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.
I cannot get anything close to 4M. It is either dial up, ISDN or a T1. There are no other services. And frankly, I am not so far from a reasonably large town. There is some notion that service offerings are better than really exist.
Good idea and long overdue.
I vote republican the vast majority of the time and am no fan of Obama. However, I am excited about this, because I agree the market is failing us in this sector and there is no real competition between ISPs. I'm also skeptical, but still hopeful it'll be done right.
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.
Stop giving money to mega companies and tailor your government "cheese" giveaway to companies who will build to new areas. The last stimulus scam that they tried contained so many impossible conditions that no small/start-up company could comply with them. The main deal breaker being giving the government first lien. Foolish to think any company wouldn't have a loan or two out there with a bank that isn't going to give up their lien. So either the people who draft those programs are fools or they are in the back pockets of the lobbyist who care not at all beyond what some money bags is paying them.
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.
Have you noticed the European nations lining up to trade the last remnants of internet privacy for more security?
Je suis l'etat de surveillance.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
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
You need to do 3 things.
1 - Make "franchise agreements" in cities, towns and states ILLEGAL. Paying a kickback to the government to keep out competition and to just do business is wrong. time to smack the hands of all these scumbag politicians.
2 - Government funded and OWNED fiber everywhere. Dont let AT&T own it or Comcast. It's all government ownd so that a company can come into town and set up shop as an ISP without having to spend millions to run fibers right next to all the other competition. Plus this allows you to force regulate ISP's from being dicks and only offering their service to the rich parts of town.
3 - FORCE HONEST PRICING make Service Contracts ILLEGAL.. you can not find anywhere on comcasts website the real prices of internet, only their special sale prices that go up from 100 to 600% at a later date. No more of this bullshit, honest prices prominently displayed. no Contracts allowed in any way for any reason.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
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.
Yeah, don't you just hate it when a President shows leadership. Next thing you know, he'll be scheming with other heads of state to coordinate efforts on global issues like climate change - in fact, I think he even pulled that stunt recently with the Chinese at some sort of "summit meeting". And I bet he even sits at the head of the table at those pretentious "cabinet meetings" he holds. Of all the nerve...
There is no market, at least not in the "free" sense that people tend to mean. The ISP landscape is a patchwork of franchises, gentleman's agreements, or both. There is nothing resembling a competitive market where consumers may choose a provider based on price, or quality, or any other vector; or where competitors can reasonably be expected to enter.
How did you somehow read the article and come to believe exactly the opposite of what it says? Like, really, the exact opposite: TFA clearly states he is trying to promote public broadband construction by striking down state laws that prevent municipalities from owning networks. There is nothing in there about giving ISPs anything.
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.
It's both State created, and locally supported.
Take Texas for example. The State, many moons ago, put in place law against 'municipal' broadband creations: i.e., cities/neighborhoods/citizen groups can't form to create and implement infrastructure as an ISP. While private businesses can implement such, with pole tack and co-lo. barring agreements, you are at the resolve of local municipality, city public works, to get it installed since they're REQUIRED to do the work. Here's the kicker: there is no time frame required for them to get it done in, once you put a request in. Assuming you get the ok from the city officials, they schedule and complete the request, at their own time frame. You can't force their hand to get it done.
Source: tried to start an ISP with a friend, to provide DSL to under-utilized areas. Had capital, but after looking at the details, the city, and lawyers to try and force their hand, would have bled us dry before even getting a bucket truck next to a pole. Why? They're in bed with the well known phone monoply starting with the letter V.
For the area in question, there is no competition for DSL. It IS a monopoly. There is cable Internet, but on then it is 1 provider. There are a few WISPS. All in all, it's DSL, vs. Cable, vs. WISP, in that area. I guess you could call it competition...
This is a classic example of some people just hating on Obama, because he's Obama.
In 2014, Republicans were mad at Obama for pushing net neutrality. All we needed to do was to end the city and state laws preventing cities from creating municipal broadband. Let the market work!
In 2015, some of them (not all, but many) will be mad at him for sticking the fed's nose into state and city laws, forcing them to ... You get the idea.
And once again, our great socialist democrat commy leader does EXACTLY what Republicans would have done(cough war, gitmo, bailouts, etc). And they probably won't be happy with it, because it's Obama....
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.
Thanks Obama!
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Are you saying that broadband competition is a bad thing because Obama is a lame duck? Or is it just Obama's particular implementation that is bad?
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
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...
The "Market" RARELY expands into rural areas and never into poor rural areas.
Funny thing. A lot of my family live in rural areas around the country, and many of these areas are gaining faster fiber than what's available in the cities. The common pattern that I'm seeing is the metro areas are taken over by incumbents and the incumbents are staying or running away from rural like the plague. Even with little to no competition in rural areas, they're starting to see faster, cheaper, more reliable internet because these areas are being serviced by ISPs less greedy than incumbents.
It's about High Definition Video. It's about Video Conferencing. It's about VOIP. It's about Telecommuting for your employers. It's about being competitive on the global market. It's about consuming more information faster to better perform in the global workplace. Cat videos are tertiary to this as EVERYONE needs downtime as well to maintain maximum productivity over the longest course of time. As broadband speeds go, America as a whole is falling into quicksand and the Broadband monopolies have shown that they have no intention of letting America do anything but sink. The whole Land Mass excuse hasn't been viable for a long time and now it's just becoming a complete embarassment.
Both China and Russia have more landmass than the US and while we're JUST edging them out in overall average speed (32.1mbps US, 24.2 CN, 27 RU) our cost per Megabit per second is through the roof by comparison ($3.51 US, $1.76 CN, $0.69 RU (all values reflected in USD) [These values were aquired from netindex.com]. Seriously. Stop being a fucking apologist for these assholes!
Globally we're still on fair ground but we could be doing so much better, and we need to be. We used to be the bastion of technology not even very long ago. For the longest while we could truly say "We're Number 1!" but now it's beginning to ring out more like "We're Numb!" and we need to wake up as a country. The President's statement was a start, now we need to follow through.
>More robust competition at the local level will raise speeds and lower prices.
We used to have something like that in the US until the ISP deregulation of the late 90s removed requirements for allowing subleasing bandwidth and last mile connectivity. (Of the sort the UK uses to proliferate enviable cost competition.)
--- Little Atomo - The Amazing Thinking Robot from Atomocom! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIP9KisHi4k
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.
In general I would be happier with a split model. The municipal governments will pay for the network infrastructure, those fiber lines, wide area wireless, in general the big stuff that needs to go to the last mile. just like they pay to keep our roads operational, and will go to our homes, where they will plow, and maintain it to a particular quality level.
However with that municipal government infrastructure. We should be able to choose ISP who will offer the internet services, who can offer us different pricing for faster and slower speeds for less money. I really liked the model of the Old Dialup ISP Days. Where you can find a small local ISP for personal service, or choose the big company with some extra features. Or if you are more enterprising you can create your own ISP without needing millions of dollars to startup.
The problem that happened when we moved off of Dial Up to broadband, was we needed to go with an ISP who also can manage the infrastructure.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
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.
They never should have spent the money on the State/Provincial Park system in your area. All it's good for is people frivolously passing the time sitting or walking around.
Wh47 d1d j00 541, 31337 15n't t3h r0xor5 ne m0r3???
How do we seriously expect to keep that up at #1 for much longer if the rest of the GDP starts plummeting from the mindshare and infrastructure that maintains it collapsing under the weight of the rest of the world...like what happened to the USSR getting ousted from slot #2 and completely collapsing?
The deregulation of the phone lines that led to multiple phone providers was an absolute success. You have and still have multiple options, each one vying for your services by pricing and value-add. And each one of them alone is miles away better than the old status quo of Big Bell charging you whatever the hell it felt like and ramming you up the ass on long distance charges.
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.
We don't care. We don't have to. We're the phone company.
Resources will go to Electric, Water, Gas, and Storm drains first.
If you're talking about something like a natural disaster, then yes, you're right, and that's how it should be. Most people's Internet connections won't work very well without electricity anyway, and running water and drainage are far more important than your Netflix movies.
I'm so tired of hearing the supermajority myth yet again. Here's the timeline:
July 8, 2009: Al Franken was sworn in as the 60th senator to caucus with the Democrats.
August 25, 2009: Ted Kennedy passes away, removing the supermajority (59 / 99 votes is less than 3 / 5)
September 25, 2009: Paul Kirk is appointed to temporarily fill Ted Kennedy's seat, returning the supermajority to the Democrats
February 4, 2010: Scott Brown is sworn in to Ted Kennedy's former seat, thus removing the supermajority for the Democrats for good
That adds up to about 6 months of a theoretical supermajority, and that includes part of a summer break and a long winter break when the Senate was not in session. A large number of Democratic Senators were also "Blue Dog" Democrats, meaning that they voted with Republicans quite a lot. But despite all of this and the Republican's use of every procedural delay and obstruction tactic in the book, this brief supermajority still managed to pass the most important health care legislation in the last 50 years.
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.
Fox news disproves your point.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
What should be illegal is politicians taking large sums of money from these "lobbyists" and then creating/passing legislation that supports these "lobbyist's" goals. If the "lobbyists" are just "bending the ear" of their representative then why the monetary incentive? Shouldn't a logical and well thought out presentation of the idea that the "lobbyist" is putting forth be enough?
I know I'm being naive, but, politicians are supposed to do whats best for the people they represent, not what's best for whoever can pay them the most money!
You're right, of course meeting with legislators shouldn't be made illegal. What's happened is that the term "lobbying" has been misused to include all of the related activity that goes along with lobbying these days. Typically, very large campaign donations accompany corporate lobbyists.
There are also occasional favors that avoid the whole bag-of-cash problem.
Perfectly okay: A lawyer hired by a large corporation going to Washington and saying, "Hey, Mr. Senator, we should talk about this legislation that could affect the company that hired me."
Not okay: A lawyer hired by a large corporation going to Washington and saying, "Hey, Mr. Senator, we should talk about this legislation that could affect the company that hired me. How about we meet at a golf course in the Caribbean?"
Don't be naive, you know damn well that it doesn't stop at "talking to congressional representatives." The founding fathers never meant for the right to petition to translate into "The right for multibillion dollar international conglomerates to take congressmen on luxurious junkets where they can be educated on the need to propose and pass legislation that has been helpfully written by ALEC." Lobbying firms don't just petition. They bribe. They cajole. They threaten. If it was as simple as petitioning government, why would they need 8 or 9 figure annual budgets? And don't even get me started on SuperPACs.
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.
Or "Did I promise you change? Well, I changed my mind about that, so you'll have to wait until I change it again, at which point, you may get it, provided nothing changes"
What should be illegal is politicians taking large sums of money from these "lobbyists"
So I'll ask you the same question as I did the GP. Do you have evidence of politicians taking large sums of money and not being prosecuted for that? As an example, the former governor of Virginia is about to go jail for doing that. Prosecutors are standing by to pursue other politicians who do the same. Which politicians do you know of who are taking large sums of money and not being prosecuted? Please list them.
Or are you referring to donations to campaigns, which have to be reported, publicly, down to the penny - as the money comes into the campaign fund, as as each penny is spent. Are you aware of politicians who are personally raiding those campaign funds and not being prosecuted? It does happen sometimes, that idiot politicians get greedy and hit those funds. And the audit trail makes that plainly obvious, and they are prosecuted. If you know of cases where they've taken such cash out of their campaign funds, but prosecutors are not aware, why aren't you saying something about it?
politicians are supposed to do whats best for the people they represent, not what's best for whoever can pay them the most money!
That sounds pretty serious! Which politicians are taking the money? If you have new information, it will be front page news tomorrow. Because that means that you've identified people who are someone handling money that career auditors with local, state, and federal election commissions are unable to see, even though they have complete access to the bank records, tax filings, and other information for every one of them. You must have some serious inside scoop! Please, share.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
If it was as simple as petitioning government, why would they need 8 or 9 figure annual budgets?
Because the same PR firms aren't ONLY putting together lobbying efforts that go directly to legislators, regulators and executives - they also put together expensive, long-running PR campaigns aimed the voters themselves. Is this where you say that they shouldn't be allowed to run ads in newspapers, or use direct mail or the web to deliver their messages? Why?
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
You lost it on your second sentence : "absent collusion"
There will always be collusion in limited markets. Perhaps not immediately, but over the course of a few years, it will creep in and become status quo. At that point, getting rid of the collusion takes an act of congress, or in this case, a presidential decree.
Only by opening up the market, can you eliminate collusion, by making it cost prohibitive.
This signature is false.