Slashdot Mirror
Trump's FCC Chairman Pick Ajit Pai Vows To Close Broadband 'Digital Divide' (arstechnica.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: On his first full day as Federal Communications Commission Chairman, Republican Ajit Pai yesterday spoke to FCC staff and said one of his top priorities will be bringing broadband to all Americans. "One of the most significant things that I've seen during my time here is that there is a digital divide in this country -- between those who can use cutting-edge communications services and those who do not," Pai said (transcript). "I believe one of our core priorities going forward should be to close that divide -- to do what's necessary to help the private sector build networks, send signals, and distribute information to American consumers, regardless of race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, or anything else. We must work to bring the benefits of the digital age to all Americans." Pai promised to "hear all points of view -- to approach every issue with a literal open door and a figurative open mind," as the FCC "confronts this and many other challenges." Pai didn't offer any specific initiatives for closing the digital divide yesterday, but in September 2016 he outlined a "digital empowerment agenda." The plan included "remov[ing] regulatory barriers to broadband deployment," changes to pole attachment rules, and "dig once" policies that install broadband conduit when roads are dug up during any road and highway construction project. He also proposed setting aside 10 percent of spectrum auction proceeds for deployment of mobile broadband in rural areas. Pai suggested requiring mobile carriers to build out service to 95 percent of the population in areas where they have spectrum licenses; he noted that some licenses only required service for 66 percent or 75 percent of residents, a problem in sparsely populated rural areas. At the same time, he proposed extending initial spectrum license terms from 10 years to 15 years to give the carriers more time to complete the construction. Pai also proposed creating "gigabit opportunity zones" in areas where average household income is below 75 percent of the national median. In these areas, state and local lawmakers would have to "adopt streamlined, broadband deployment-friendly policies," and there would be tax incentives and tax credits for companies building high-speed networks.
Yes, we want to bring broadband to all Americans... so my ex-clients can gouge the shit out of them with rent-seeking behavior, unneeded service caps and fees, and charging content providers that aren't directly owned by the ISP access fees after we shitcan Net Neutrality!
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
So, it will be available in more areas, at greater costs and in more limited uses.
First, I reject the assumption it will cost a lot more.
Secondly, so what if it does cost more? Is it still not better to have the AVAILABILITY of real high speed internet be much more widespread? My mother lives in a rural area, and on average from her DSL line she was getting 128kb/s. No I am not joking. Do you know how much of the modern internet is really usable at those speeds? Not much, and Netflix was a pretty low quality affair.
Recently T-Mobile expanded cell service enough in the area that I was able to get her a wireless hotspot. Now she has about 8MB/s down, and everything is useable... she has more of a cap than before but then again she probably couldn't have downloaded even a GB in the course of a month before had she tried.
Making something available is a huge boon. Even if it is expensive that simply means you can subsidize the payments for those that could not afford it otherwise - either the government or private groups. But there's no reason to believe once something is available and widely used that prices will not come down.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Pai was appointed to the commission by Obama in 2012, so we can answer that based on what he's supported and opposed over the last five years.
In his dissents, Pai has repeatedly expressed his frustration with the commission setting minimums with no reference to changing technology and consumer expectations. He supports looking at the speeds actually ordered by consumers who *do* have the choice, and setting new rules based on that, rather than picking a number out of a bureaucrat's ass - and using completely different numbers from month to month.
Available speeds have increased in the last couple of years, so by the chairman's preferred methodology standards should be higher now than in 2015, but in 2015 he said the commission's standard of 10 Mbps in rural areas was too slow, arguing that 25 Mbps would be better:
https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_pub...
Before that, he reasoned that since Netflix customers stream at 3.2 Mbps on average, a true 10 Mbps connection would allow 3 concurrent streams - so here we see his idea of "broadband" gets faster over time.
The new chairman argued strenuously that the FCC should not adopt regulations that discouraged gigabit - the rule enacted by the Democrat majority encouraged 10Mbps and 25Mbps connections in lieu of gigabit, he argued.
He would in general rather promote competition and then gtf out of the way and let companies offer gigabit or whatever, rather than micro-managing, declaring that they must offer exactly this or that. In constrast, the rules enacted by his colleagues were much more along the lines of "Verizon must offer 10 Mbps DSL in these areas" kinds of rules. (Of course the rule is written as "an incumbent telco carrier operating blah blah blah", a description which describes only Verizon).
Anyway, to answer your question, his position is that 10 Mbps was too slow in 2015, it should have been 25 Mbps back then, and it should get faster with time based on what consumers who have the choice actually select.
I love it. It's keeping my sister alive (literally). Without it, due to her condition there's no way she could buy insurance other than work provided insurance, especially given that her medication that keeps her alive costs $5K/month, most of that being the medication (a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma_globulin">gamma globulin). With her work insurance her co-pay for her medicine would be $500/month (she makes $11/hour as a teacher). Thanks to the ACA she was able to get a plan that covers her medication. I have a number of friends who also rely on it who would otherwise be without insurance which they need. While far from perfect, in most cases it's an improvement over what we had before. I had a friend who relied on it once he got cancer and could no longer work due to it. It kept him alive for a couple of years he otherwise wouldn't have had with his family. He eventually died from the cancer, but it didn't leave his family totally bankrupt from it either.
This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
If Pai is truly a believer in free market and competition, then don't stop at just knocking down net neutrality. Remove the regional monopolies that restrict where existing ISP's can and cannot do business. Remove roadblocks to cities building municipal fiber, since this only creates more competition so long as they're on a level playing field with private ISP's. Lift restrictions on last mile unbundling so that more companies can enter the market and offer competing services.
The fact is net neutrality was such a necessity only because there are few players in the market and limited choice for consumers. Who cares if ISP's can create fast lanes and throttle non-partnered content if I have a list of 20 ISP's with broadband speeds to choose from, since there will always be those whose model is to offer a more open package, even if it is at a higher price. The ISP's are crying about regulation, but only when it's regulations on what they can do. Once you talk about remove regulations on what their competitors can do, suddenly these restrictions need to be upheld. Because if you gave the average Comcast customer the option to choose another ISP with better customer service, no data caps, and more transparent billing practices they'd take it in a heartbeat, even if meant an increase in monthly price.
If Pai truly walks his talk and heavily deregulates the industry by removing barriers to entry and regional monopolies in addition to net neutrality, he'll be a far better FCC Commissioner than Wheeler ever was. If however he's yet another industry talking head who's only interested in removing consumer protections while still leaving in place industry friendly regulation, then nothing good will come from his chairmanship.
in September 2016 he outlined a "digital empowerment agenda." The plan included "removing regulatory barriers to broadband deployment,"
The only "barriers" that exist are those created by Republican politicians. At least 20 states, all controlled by Republicans, have passed laws prohibiting cities from building their own broadband networks, even when the local cable and phone monopolies refuse to provide service at a reasonable price. Or at any price. And the reason is simple, It would create competition and that would force the broadband monopolies to increase speed, lower their prices and abandon bullshit practices like data caps.
These laws were written by lobbyists from all the big cable and phone monopolies, including Mr. Pai's former employer, Verizon.
If you think something is suddenly going to change, I've got a jar of magic beans I want to sell you.
...and there would be tax incentives and tax credits for companies building high-speed networks.
Translation: "Let's give billions more taxpayer dollars to the worthless telecoms/cable companies."
The problem Chairman Pai must now confront is not unlike what his fellow Republicans in Congress are facing with healthcare: the market does not always produce socially optimal results. There is no market solution in which insurance companies will look at 55-year old cancer patient with diabetes, kidney stones, two knees in need of replacement, and a raging case of herpes and think to themselves "Hmmm...I smell Profit!". From the insurance companies' perspective, the most profitable healthcare plan for that fellow involves a coffin.
Likewise, if it costs $20-50K in trenching and cabling to connect a single rural user at halfway decent broadband speeds, there's no way the ISPs are going to ever break even on that customer if he's paying $50-100 a month. Hence, the market completely ignores the poor and those living in the sticks.
It's admirable that Chairman Pai recognizes that universal Internet access is central to economic prosperity, and I wish him the best of luck despite the source of his nomination, but achieving universal broadband will not happen unless there is a mandate from the government that it happen, as well as considerable funding in the form of tax credits or direct expenditures. Waving around hands and solemnly intoning "The Market knows all! The Market solves all!" will not make those realities go away any more than it would in the healthcare debate.
I am unaware of anyone ever being denied internet access because of gender, religion, or sexual orientation. However, there are racial disparities in internet access owing to our history of segregation. Many of the high-poverty neighborhoods bypassed by ISPs are, not surprisingly, places that fell victim to redlining and the urban blight that followed it.
If he also scraps the regulations that forbid communities from running their own co-op ISP I'll believe it.
Fully licensed blockchain psychiatrist
Wow. I've got to say, this is the first time I'm actually impressed by a Trump appointment.
All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
---Fewer regulations mean more freedom for companies to try different approaches to providing network services. That in turn, obviously means more jobs... and is better for consumers.---
You SERIOUSLY don't believe that? Not ONCE as that happened. Fewer regulations means static progression and price gouging.
Net neutrality, is the ONLY thing that has stopped VZ and Comshit from completely shutting down your internet access EXCEPT to "their" sites.
Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it-
Read up on the railroad barons of the early 1900's, that exactly where the removal of "net neutrality" will get you.
Right. Especially since he was originally an Obama appointee--which you'd expect would have gotten him fired, not promoted.
I have no special gift, I am only passionately curious. --Albert Einstein
No, you misunderstand. They want to "help private businesses build the networks". Translation: They want to bribe the cable companies and phone companies who refused to build out the network to serve the poor, putting money into their pockets in exchange for a promise of a buildout that will never actually happen except on paper, same as always happens when the Republicans are in control.
There is, as you rightfully point out, exactly one way to build infrastructure that is truly universal, and that's for local governments to foot the bill for construction and then lease access to companies that provide service. That way, the government can bring in multiple providers with minimal up-front costs per provider, thus allowing real, honest-to-goodness competition in broadband service, without the giant noose of the infrastructure construction hanging around the ISPs necks.
What we need right now is a Roosevelt, not a Reagan—a builder, not a financier.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Again look to history.
No, the robber baron's did no such thing, they hindered and stifled competition every where they went. You want a new pick axe? Sorry the general store can't get any because the robber barron keeps "losing" his shipment. BUT you can but this pick axe from the Robber Barron's store for only FIVE TIMES the cost!!!
(if you think they got that filthy rich through "competition" you're mistaken.)
Read what Comshit did to Netfilx, and that's recent history...
I'm not against free markets and capitalism, but they only work where true competition is available. That's not the case, with "utilities" where barrier to entry is astronomical.