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.
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.
It's as if it's all just political posturing or something...
There will only be political posturing for the next two years. The Republicans won the battle for Congress, but they are fucked. They have no options. Obama has dictatorial powers now, and is exercising them
If Congress passes any laws that Obama doesn't like, he will simply veto them.
Even if Congress musters the required majority to override the veto, Obama can simply use his Executive Discretion to not enforce the law. This is the tool that he has used to stop illegal immigrant deportations. Hell, Obama could even declare carjacking legal, simply by saying that the department of justice will no longer enforce the law against it
The only thing that Congress could do, would be to blocking spending bills . . . which would shutdown the government . . . and would be political suicide for the Republicans.
So all you'll see out of Washington for the next two years will be political posturing . . .
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
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.
Yeah, funny how now that he's a lame duck he's suddenly trying to play the hero. Pretty easy to propose bold and radical ideas when you face no risks for doing do and know that none of them will ever actually pass. When he actually had control of Congress, all this "hero" could do was to fall all over himself championing even more heavy-handed domestic spying programs and other evil shit than his shitheel predecessor. Now that he has no power, he suddenly wants to pretend that he gives a shit about the American people, doing the right thing for consumers, etc.
No sale, hero.
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
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.
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.
Obamacare was the most radical healthcare reform in a century. And also probably fifty years overdue. Regardless of the difficulties of implementation, it was a law we needed, and he got it passed.
Mind you, every right-thinking person ought to find the scales just about even with this domestic spying bullshit. The man was a Constitutional professor, and instead of thinking like an academic -- who would have known the direction SCOTUS was heading and that bullshit like the third party doctrine had no place justifying the disclosure of involuntarily produced records -- and instead thinks like a lawyer -- who did something because there was no case law directly on point that said he couldn't. That's a dick move. Even if Bush put it in place, Obama defended it. Total dick move.
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.
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.