figure 1 A dot plot illustrating.

Fig. 1 Flow chart of included patients for analyses

Fig. 1 Flow chart for selection of study subjects

Unless provided in the caption above, the following copyright applies to the content of this slide: Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.

Figure 1. Percentage of Pacific and European children completing all components of B4SC in 2013 and 2015 Figure 1. Percentage of Pacific and European.

Unless provided in the caption above, the following copyright applies to the content of this slide: Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.

Unless provided in the caption above, the following copyright applies to the content of this slide: Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.

Unless provided in the caption above, the following copyright applies to the content of this slide: Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.

Fig. 1 A network representation of top 100 co-occurring terms

Figure 1 Grant agencies and charitable foundations supporting Plan S.

Unless provided in the caption above, the following copyright applies to the content of this slide: Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.

Figure 1 ABCDE of primary prevention.2

Presentation transcript:

Figure 2. Broadband lines and broadband users, 1999–2006 Figure 2. Broadband lines and broadband users, 1999–2006. Source: Wireline Competition Bureau, FCC, High Speed Services For Internet Access: Statusas of Dec. 31, 2005 (2006); 2003 NetRatings Earnings Conference Call—Final, Fair Disclosure Wire, Feb. 26, 2004; U.S. Broadband Penetration Tops 40%, Editorand Publisher, Sept. 28, 2005; Carol Wilson, Nielson: Broadband Use Nears 75%, Prism Insight, Jun. 22, 2006. From: A CONSUMER-WELFARE APPROACH TO NETWORK NEUTRALITY REGULATION OF THE INTERNET Jnl of Competition Law & Economics. 2006;2(3):349-474. doi:10.1093/joclec/nhl016 Jnl of Competition Law & Economics | © The Author (2006). Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Figure 1. Verizon's monthly price for 1 Figure 1. Verizon's monthly price for 1.5 Mbps DSL access, May 2001 to May 2006. Source: Bear Stearns, March Broadband Buzz: A Monthly Updateon Critical Broadband Issues 6 (2006). Note: In April 2005, Verizon began offering 3.0 Mbps DSL access for the same price that it had been offering 1.5 Mbps DSL access, thus doubling the performance of its entry-level DSL product. The figure treats this repricing as halving the price of 1.5 Mbps DSL access. See Press Release, Verizon, Verizon Online Offers Twice the Speed of Its Basic Consumer DSL Service For the Same Price (April 4, 2005), http://newscenter.verizon.com/proactive/newsroom/release.vtml?id=90158. From: A CONSUMER-WELFARE APPROACH TO NETWORK NEUTRALITY REGULATION OF THE INTERNET Jnl of Competition Law & Economics. 2006;2(3):349-474. doi:10.1093/joclec/nhl016 Jnl of Competition Law & Economics | © The Author (2006). Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Figure 3. Nationwide concentration for residential broadband access (cable, DSL, fiber, wireless, and satellite), 1999–2005. Source: FCC, High-Speed Servicesfor Internet Access: Statusas of December 31, 2005, at table 3. From: A CONSUMER-WELFARE APPROACH TO NETWORK NEUTRALITY REGULATION OF THE INTERNET Jnl of Competition Law & Economics. 2006;2(3):349-474. doi:10.1093/joclec/nhl016 Jnl of Competition Law & Economics | © The Author (2006). Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Figure 4. Lessig's theory of how network operators should charge end-users and content providers for bandwidth and priority. From: A CONSUMER-WELFARE APPROACH TO NETWORK NEUTRALITY REGULATION OF THE INTERNET Jnl of Competition Law & Economics. 2006;2(3):349-474. doi:10.1093/joclec/nhl016 Jnl of Competition Law & Economics | © The Author (2006). Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Figure 5. Cable modem and DSL residential market shares, 1999–2005 Figure 5. Cable modem and DSL residential market shares, 1999–2005. Source: FCC, High-Speed Servicesfor Internet Access: Statusas of December 31, 2005, at table 3. From: A CONSUMER-WELFARE APPROACH TO NETWORK NEUTRALITY REGULATION OF THE INTERNET Jnl of Competition Law & Economics. 2006;2(3):349-474. doi:10.1093/joclec/nhl016 Jnl of Competition Law & Economics | © The Author (2006). Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Figure 6. Absolute and relative quality of service for content providers who do not contract for priority delivery. From: A CONSUMER-WELFARE APPROACH TO NETWORK NEUTRALITY REGULATION OF THE INTERNET Jnl of Competition Law & Economics. 2006;2(3):349-474. doi:10.1093/joclec/nhl016 Jnl of Competition Law & Economics | © The Author (2006). Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Figure 8. Demand for Priority Delivery with and without Capacity Constraints. From: A CONSUMER-WELFARE APPROACH TO NETWORK NEUTRALITY REGULATION OF THE INTERNET Jnl of Competition Law & Economics. 2006;2(3):349-474. doi:10.1093/joclec/nhl016 Jnl of Competition Law & Economics | © The Author (2006). Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Figure 9. The effect of prohibiting a broadband network operator from charging content providers for priority delivery of packets in a market with two-sided demand. From: A CONSUMER-WELFARE APPROACH TO NETWORK NEUTRALITY REGULATION OF THE INTERNET Jnl of Competition Law & Economics. 2006;2(3):349-474. doi:10.1093/joclec/nhl016 Jnl of Competition Law & Economics | © The Author (2006). Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Figure 7. Marginal effect of priority delivery on end-user's experience with increasing access speeds. From: A CONSUMER-WELFARE APPROACH TO NETWORK NEUTRALITY REGULATION OF THE INTERNET Jnl of Competition Law & Economics. 2006;2(3):349-474. doi:10.1093/joclec/nhl016 Jnl of Competition Law & Economics | © The Author (2006). Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Figure 10. End-user welfare gains from a subsidy funded by prioritization fees levied on content providers. The savings for existing broadband households correspond to the rectangular area bounded by the old and new monthly price for broadband service. From: A CONSUMER-WELFARE APPROACH TO NETWORK NEUTRALITY REGULATION OF THE INTERNET Jnl of Competition Law & Economics. 2006;2(3):349-474. doi:10.1093/joclec/nhl016 Jnl of Competition Law & Economics | © The Author (2006). Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org