We absolutely should move away from twisted pair lines carrying data - the limitation on bandwidth chokes speeds. But to do so isn't free. Cable companies were stringing fiber optic like crazy in the mid to late 90's, then the because the promise over pushing more services over those lines versus phone lines was the compelling reason for doing so.
Then the dot com bubble burst, then 9/11 happened with the accompanying recession, then competition from both Internet content providers and 3G and 4G cell phone service slowed down the fiber rollouts. Now you've got a number of cities and counties rolling out free or low cost wireless Internet services to residents. Its expensive to run fiber and the competition makes it less cost effective to do. So, you've still got quite a few particularly rural communities were DSL via the phone line is still a good, though not optimal, option.
Cable companies figured out a long time ago that the key to long term profitability hinged far more on delivering content through a variety of means. But cable TV service is quickly becoming an anachronism in the world of on-demand video services like Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, Chromecast, etc. Unfortunately its still the bread and butter of a cable industry that most of us rely on to delivery data services, and cable subscriptions are starting to decline. Cable on-demand services never took off for a variety of reasons. Now you have foundational cable content providers looking at other options besides cable to broadcast (like ESPN experimenting with Sling TV). Less revenue available to cable companies to upgrade their infrastructure.
This brings us back to what the FCC is proposing. The original FCC proposal still leaves the door open for ISP's to charge content providers higher rates for higher bandwidth consumption. I think this is as it should be: there's no question that delivery of certain types of content are more resource intensive than others. It also prompts innovation, as in Netflix partnering with EyeIO. It also allows ISP's to appropriately manage traffic on their network. The initial FCC proposal simply required transparency in provider practices, prohibit blocking legal sites or apps, and prohibit “commercially unreasonable practices.”
It appears now that the FCC is upping the ante, and adding bandwidth management to its list of prohibited practices/regulatory objectives:
- No throttling. Nor should ISPs be able to intentionally slow down some content or speed up others — through a process often called “throttling” — based on the type of service or your ISP’s preferences.
- Increased transparency. The connection between consumers and ISPs — the so-called “last mile” — is not the only place some sites might get special treatment. So, I am also asking the FCC to make full use of the transparency authorities the court recently upheld, and if necessary to apply net neutrality rules to points of interconnection between the ISP and the rest of the Internet.
- No paid prioritization. Simply put: No service should be stuck in a “slow lane” because it does not pay a fee. That kind of gatekeeping would undermine the level playing field essential to the Internet’s growth. So, as I have before, I am asking for an explicit ban on paid prioritization and any other restriction that has a similar effect.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/net-neutrality
Again, all that sounds really nice in a populist kind of way. But if fully implemented, the end result would be a reduction in overall speed and efficiency of the internet for most consumers, and increases costs for hosting / managing bandwidth intensive content.
Let ISP's manage their network in the most efficient way possible and let content providers experiment and innovate to deliver their products in a way that allows for higher throughput with a lower bandwidth footprint. Its already happening, let it continue.