Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Communications The Courts

Ajit Pai Loses in Court -- Judges Overturn Gutting of Tribal Broadband Program (arstechnica.com) 134

Posted by msmash from the small-victories dept.
A federal appeals court has overturned Ajit Pai's attempt to take broadband subsidies away from tribal residents. From a report: The Pai-led Federal Communications Commission voted 3-2 in November 2017 to make it much harder for tribal residents to obtain a $25-per-month Lifeline subsidy that reduces the cost of Internet or phone service. The change didn't take effect because in August 2018, the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit stayed the FCC decision pending appeal. The same court followed that up on Friday last week with a ruling that reversed the FCC decision and remanded the matter back to the commission for a new rule-making proceeding. [...] The Pai FCC's 2017 decision would have limited the $25 subsidy to "facilities-based" carriers -- those that build their own networks -- making it impossible for tribal residents to use the $25 subsidy to buy telecom service from resellers. The move would have dramatically limited tribal residents' options for purchasing subsidized service, but the FCC claimed it was necessary in order to encourage carriers to build their own networks.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Ajit Pai Loses in Court -- Judges Overturn Gutting of Tribal Broadband Program More

Ajit Pai Loses in Court -- Judges Overturn Gutting of Tribal Broadband Program

Comments Filter:

  • Cruility the default Trump Administration stance. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jellomizer ( 103300 ) on Monday February 04, 2019 @01:12PM (#58068936)

    This isn't about Republicans, but the Trump Administration seems to be filled with people who's default stance is about making rules that tries to be cruel to people.
    I am unsure if it is because they are just so out of touch with reality and the "Rich Guy" solution of the problem seems so obvious, that they just don't understand how a lot of people just do not have the upfront money, or personal power to follow these solutions.
    Or they just want to be actively cruel to anyone who just doesn't fully support and love them.
     

    • slurp the propaganda (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      This move was designed to encourage build out, which even the hostile courts acknowledged. It was deliberately designed to stop paying middlemen from siphoning cash out of the reservations. But go ahead and slurp up the anti-Trump propaganda.

      • Re:slurp the propaganda (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Shaitan ( 22585 ) on Monday February 04, 2019 @01:44PM (#58069176)

        It's designed to discourage competitors to the telecoms. Nothing is needed to encourage build-out, they've been given billions to build out and pocketed it. They were also given massive tax cuts which were to build out. Instead they've used the funds to re-organize and lay off workers.

        Big Tech
        Big Broadband
        Big Telco
        Big Media
        Big Pharma
        Big Oil
        Big Tobacco

        These industries are not our friends.

        • Nothing is needed to encourage build-out, they've been given billions to build out and pocketed it

          Sounds like something is needed then. I suggest prison time for the executives that got the money as bonuses... and taking the money back, of course.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by kenh ( 9056 )

          It's designed to discourage competitors to the telecoms.

          Resellers don't compete with "Big Telcos" - they resell "Big Telcos" services. Without "Big Telcos" the resellers would have nothing to sell.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Shaitan ( 22585 )

            Telcos are massive entities. Parts of them sell wholesale services and other parts of them sell retail services which are purchased from the wholesale services piece. The retail services piece competes with third parties. Both funnel profits up to the mother company. The wholesale division does the building out when it thinks it would be the smart move for its division not when the mother company gets a windfall or directly in response to the retail service having greater profits. The wholesale division wou

      • This move was designed to encourage build out

        This [irregulators.org] was designed to encourage build out, too... :-p

    • They tried to take away the Obama phones? How evil of them! It's as if they believe Native Americans retained enough of their culture to still be able to hunt with bows and arrows!

      • Re:Cruility the default Trump Administration stanc (Score:5, Informative)

        by pgmrdlm ( 1642279 ) on Monday February 04, 2019 @03:16PM (#58069730) Journal
        I'm sick of the term "Obama Phones". People need to read some fucking history once in awhile, and crawl down off their high horses. Obama DID NOT start that program. Hell, neither did the bush's or Clinton. The evil republican Ronald Regan started it.

        What president started the free phone giveaway? The Lifeline program is a legacy President Reagan could be proud of." Congress first enacted the Lifeline program in 1985, and the FCC expanded the program to cover cellphone service in 2005 during the George W. Bush administration. The program pays for phone service, not the phones themselves.Sep 12, 2013

        https://www.google.com/search?... [google.com]

        This bull shit miss representation started when some African American lady was spouting off on TV about her Obama phones. If she only knew who actually started this goverment program, she would shit her pants.

      • It's as if they believe Native Americans retained enough of their culture to still be able to communicate with smoke signals!

        FTFY, bad analogy guy.

        • Thanks- yeah, bad analogy indeed.

          P.S, I also really know they're "Reagan Phones"- but it seems to me it takes a special kind of stupid to assume that the government will pay your phone bill forever.

    • Well, people that live on reservations don't vote in our elections.

      The rule, if you even bothered to read the summary, cut parasitic third-party resellers out of the subsidy pool - these companies don't build infrastructure, they simply buy from those that do and sell it to their customers that could just as easily buy direct from the facilities-based provider.

      • Well, people that live on reservations don't vote in our elections.

        They vote in Federal elections. They may or may not vote in state and/or tribal elections, depending on the state and the tribe.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by theCoder ( 23772 )

        I wouldn't call the resellers parasitic. They buy the resources from the infrastructure owners, and somehow manage to sell it to customers. This is the same way that grocery stores buy food from farmers and other food producers and sell it to customers. For some reason, the resellers are cheaper than the original owners. Maybe that is through better efficiency. Maybe it is through lower profit margins. But on the face of it, they do not seem to be bad for the overall economy. Sure, they make it harder

    • I am unsure if it is because they are just so out of touch with reality and the "Rich Guy" solution of the problem seems so obvious, that they just don't understand how a lot of people just do not have the upfront money, or personal power to follow these solutions.

      That's exactly how I feel about all the government subsidies and targeted taxation imposed for the sake of "green agenda" items.

      Lots of other people feel the same way. It's what triggered the Yellow Vest protests, which are spreading all over Europe.

    • Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, and hate leads to suffering.....

      He (Ajit) has served in various positions at the FCC since being appointed to the commission by President Barack Obama in May 2012, at the recommendation of Mitch McConnell. He was confirmed unanimously by the United States Senate on May 7, 2012, and was sworn in on May 14, 2012, for a five-year term.

      https://simple.wikipedia.org/w... [wikipedia.org]

    • I keep picturing a bunch of people in court holding spears and sporting bone piercings, looking perplexed and mumbling among themselves about the proceedings.

  • It was never "Obama lost 9-0 in the SC"... (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Slashdot headlines never read, "Barack Obama's pen-and-phone lost 9-0 in the Supreme Court (again!)" [google.com]

    Slashdot is now a partisan hack fake-news site?

    • Re:It was never "Obama lost 9-0 in the SC"... (Score:5, Informative)

      by SWPadnos ( 191329 ) on Monday February 04, 2019 @03:06PM (#58069662)

      It helps to notice that nearly all the articles that show up in that search are hosted by conservative or conservative-leaning organizations. Or hype factories.

      This one at Politifact [politifact.com] describes how people paint all these defeats as Obama's failures.

      TL;DR: 8 of the cases were started by the Bush administration and the Obama administration continued to defend them, which is apparently common. Only one case could be considered Obama "overstepping executive authority".

  • Good. (Score:1)

    by Chas ( 5144 )

    Pai seems to be doing his level best to fuck up the FCC and hand his industry buddies bottomless pots of gold.

    Not sure what Trump was thinking when he appointed him...

    • Pai seems to be doing his level best to fuck up the FCC and hand his industry buddies bottomless pots of gold.

      And, he's giving his industry buddies bottomless pots of gold by not giving $25/month to some people.

      Not sure how you got from point A to point B there, but, okayyyyy...

      • The $25 subsidy checks were always going to flow, the difference is Pai wanted the customer subsidies to go to the facilities-based providers that actually provide the service, the court upheld that parasitic third-parties were entitled to those monies as well, even though the own no facilities, build nothing, merely act as an intermediary reselling others services at a markup.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Chas ( 5144 )

        Here's a hint.

        I wasn't talking about the subsidies.

        I was talking about the other things he was doing that, taken all together, are helping his industry buddies maximize profits at the expense of their customers and the American people as a whole.

        • Here's a hint: we're talking about the subsidies. Why don't you run along and play with the other kids while the adults are having a conversation?

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Chas ( 5144 )

            Here's a hint: we're talking about the subsidies. Why don't you run along and play with the other kids while the adults are having a conversation?

            Sorry? What mean "we" Kimosabe?
            Mine was the OP in this thread. And *I* was talking about the overall benefits Pai is pushing towards his telco buddies IN ADDITION to his shenanigants with the TBP.

            Unless you're talking to yourself...

            So you can be the one to toodle on along. No time for whinging little brats sniveling "but I'm an ADULT!".

    • Reselling someone elseâ(TM)s network services doesnâ(TM)t create competition, it discourages investment. Why would a Verizon or Comcast roll out fiber infrastructure in a neighborhood/reservation when they are forced to sell those network services at at a discount so that others can profit off their investment? At issue is the ability for resellers to buy discounted network services from a facilities-based providers and undercut the network provider, and to do so while receiving $25 subsidy checks

      • Resellers are an integral part of the ecosystem, they always have been since the breakup of Ma Bell. Just because you're not a fan doesn't mean they don't contribute.

    • FCC is already fucked up libtard.

  • Limiting âoeoptionsâ not âoeaccess& (Score:3, Interesting)

    by kenh ( 9056 ) on Monday February 04, 2019 @02:06PM (#58069308) Homepage Journal

    The Pai FCC's 2017 decision would have limited the $25 subsidy to "facilities-based" carriers -- those that build their own networks -- making it impossible for tribal residents to use the $25 subsidy to buy telecom service from resellers.

    It would have limited âoetribal residentsâ to buying services from the telco/isp that invested in the infrastructure, rather than through third-parties that only resell otherâ(TM)s network services... Resellers donâ(TM)t invest in infrastructure, they resell it - if you want to increase âoeaccessâ and drive investments in infrastructure then the FCC change was appropriate.

    Itâ(TM)s like a fruit stand where the store owner sells apples for 50 cents each, but lawmakers say they must sell those apples to resellers for 40 cents each, and those resellers turn around and offer the apples for 45 cents. Keep in mind the apples cost the market 46 cents each. These resellers donâ(TM)t bring in more apples to the market, they simply sell the marketâ(TM)s apples at a discount. Eventually the grocer may decide to stock fewer apples or even drop apples from the store.

    Being able to buy the exact same service provided on exactly the same network at a govâ(TM)t mandated discount isnâ(TM)t competition - it makes the service non-profitable and discourages investment in infrastructure.

    • Interesting metaphor but it's missing some important details.

      For one, the company that built the fruit stand was probably subsidized by the government because fruit stands were deemed to be important social infrastructure. So if the stand is partially publicly funded, why should a private corporation keep all the profit?

      Second, when you go to a market there are many fruit stands to choose from. The barrier to entry is low. The metaphor breaks down when you consider that we're really talking about

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by GrahamJ ( 241784 )

        And by the way that's what we do - supermarkets.

      • Please explain these massive subsidies that supposedly telco's are uniquely the recipients of - they invest money and get to write-off the investment. That's not a subsidy, it's a business expense.

        When your employer goes out and buys everyone new desktop computers, they also deduct that expense - is that a subsidy?

        When I build a fruit stand I can deduct the cost of the actual stand - it's a business expense.

        Resellers don't offer competition, they offer the exact same service, provided by their competition,

    • if you want to increase Ãoeaccessà and drive investments in infrastructure then the FCC change was appropriate.

      We paid the telcos billions to build internet out to the last mile and they literally distributed it amongst their executives in the form of bonuses. If you want to increase access and drive investment in infrastructure, the appropriate response is to either imprison those execs and reclaim their ill-gotten goods (stolen from The People) or to nationalize the telcos, and split the infrastructure apart from everything else.

  • Who do the resellers buy from? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by hawguy ( 1600213 ) on Monday February 04, 2019 @02:47PM (#58069558)

    The Pai FCC's 2017 decision would have limited the $25 subsidy to "facilities-based" carriers -- those that build their own networks -- making it impossible for tribal residents to use the $25 subsidy to buy telecom service from resellers....The move would have dramatically limited tribal residents' options for purchasing subsidized service, but the FCC claimed it was necessary in order to encourage carriers to build their own networks.

    I don't understand this reasoning -- the resellers must be ultimately buying from the "facilities-based" carriers, and if these carriers are charging the resellers less than it costs to provide service, that's their own fault.

    • The federal government requires them to lease network elements and service at pre-determined prices, set by government, without regard for the actual cost of the element.

      • The federal government requires them to lease network elements and service at pre-determined prices, set by government, without regard for the actual cost of the element.

        This is absolutely false. The federal government does not set "pre-determined" prices. They are simply required to set reasonable, and non-discriminatory prices, typically known as RAND terms. In reality some of the largest MVNO's are actually owned by the Telco's themselves. MetroPCS is owned by Tmobile, Cricket is owned by ATT, Boost and Virgin are owned by Sprint

  • Is building their own networks part of Congress' direction for this subsidy? Or is it just to provide aid to presumptively poor tribal people so they can have Internet access?

    On the gripping hand, expansive interpretation of deliberately vague congressional authorization is something the supine, cowardly congress relies on, lest they be on the hook for something unsavory or, gasp, failed.

  • Ha ha (Score:5, Insightful)

    by JustAnotherOldGuy ( 4145623 ) on Monday February 04, 2019 @03:13PM (#58069712) Journal

    Fuck you, Ajit Pai, you crooked little scumbag. My only regret is that you won't be prosecuted for this and all your other sleazy crimes.

    • Question - how does this decision help the native Americans on the reservations? Will this drive innovation and investment into the reservation? Will it improve access on the reservation? No. It will simply deny the provider that risked their capital to build the infrastructure their profits because parasitic third-parties are reselling their services at a lower cost.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by MobyDisk ( 75490 )

        I can't speak for tribal reservations, but in the American big cities the exact opposite happened. The small telecoms that rented lines from the bigger companies died. They couldn't compete on either price or service. The prices they leased the lines for didn't let them become competitive, they couldn't offer quality service because the telecoms had no incentive to upgrade or maintain lines that were being used by what was essentially a competitor.

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by mishehu ( 712452 )
          It's even more nefarious than that. The RBOCs exploited a loophole in the 1996 law that allowed them to deny access to any runs that weren't 100% copper. Thus fiber-to-the-terminal was born... you may recognize it by one of its brand names - "u-verse". This is still the defacto status too. I'm around 10km from the CO that services my area, but only about 1 1/2 km from the nearest terminal. I can't get service because AT&T won't sell me even their old 6mbps/768kbps dsl service (which is what is av
      • I haven't followed this site for years. Create an account and ask the members about their experiences. https://nativeamericannetroots... [nativeamer...troots.net]

  • Seriously, it didn't reduce the money available or who was eligible to get subsidy, it simply cut parasitic resellers out of the subsidy pool in favor of the providers that actually build infrastructure.

    The FCC action would not have eliminated anyone's service, it would have altered the name on their monthly service bill.

    That isn't "gutting" the service.

    • Did you honestly not know about the millions of taxpayer dollars those providers were paid to "actually build infrastructure"...which they promptly put in their pocket, then underperformed like crazy? Or are you just another scumbag shill for one of the most corrupt, dishonest pack of money-grubbing, welfare queen tax cheats in modern day America?

  • Just think how the Indians would be, if they had been flipping just left alone. But NOOOOOOO...we have to SUBSIDIZE them with welfare all the time, they turned into lazy bums for the most part. Just like with a majority of the black inner city population. Sitting on their butts, drinking, drugs, shooting each other, pumping out more and more children. Sorry for the splash of cold water, but HANDOUTS do NOT work. Give them a hand up, not a hand out!

Slashdot Top Deals

If you didn't have to work so hard, you'd have more time to be depressed.

Close