Ajit Pai's FCC Can't Admit Broadband Competition Is a Problem (dslreports.com) 109
An anonymous reader quotes a report from DSLReports: While the FCC is fortunately backing away from a plan that would have weakened the standard definition of broadband, the agency under Ajit Pai still can't seem to acknowledge the lack of competition in the broadband sector. Or the impact this limited competition has in encouraging higher prices, net neutrality violations, privacy violations, or what's widely agreed to be some of the worst customer service of any industry in America. The Trump FCC had been widely criticized for a plan to weaken the standard definition of broadband from 25 Mbps down, 3 Mbps up, to include any wireless connection capable of 10 Mbps down, 1 Mbps up. Consumer advocates argued the move was a ham-fisted attempt to try and tilt the data to downplay the industry's obvious competitive and coverage shortcomings. They also argued that the plan made no coherent sense, given that wireless broadband is frequently capped, often not available (with carrier maps the FCC relies on falsely over-stating coverage), and significantly more expensive than traditional fixed-line service.
In a statement (pdf), FCC boss Ajit Pai stated the agency would fortunately be backing away from the measure, while acknowledging that frequently capped and expensive wireless isn't a comparable replacement for fixed-line broadband. "The draft report maintains the same benchmark speed for fixed broadband service previously adopted by the Commission: 25 Mbps download/3 Mbps upload," stated Pai. "The draft report also concludes that mobile broadband service is not a full substitute for fixed service. Instead, it notes there are differences between the two technologies, including clear variations in consumer preferences and demands." That's the good news. The bad news: the FCC under Pai's leadership continues to downplay and ignore the lack of competition in the sector, and the high prices and various bad behaviors most people are painfully familiar with.
In a statement (pdf), FCC boss Ajit Pai stated the agency would fortunately be backing away from the measure, while acknowledging that frequently capped and expensive wireless isn't a comparable replacement for fixed-line broadband. "The draft report maintains the same benchmark speed for fixed broadband service previously adopted by the Commission: 25 Mbps download/3 Mbps upload," stated Pai. "The draft report also concludes that mobile broadband service is not a full substitute for fixed service. Instead, it notes there are differences between the two technologies, including clear variations in consumer preferences and demands." That's the good news. The bad news: the FCC under Pai's leadership continues to downplay and ignore the lack of competition in the sector, and the high prices and various bad behaviors most people are painfully familiar with.
Because it's not (Score:1)
It's all the collusion that is a problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of places don't have that much competition to choose from. And many of the choices end up being kinda crappy. We really need both ways to increase real competition and to stop the ISPs from controlling who can visit what online, or we'll end up with some nonsense like long distance internet charges in a generation.
Re: (Score:3)
In my area, we have Comcast for cable (eww), Frontier for VDSL (that tops out at 24 MB/sec, and doesn't even qualify as broadband given the current FCC rules), or some sort of overpriced satellite or cellular connection with an insanely low data cap. Frontier is near bankruptcy, and hasn't attempted to improve their network in our area (coastal Connecticut) since they bought it from at&t a few years ago.
So, basically the choices in my area are Comcast or shit. You know that they're bad when Comcast come
Re: (Score:2)
"I'm still wondering when the municipal gigabit broadband connections are coming."
They've probably been banned, thanks to Comcast.
That's something that I would love to see just go away. There's no reason whatsoever that municipal broadband projects should be banned anywhere. NO reason at all, other than "Comcast and their campaign contributions."
My power company should be able to provide internet access if they want to, for example.
Re: Because it's not (Score:1)
Hold on. Have you seen what broad band over powerlines does to the HF spectrum? That is not just frumpy old geezers operating their ham radios but there is also medical equipment among other things that get wiped out by it.
Smell Smoke (Score:3)
Ajit Pai couldn't admit his ass was on fire even he smelt smoke.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's not fair. If Verizon asked him to admit it, he would.
Ajit Pai is an industry shill (Score:5, Insightful)
Ajit Pai is an industry shill. He will not admit to anything that is not in the interest of his industry masters.
Why is this so hard to understand ?
Pai's FCC knows broadband competition is a problem (Score:4, Insightful)
And they're doing everything in their power (and beyond) to stamp out such competition.
None of which has anything to do with NN (Score:2)
NN would not give us more ISPs. It would not have a diversity of companies laying cable.
And absent more choices in who are our ISPs are from the wire up level... it is pointless.
To solve the problem we need Right of Way for poles and conduits. Absent that, this is just monopolists arguing for their monopoly.
The corporate monopolists want to be the only people that are allowed to run cable in the last mile and the socialist monopolists merely want the government to monopolize it.
The only non-monopolist optio
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I knew you'd be here somewhere, spouting your nonsense.
You keep saying "over the years", as if the NN rules were in place for decades. It was only 2015! Where was all this crap you're talking about over the 20 years that I had broadband before 2015? I think this might be the 3rd time I've asked you this exact question.
You're going to have a lot of crow to eat when in another decade rural communities still don't have broadband. Add another to the list!
55890525 [slashdot.org]
55890785 [slashdot.org]
55912361 [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Fix the right of way to conduits and poles and the problem goes away.
Everything else is a sad argument for one monopoly over another. They're both toxic.
Re: (Score:1)
But that's a little like saying:
"Feed the people and hunger will no longer be a problem."
Sounds nice. Means very little.
Re: (Score:1)
No, its like saying "let people grow/sell food and we won't have a food shortage"...
What we currently have is a heavily controlled market where it is almost impossible but a few multi billion dollar corporations to run any cable.
Lots of people are able and willing to run cable and operate ISPs. Only a handful of big companies are actually permitted to lay cable and operate ISPs.
Then people wonder why we have these same companies misbehaving.
You restrict it so that only a few corporations are allowed to run
Re: (Score:1)
Your criticism displays a lack of integrity as regards interpreting pretty clear analogies.
Starvation is a product of scarcity in most cases. The only known reliable solution is an abundance of food. This requires efficient and economical over production of food.
If you want to analogize that to the internet with some integrity, then you'd be advocating for over supply which I also support because it would give everyone higher quality service and competition.
But to do that you'd have to open up the market an
Re: (Score:2)
Poles and conduits should be like roads... with any company able to gain access to it by following some reasonable regulations and paying a reasonable and equally applied access fee.
Re: (Score:2)
Why roads are publicly operated instead of privately operated is well understood and contrary systems have not shown themselves to be effective at actually maintaining and operating robust transport infrastructure as regards roads.
As to the existing system being the same as my proposition, nope. If you want to run last mile cable you generally cannot unless you sign a franchise license agreement which amoungst other things tends to obligate you to provide internet access to a set area and tends to require t
Re: (Score:2)
For those of you wondering why they backed down (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Also, can't get all that youtube & facebook propaganda out to those impressionable voters if they don't have sufficient bandwidth.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Did existing telco network monopolies stay protected from competition thanks to NN rules?
Could some private sector state and city competition build better networks once federal NN rules got lifted?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Every citizen gets a vote.
But not all votes are equal. And that is where the problem lies, because in aggregate, a vote for congress in a rural district has more influence than a vote in a city.
In 2016, 45.2 million Americans cast a vote for a democratic Senate candidate, while 39.3 voted for a republican, but the senate still went 52/48 for republicans.
Same thing with the house of representatives, republicans got less than 50% of the popular vote, but still won more than 55% of the seats.
BTW, this same phenomenon happens even more
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The only reason people like you make this argument is because you're happy with the result.
I've never lived on the east (or west) coast. It's NOT just them. Most of us live in big cities. Why should we be "disenfranchised" (to use your term) by voters in Wyoming whose vote carries more weight than mine?
I believe the reason we cannot rid ourselves of the electoral college is because too often it has benefited one party over the other. And while the east and west coasts certainly helped push Clinton o
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
For the big network brands to keep their profits for the shareholders and still connect everyone equally money from the hard working wealthy consumers who pay their bills on time has to subsidize telco work in the very poor inner city areas.
For that network support for city and states that will never be profitable due to the large amount of poor people a near monopoly is granted.
That ensures poor inner city people can use a POTS and surf the internet equally. The
Re:Ajit Pai was brought to the FCC by Obama... (Score:4, Informative)
Yes, Obama technically appointed Pai, but he didn't pick him.
In November 2011, Obama appointed Jessica Rosenworcel for the Democratic seat and Ajit Pai to the Republican seat. Ajit Pai was picked by Mitch McConnell who was minority leader at the time. Only 3 FCC commissioners may belong to the same political party.
I don't really understand how much say the president has over the seats belonging to the other party. In practice, I believe the senate leader of the other party picks them, but I don't think that is a requirement by law. However, even if it isn't the law and the other party is in the minority, you can only piss them off so much without grinding things to a standstill (Trump hasn't figured this out).
The ultimate solution (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Essentially its local Governments granting monopolies to companies in exchange for money and promises. This isn't an issue that can be solved at the Federal level, since it does not cross State lines. This is a local Government issue, with the Government having too much control.
I have a choice of exactly ONE broadband provider - Spectrum (cable). It is good and affordable (400 Mbps down, ~35 Mbps up, 3 TVs, wife has ~200 cable channels, for about $160 per month) but my other alternative is Windstream AD
Re: (Score:2)
Its more complicated than that. The UK also has the advantage of having a high population density in a small constrained area.
Regulation won't solve this (Score:2)
This is an engineering problem at it's core. Right now, you have cable and DSL. Both are physical infrastructures and both need to secure rights of way. Until you remove that physical limitation, you're not going to get a bunch of ISPs willing to pony up the cash to not just buy and install all the equipment but to pay fees for the rights of way.
The solution is long range mesh wireless. Note that wifi exploded onto the market because it operated in the unlicensed (translation: unregulated or free of cha
Surrrrreeeeee (Score:2)
Consumers (Score:1)
According to his video, you can still be a good little consumer.
Upton Sinclair nailed it. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
And yet, Charter / Spectrum decided it would be a good idea to raise my bandwidth to 230 mbit/sec and charge me less than I was paying for 60 mbit.
Maybe they understand simple economics better than you think. A regional telco has been rolling fiber here, and it's got the cable company improving service without increasing price... sounds like competition might actually be a thing, and may actually be paying off for the subscribers.
Re: (Score:2)
Some areas have competition, some areas do not... Compare the service between those areas.
Sweet promotional deal bro (Score:2)
Re: There is no problem. (Score:2)
Meanwhile Spectrum just increased my cost by $10/ month with no benefit and in the evenings the bandwidth is shit. My only other choice is frontier dsl.
Re: (Score:1)
You would discover if you explored history, that the people who advocating shooting for ideological reasons have generally been the brownshirts.
Re: (Score:2)
Allow locals to do community broadband and design the networks needed. No more federal NN monopoly rules to hold back community broadband in a city, state.
Re: (Score:2)
Allow locals to do community broadband and design the networks needed.
What does that have to do with NN?
No more federal NN monopoly rules to hold back community broadband in a city, state.
NN does not restrict community broadband efforts. It restricts what the big players can do with traffic. And that just might include what the big players do with traffic that passes through, oh say, community broadband efforts.