Slashdot Mirror
Obama Unveils Plan To Bring About Faster Internet In the US
An anonymous reader writes: President Obama is rolling out a new plan to boost the speed of internet connections throughout the U.S. For one, he'll be asking the FCC for assistance in neutralizing state laws (PDF) that prevent cities from building municipal broadband services. "At speeds of 4 Mbps or less, 75 percent of consumers have a choice between two or more fixed providers, and 15 percent can select among three or more ISPs. However, in the market for Internet service that can deliver 25 Mbps downstream—the speed increasingly recognized as a baseline to get the full benefits of Internet access—three out of four Americans do not have a choice between providers." The state laws laws restrict competition and give the major ISPs no incentive to invest and innovate.
Obama will also be directing other federal agencies to increase the amount of money they grant and loan to ISP-related projects. "Any effort by the FCC to preempt anti-muni-broadband laws will likely focus on a controversial part of the FCC's congressional charter known as "Section 706." That part of the law recognizes the FCC's authority to stimulate broadband deployment, which supporters of preemption argue the tactic would promote. If Section 706 sounds familiar, that's because it's also the legal tool some say should be used to promote net neutrality, or the principle that broadband companies shouldn't speed up or slow down some Web sites over others."
Obama will also be directing other federal agencies to increase the amount of money they grant and loan to ISP-related projects. "Any effort by the FCC to preempt anti-muni-broadband laws will likely focus on a controversial part of the FCC's congressional charter known as "Section 706." That part of the law recognizes the FCC's authority to stimulate broadband deployment, which supporters of preemption argue the tactic would promote. If Section 706 sounds familiar, that's because it's also the legal tool some say should be used to promote net neutrality, or the principle that broadband companies shouldn't speed up or slow down some Web sites over others."
More robust competition at the local level will raise speeds and lower prices. And one day, one bright, glorious day, I can tell Comcast to take a hike.
As soon as he no longer had congress. It's as if it's all just political posturing or something...
I'm not sure how "the market" is going to work in this case. The major players in this market have already bought enough votes to pass local laws preventing competition in the regions where they operate.
At a minimum, these laws that have basically created government sponsored broadband monopolies need to be overturned to allow competition from smaller providers to occur.
This. When the "market" consists of only a few providers, then all of the assumptions of profit-minimizing competition go out the window.
Libertarians should hate monopolies fiercely and should support their dissolution.
No kidding it's long overdue. I've always said if we separated the last mile of coax from the incumbent provider and forced them to interconnect we'd be better off.
The President has sent his people out over the land, finding things that don't work very well. He will now spend the rest of his tenure urging various federal agencies and Congress to "stop doin' stupid stuff", accompanied, if possible, by some form of federal largess. Rinse. Relather. Repeat.
"We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
Not sure if stupid or just trolling.
"The market" cannot work because of laws that have been pushed by politicians who have been basically bought by lobbyists. Lobbying is just another word for bribery. This used to be illegal and I'm not sure how or why it became legal in the first place.
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
The market is not failing us; there is no market. This is a step towards creating one.
The "Market" DOES NOT work in this case.
The "Market" only expands if they can sign exclusivity contracts.
The "Market" RARELY expands into rural areas and never into poor rural areas.
The "Market" overcharges depending on what zip code you are in.
The "Market" redefines words like UNLIMITED in ways that are completely opposite to the meaning of the actual word.
The "Market" wants to throttle us based on what we want to do.
Obama adds regulation: "Stupid Obama the Market will fix the problems!"
Obama removes regulation: "Stupid Obama the Market will fix the problems!"
Obama hands all regulatory decisions over to "the Market": "Stupid Obama what he is doing is unconstitutional!"
Obama does nothing: "Stupid Obama Why can't he just lead!"
I'm glad you enjoy being enraged so much, and also that you can always find a reason to be enraged, I hope that your high blood pressure removes you from the voting pool very soon.
Monopolies do not exist without a gun. You can thank the state for any monopolies.
Isn't that precisely what is being proposed by Obama? To eliminate those sanctioned monopolies and to prevent state laws which seek to prevent civic or competitive broadband projects.
News flash. Owned by taxpayers = Government.
Nonsense. Monopolies exist as the end-game of unregulated capitalism.
I guess you're right in that businesses as we know them couldn't exist without government...
Of course the market is failing. The market-driven model always fails on big markets (oil, telcos, banks, etc). Free-market economists quickly realized that there is a tendency for monopolies and oligopolies. They will eventually create trusts or use tactics like selling below cost to drive new companies out of their field. Enter the state-regulator: A small government with a singular goal; to regulate the market and ensure competition. The problem is that on big markets, the dominating companies are so powerful that they end up controlling a big chunk of the government. Or at least enough of it, so they can use it to ensure continuation of the mono/oligopoly.
It is a pretty nasty situation and hard to get out of it, since the only one with the power to break the cycle is the government which is already corrupted. That leaves us with "the people". Well, that is why most of the ppl that own banks and oil companies, also own a lot of media.
Lobbying is just another word for bribery. This used to be illegal and I'm not sure how or why it became legal in the first place.
Your right to bring your concerns to your elected representatives and executives is preserved, very carefully and deliberately, in the constitution. Likewise is your right to assemble in a group to get things done.
... net neutrality? gun control? immigration? whatever) should be illegal? Why do you think that? "Lobbying" is the act (historically) of waiting in the lobby of a building to for a moment to bend the ear of a passing legislator on his or her way between other engagements. Hence the term. You're thinking that should be illegal?
So, you think that a visit to your congressional representative's office to explain your position on (pick a topic
Or are you just not happy when you and ten of your friends who share a common interest designate one of you to make the trip to that same office to speak on behalf of the other nine of you, as a group? Is that the part you think should be illegal? How about when you and your ten friends realize that there's actually a million of you that have a common interest, and you decide to pool some resources and hire someone who lives and works in the state or federal capital, and who knows who and where everything is and how it all works, to explain your collective position and priorities to that same congressman? Is that the part that should be illegal? Why? Which part is the illegal part - where a million of you act in concert, or where you finally realize that having a professional pull your agenda together into a coherent, easily conveyed whole means that you hire someone for that role? Please be specific about which thing you'd make illegal:
1) Gathering in groups?
2) Pooling resources?
3) Hiring someone?
4) Talking to congressional representatives or regulators?
At which point is someone bribing somebody else? Do you mean that the congress person is actually taking cash under the table? Do you have evidence of that happening, and it not resulting in prosecution? If you do, why are you keeping it from the FEC and the other agencies that investigate such crimes?
Or is it that you just don't like the fact that people who run businesses decide to take some of their money and hire professionals to reduce the overall noise level and represent their interests in a more focused way? Do you not like that because you can't be bothered to identify a suitably large group of people who share your own interests, and who do exactly the same thing? Millions of other people do - do you think that the NAACP, or the AARP, or the Sierra Club, or the NRA, or labor unions or other groups should be barred from taking their concerns to their elected representatives in a unified way, instead of expecting all of their thousands or millions of members to descend on the same congressional office individually, all day every day, to say the same things?
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
You got it backwards, because that's the way public planning often works: for every new provider, the road gets dug up, cities, utilities, or companies put in a new wire, and then they close it. Often, they come back a few weeks later and do it again. Last place I lived, they even had the gall to send special assessments to home owners to fix up the street afterwards. The problem there is precisely that government owns the roads, they make the rules, and they generally have no interest in coming up with a less idiotic scheme of deploying wires and infrastructure efficiently; why should they give a f*ck about how much tax payer money they are wasting with such inefficient methods? They aren't rewarded for saving money with better ideas; coming up with something better is just going to be a lot of work and probably is going to be killed anyway.
What are better arrangements? There are plenty, and some places are using them: you can have tunnels, pipes, and utility poles, and you lease out space on them. You can also start connecting a neighborhood via laser or microwave, and then only as the density increases go to wired.
The problem with our infrastructure isn't that government isn't running more of it, the problem is that it is almost entirely under government control and the people responsible for it in government lack the financial incentives to do a better and more efficient job than they are doing.
No, surveillance isn't the worry. The worry is that once the government owns the infrastructure, it doesn't just engage in clandestine surveillance, it can actually write the terms of service and impose them on service providers. As an equivalent of FCC rules for broadcasting, if the wires are owned by the government, they might impose the rule that any Internet service provider using their lines needs to terminate the account of anyone posting foul language publicly.
1. TWC will sell your info to companies and you will start seeing ads for Depends when you reach 65. What will the government do with it?
2. TWC pretty much doesn't care what you look at. Other publicly provided internet access usually does and blocks aggressively (schools, etc.) What will the government do?
3. TWC will always respond to outages because they want your money and don't want to get sued (yes, they do it in an incompetent manner). The government pretty much doesn't care. Resources will go to Electric, Water, Gas, and Storm drains first. So when will THEY fix internet outages?
On the other hand, providing dirt cheap access to higher speed connections will definitely kick TWC into gear...just look at their response when Google comes into a neighborhood.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Yeah, it's terrible when a bunch of politicians that don't represent you and meet in a far-away city try to control what you and are neighbors are allowed to do.
So present day "lobbying" is ok because of what "lobbying" used to consist of as a strict textbook definition?
Stuff that.
Present day lobbying isn't lobbying, it is bribery.
There is a vast gulf of difference between "bringing forth your concerns" and "bringing forth your concerns, and oh btw here's a bunch o'money for your re-election."
Your post is irrelevant drivel.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Monopolies do not exist without a gun.
Neither does rule of law, a necessary pre-condition for any civilized society, libertarian or not. Only anarchists think that we can do away with the state and not end up with Mad Max / Somalia instead of happy peaceful cooperation land. Yes, government involvement does tend to favor larger players, no that effect cannot be completely eliminated, yes where possible we should try to create rules and systems that limit the damage. Less regulation is better until it's not, there is a certain minimum level of rules required to ensure a level playing field and orderly operation.