Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

FCC's New Broadband Plan Prioritizes Competition

Posted by samzenpus on from the plan-of-the-man dept.

adeelarshad82 writes "The Federal Communications Commission has released an outline of what might be included in its upcoming national broadband plan, and encouraging competition was a top priority. The FCC statement said 'Competition drives innovation and provides consumer choice. Finding ways to better use existing assets, including Universal Service, rights-of-way, spectrum, and others, will be essential to the success of the plan. The limited government funding that is available for broadband would be best used when leveraged with the private sector.' The stimulus plan provided $7.2 billion in broadband grants and $350 million for a broadband mapping program, but also directed the FCC to deliver a national broadband plan to Congress by February 17, 2010."

23 of 71 comments (clear)

  1. Right. by bmo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Didn't we do this in the 90's, throw a lot of money at the providers and all they did was give it out to the shareholders?

    If we do this there had better be significant strings attached.

    --
    BMO

    1. Re:Right. by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Ideally to the necks of those responsible...

    2. Re:Right. by AdmiralXyz · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Didn't we do this in the 90's, throw a lot of money at the providers and all they did was give it out to the shareholders?

      If we do this there had better be significant strings attached.

      Whoa, whoa, that sounds like socialism. We'll have none of that.

      --
      Dislike the Electoral College? Lobby your state to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.
    3. Re:Right. by RobinEggs · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Didn't we do this in the 90's? ... If we do this there had better be significant strings attached.

      Right...give them more money but this time put *strings* on it.

      How about the kind of strings where we send every board member and executive, of any of these companies at any time since we gave them the money *last time*, a notice that they can install what we've already paid for or face federal fraud charges?

      Seriously, I'm not usually a litigious, pseudo-populist dickwad, but a lawsuit or some criminal charges seem completely reasonable here.

      And for fuck sake don't give them *more* money, unless you're okay with literally *training them*, like suggestible little puppy dogs, to defraud taxpayers.

    4. Re:Right. by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's not socialism when giving money to a corporation. At least that's what I gather.

    5. Re:Right. by ceoyoyo · · Score: 4, Informative

      Indeed. That's usually seen as a step towards corporatism, which is the economic wing of fascism, which is usually considered as far right, the opposite of socialism, which is on the left. Or in the middle, if the term "socialism" is being used in the context of American politics.

    6. Re:Right. by bendodge · · Score: 2

      I've got my own little theory about economic ideas being a circle. If you go far enough in any direction you'll get something totalitarian that doesn't work.

      --
      The government can't save you.
    7. Re:Right. by testadicazzo · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I'm annoyed by the mantra:

      Competition drives innovation and provides consumer choice. Finding ways to better use existing assets, including Universal Service, rights-of-way, spectrum, and others, will be essential to the success of the plan. The limited government funding that is available for broadband would be best used when leveraged with the private sector.'

      Blech. Sometimes free markets and competition are the best way to accomplish a social goal. Sometimes they aren't. In particular, rural and poor neighbourhoods, which would profit most from broadband and are most poorly served under the current system, and I don't see shovelling money at providers doing much for that goal. I'd rather see that money used to address the most poorly served areas of the country, and provide some public competition to private provider plans.

  2. Policies can only help competition so far by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    When you have an industry with high entry costs due to infrastructure needs, you are going to end up with only a few companies after the shakeout occurs. Therefore, any policy that is designed to enable consumer choice and universal access is only useful to create an environment where competition will briefly flourish before degrading to the same old 2 or 3 dominant companies own the entire market.

    If the government truly wants to encourage competition, they would provide funding to under-performing companies and startups. This would lower the entry costs and provide a balance to the giants who would normally run roughshod over the smaller guys.

    1. Re:Policies can only help competition so far by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If the government truly wants to encourage competition, they would provide funding to under-performing companies and startups.

      Wow. Give money to the companies that perform worst. You know, I'm sure that there's a flaw in that idea somewhere.

      --
      http://www.geoffreylandis.com
    2. Re:Policies can only help competition so far by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If the government truly wants to encourage competition, they would provide funding to under-performing companies and startups.

      Wow. Give money to the companies that perform worst. You know, I'm sure that there's a flaw in that idea somewhere.

      There is. But that didn't stop the government from handing out free money to the banks did it?

    3. Re:Policies can only help competition so far by Runaway1956 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "you are going to end up with only a few companies after the shakeout occurs. "

      Largely because the US has become conditioned to the idea that big companies are good. Globalization is a "good thing" and we want corporations large enough to compete on a global scale. "World class" is a benchmark we use to judge companies.

      My telco serves 4 counties, I think - maybe a 5th. No one has ever heard of it. But, they are successful, in that they attract investors, and they show a profit every year. Rates are mostly competitive with the big companies. Like the big companies, they have a monopoly in their service area. I've come to like them, because I can talk to real people. And, if I ever feel the need to talk eyeball to eyeball with a service rep, it's a short drive over to Lewisville from my house.

      You're right, of course, but it sucks, IMHO

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    4. Re:Policies can only help competition so far by ceoyoyo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Or just do what a government is supposed to do - build things like infrastructure, which are too big and expensive to be undertaken efficiently by multiple competing private interests.

    5. Re:Policies can only help competition so far by DJRumpy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      IMO, If they want to truly encourage competition, they need to separate content providers from access providers. That will free up access providers to do what they should be doing best. Competing for business at the lowest rate possible. It would also remove some of the political bullshit and insane antics that new entry's in the market have to go through just to be able to drop a single line.

    6. Re:Policies can only help competition so far by LBt1st · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How long till your telco is bought out by one of the big ones and becomes the local monopoly with horrible rates and service?

    7. Re:Policies can only help competition so far by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Wow. Give money to the companies that perform worst.

      Replace 'companies' with 'schools' and you've just described our public education system.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    8. Re:Policies can only help competition so far by BronsCon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If they stuck to what they're supposed to be doing, and quit doing all this extra shit that's really not in anyone's interest, they'd be pretty fucking efficient.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    9. Re:Policies can only help competition so far by Runaway1956 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Fair question, I suppose. I really can't answer that. I can tell you, Walnut Hill was here when my father in law's parents had their first telephone installed. Things were kinda wild back in those days - three miles from the Oklahoma border, the various tribes would have a few people go off the reservations, Arkinda was a booming border town with killings every other weekend, an occasional bank robbery, so on and so forth. The big companies provided telephone service to Texarkana, but couldn't see the point in buying all the wire necessary to put in lines to Foreman, Wallace, Arkinda, Winthrop, and other backwoods little holes in the wall, scattered along the rail lines.

      So, some relatively wealthy people got together, sold some bonds, and came up with the money necessary to start stringing wire, and buy a few switchboards.

      They haven't sold out YET!! And, from what I understand, AT&T and Ma Bell tried really, really hard to get this market several times.

      That situation reminds me of something - what could that be? Oh yeah - that infamous last freaking mile that the big telcos are so incapable of providing to rural America. Same deal. They won't invest in the country, they just want the tax breaks, the monopolies, and your money. I can't see people around here approving of a big telco buying away what they are used to.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
  3. Re:no by dagamer34 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Wow, tax & spend? What is this 1992-2000 when the government was fiscally responsible?!?! In the new millenium, the government is all SPEND SPEND SPEND. You best check yo'self!

  4. According to Public Knowledge, this isn't enough.. by langelgjm · · Score: 4, Informative

    Their president has said, "Nothing in the outline presented this morning would increase competition. Reforming universal service and supporting municipal networks are worthwhile goals, but they would do nothing to reverse the slide caused by eight years of misbegotten telecommunications policies that have crippled most meaningful broadband competition for consumers. There was no discussion of opening telecommunications networks to competitors. There was no discussion of structural separations of carriers into wholesale and retail components. These are the factors that Harvard’s Berkman Center told the FCC in a study a mere two months ago were the reasons other countries have surpassed ours – they are using policies we discarded."

    --
    "Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
  5. Gigaom has a better article by jonsmirl · · Score: 4, Informative

    FCC Takes on Cable But Not Carriers With National Broadband Plan

    The actual presentation from the meeting is included in the article.

    I am anxiously awaiting for this to be approved: "Mandate a home gateway device. Require MVPDs to provide a small, low-cost device whose functionality is to bridge the proprietary MVPD network elements (conditional access, tuning & reception functions) to common, open standard, widely used in home communications interfaces; enables a retail navigation device to operate on all MVPD platforms."

    I'm hoping that means unencrypted channel streams in-house over Ethernet.

    1. Re:Gigaom has a better article by Alien+Being · · Score: 2

      What this means is that Comcast has bought the FCC along with NBC/Universal and, in Hollywood style, they're going to put on a show for us while they steal our money.

      Screw Comcast and screw the US gov.

  6. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Comment removed based on user account deletion