Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

FCC Limits Order On Charter Extending Broadband Service (reuters.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the back-and-forth dept.

According to Reuters, the FCC has voted on Monday to reverse a requirement imposed under the Obama administration that Charter extend broadband service to 1 million households already served by a competitor. From the report: As a condition of approval for its acquisition of two cable companies, Charter had agreed in May 2016 to extend high-speed internet access to 2 million customers within five years, with 1 million served by a broadband competitor. The decision was a win for a group representing smaller cable companies that sought to overturn the "overbuild" requirement and marked the latest reversal of Obama-era requirements by the new Republican-led FCC under President Donald Trump. Under the new order, Charter, the No. 2 U.S. cable company with 26 million residential and business customers in 41 states, must add service to 2 million additional potential subscribers in places without existing service, FCC spokesperson Mark Wigfield said. Supporters say the move ensures that more people without access to high-speed broadband, especially in some rural and urban areas, will have an option.

17 of 27 comments (clear)

  1. The drained the swamp... by ZorinLynx · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...and promptly refilled it with water that smells worse.

    1. Re:The drained the swamp... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Wait.... you thought draining the swamp would make it smell BETTER?

    2. Re:The drained the swamp... by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

      ...and promptly refilled it with water that smells worse.

      Uhh... that ain't no water, buddy. It's raw sewage.

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    3. Re:The drained the swamp... by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 2

      Forget the swamp, for it has already been drained. It's just been filled with a sewer instead, and the FCC is now a baby that is being watched by a dingo. Expect more of this for at least the next 3.75 years.

  2. So What by sexconker · · Score: 2, Informative

    From TFS, I gleaned the following:

    Old - Extend services to cover 2 million more potential customers, 1 million of which must already be served by some other company.
    New - Extend services to cover 2 million more potential customers.

    Less competition, but more people who had no access will be getting access. Isn't that why you loved the "Affordable" Care Act?

    1. Re:So What by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      From TFS, I gleaned the following:

      Old - Extend services to cover 2 million more potential customers, 1 million of which must already be served by some other company.
      New - Extend services to cover 2 million more potential customers.

      Less competition, but more people who had no access will be getting access. Isn't that why you loved the "Affordable" Care Act?

      I hate Trump more than most, but I'm not seeing the problem here. At least they are focusing on those with zero service. Am I missing something?

      As for as the AFA comment goes, during the health care debate it was proposed to have a public option, something like allowing people to buy into medicare. The republicans didn't like it, saying it would be unfair to businesses. Well, how about this?

      1. Allow any market with less than 3 providers to buy into medicare. The plan gets access to the same subsidies, but must itself be set to balance the books over time. If the market gains providers, those already signed up get to keep their service.
      2. Add the republicans idea to sell over state lines, but link it to keeping minimum standards in place.
      3. Add the republican idea to penalize people who don't keep continuous coverage for a reasonable time. Again insurance providers wouldn't be forced to charge such people more, but they could.

      And if republicans really want to remove the mandate, then it must be linked to removing the mandate of an emergency room treating people without means to pay. Seriously, you can't absolve people of the responsibility to pay into their health care if your going to require hospitals to treat them. Someone has to pay those bills. The republicans must either provide that funding, if the hospitals can't collect, or they must not require the hospitals to treat those who can't afford treatment. The books must balance.

    2. Re: So What by PoopJuggler · · Score: 2

      They're just entrenching Comcast as the sole ISP in those new areas and whatever ISP in the existing areas. It benefits nobody except the ISPs.

    3. Re:So What by TimothyHollins · · Score: 1

      Ahh, yes.

      Old - 2 million new customers, 1 million of which will be getting buttfucked by monopoly.
      New - 2 million victims, all getting buttfucked.

      Like everything else Trump and his cronies have done, it always revolves around his rich industry buddies buttfucking the disadvantaged guy at the bottom.
      I don't know about you, but I would rather pick the trend where customers don't get buttfucked at all (unless they enjoy that sort of thing).

      And let's not pretend that the "2 million customers" is there for any other reason than provide the argument you just made.

  3. Exisiting Service? by Neuronwelder · · Score: 1

    What the hell is wrong with the existing competitor? Why has choice has become as taboo word in our society. :(

    1. Re:Exisiting Service? by CharlesAKAChuck · · Score: 2

      Like much of America, I have a choice: Choice A, the single provider of internet in this area, or Choice B, not have internet.

    2. Re:Exisiting Service? by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Re Why has choice has become as taboo word in our society
      Generational share holder wealth that is extracted from captive consumers.
      Consumers on average won't move just to change an ISP, so why allow another ISP into the area for free?
      Thats your network, your consumer, your network to upgrade on your own terms, your profit to enjoy.
      Competition is a sin.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    3. Re:Exisiting Service? by sims+2 · · Score: 2

      Are they still counting the old 768Kbps dsl connections as service like they did before?

      --
      Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
  4. The right direction by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 3, Insightful

    From TFS, I gleaned the following:

    Old - Extend services to cover 2 million more potential customers, 1 million of which must already be served by some other company.
    New - Extend services to cover 2 million more potential customers.

    Less competition, but more people who had no access will be getting access. Isn't that why you loved the "Affordable" Care Act?

    I'm not even sure why people are complaining about this.

    Suppose you have 1 person with no internet access, and 1 person with access from a single provider. Which is more important:

    1) Getting access to the person without, or
    2) Duplicating access to the person with one already

    We've complained for years about how providers ignore low-population-density areas, and the "existing subscribers" are probably already in these areas.

    Why is this not a common-sense adjustment? Isn't getting people onto the internet the more important task, and worthy of being done first?

    And on the flip side, I note that forcing providers to make useful changes in return for acquisitions is one way of fixing the problem. About 25 million households have no access to high-speed internet, and this one change should reduce that amount by 4%.

    Yes, that's a little, but it's a little in the right direction.

  5. Thank You by frovingslosh · · Score: 2

    What a great thing the FCC has done now to help make sure the cable companies will never face any real competition and will be able to set whatever prices they want.

    --
    I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
    1. Re: Thank You by PoopJuggler · · Score: 2

      It's not the FCC, it's Trump and his cronies.

  6. "Smaller" cable companies.. by Mousit · · Score: 1

    > ....The decision was a win for a group representing smaller cable companies....

    "A group" would be the American Cable Association, whose representative members include Comcast, Viacom, and Discovery Communications among about three dozen others. "Smaller cable companies" indeed.

  7. Gaah! by Pumpkin+Tuna · · Score: 1

    What makes this worse is that Charter essentially used this as an excuse to completely stop extending services anywhere during the lead up to the merger. I lived in a subdivision where Charter ran down the main road going past the subdivision, but not down into it. My neighbor and I got Charter to agree to run cable down to us, but then suddenly their engineer said the deal was off because they got an order to not extend service at all. Meanwhile we had essentially no broadband access because ATT also refused to extend service out that far. All this 35 minutes from Charlotte, NC, where Google is still thinking about running fiber everywhere.