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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
Actually, yes, yes I do. Go read this https://www.techdirt.com/artic...
But here is an excerpt from the story in case you are too lazy to go read.
A decade ago, we wrote about how Verizon had made an agreement in Pennsylvania in 1994 that it would wire up the state with fiber optic cables to every home in exchange for tax breaks equalling $2.1 billion. In exchange for such a massive tax break, Verizon promised that all homes and businesses would have access to 45Mbps symmetrical fiber by 2015. By 2004, the deal was that 50% of all homes were supposed to have that. In reality, 0% did, and some people started asking for their money back. That never happened, and it appeared that Verizon learned a valuable lesson: it can flat out lie to governments, promise 100% fiber coverage in exchange for subsidies, then not deliver, and no one will do a damn thing about it.
Same exact promise in NJ, Verizon backed out of that as well, and managed to avoid a 45B fine http://www.dslreports.com/show...
Oh hey, look, NY City has the same problem... http://www.theverge.com/2013/1...
So yes, I do expect Verizon to wire every single household in a particular area. They made billions of dollars on tax breaks, cities, counties and states gutted consumer protections and franchise laws to appease the likes of Verizon, ATT and Comcast, and those companies turn around, and screw the residents.
I came, I conquered, I coredumped
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.