Slashdot Mirror
FCC Seeks To Increase ISP Competition In Apartment Buildings (arstechnica.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Exclusive deals between broadband providers and landlords have long been a problem for Internet users, despite rules that are supposed to prevent or at least limit such arrangements. The Federal Communications Commission is starting to ask questions about whether it can do more to stop deals that impede broadband competition inside apartment and condominium buildings. FCC Chairman Ajit Pai yesterday released a draft Notice of Inquiry (NOI) that seeks public comment "on ways to facilitate greater consumer choice and to enhance broadband deployment in multiple tenant environments (MTEs)." The commission is scheduled to vote on the NOI at its June 22 meeting, and it would then take public comments before deciding whether to issue new rules or take any other action. The NOI discusses preempting local rules "that may expressly prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of telecommunications services" in multi-unit buildings. But one San Francisco regulation that could be preempted was designed to boost competition by expanding access to wires inside buildings. It's too early to tell whether the FCC really wants to preempt any state or city rules or what authority the FCC would use to do so. The NOI could also lead to an expansion of FCC rules, as it seeks comment on whether the commission should impose new restrictions on exclusive marketing and bulk billing arrangements between companies and building owners. The NOI further seeks comment on how "revenue sharing agreements and exclusive wiring arrangements between MTE owners and broadband providers may affect broadband competition" and "other contractual provisions and non-contractual practices that may impact the ability of broadband providers to compete in MTEs." The NOI also asks whether the commission should encourage cities and states to adopt model codes that promote competition in multi-unit buildings, and the document asks what practices those model codes should prohibit or mandate.
The headline you will never see.
slashdot: A failed experiment.
Who do you think has more money to throw around up on The Hill? The telcos, or the landlords? Isn't it technically illegal for the landlord to be getting a kickback for granting exclusive use, anyway? So, in theory, they'd have nothing to lose, anyway?
I had a sucky sig.
No, my parents building in Burlington charges an extra 15/mo to every tenant that wants internet, but it's unlimited. Not sure which company they're with think it's a local.
Damn good deal, though you can't get it any other way if you live there unless you're using your phone data or satellite.
I recently lived in a brand new complex that was designed without traditional POTS, plain old telephone system wiring. That was because the local cable company arranged an exclusive contract with the property owner- they would provide TV, internet and telephone for all the residents. It was very difficult for any competitor to reach that building.
Now I live in an older building with POTS & cable wiring. I had cable for internet, but they raised the price beyond reason. The telephone company had nothing competitive. Fortunately Google (a subsidiary called WebPass) came to the rescue. They offer a high speed internet connection at a reasonable price; less than $600/year for nearly 100Mbps. Fortunately my property manager invited this service to our building.
This service utilizes the old POTS wiring already available to give ethernet connections to each unit while still allowing telephone service for those who want it. They install a microwave antenna on the roof to connect to a source for internet backbone.
For several months I've had excellent service from WebPass. They are in limited cities now but expanding. This microwave connection seems practical, affordable, and for many people the only alternative to the criminal oligopolies commonly available. If the Google/WebPass service isn't available, ask for it or find or create your own alternative.
The concept of microwave transmission of internet across rooftops is viable in most cities. It will offer alternatives to millions of users.
...omphaloskepsis often...
>"FCC Seeks To Increase ISP Competition In Apartment Buildings"
Seriously? As if most of us even have a choice OUTSIDE apartment buildings? I don't know about you, but here there is only one choice for ISP, and it is the cable company. It doesn't matter what kind of building in which we reside.
How about increasing ISP competition, period.
So, does thia mean that current FCC is not 100% evil.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
This is really easy to solve.
Have the city/county own the links, and have the ISP's offer service over the municipal infrastructure.
You want email? Talk to an ISP. You want television? Talk to an ISP. You want VOIP service? Talk to an ISP.
All ISP's have equal access to the market over the common infrastructure.
I should be able to live in Alaska, get my phone service from Utah, get my email from Virginia, and get my television channels from 6 or 7 places, unbundled.
Just drive around LA and issue a hefty fine to any apartment building without any DirecTV dishes on the roof.
I'm guessing Verizon hasn't been doing as well as other ISPs at making shady backroom deals with landlords.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
I used to work for a cable system in a competitive area. The two companies always tried to get an exclusive deal with the buildings, but through various court orders and lawsuits a compromise was reached: The drop coax going from the equipment demarcation box was owned by the building owner. A competitor had to "release" the line within 48 hours of getting an order from the other. The actual demarc was 1 foot outside of the box in the case of single family homes.
Where it got tricky was when there was a bad line, which was often in some of the older buildings that weren't wired for high speed internet and digital cable. Because the landlord owned the coax it became their responsibility to repair it. Of course they'd either tell the tech to "just repair it" expecting the company to eat the cost of the coax repair with the very real possibility of the renter switching service at any time. Or the landlord would get his maintenance guy to "certify" the cable as good because it worked for whatever test equipment (usually just a line toner) he had.
If a cable company comes in and rewires a building they almost always want exclusive use of the internal wiring because it's not cheap or easy to rewire buildings. Building owners aren't broadband cable engineers, they really don't care nor do they want to deal with it. So they sign the exclusive deals, renters are stuck with whatever service they get and that's that.
The real solution is to get 5G up and running. Then the inside wiring won't be a problem, unless you live in one of those reenforced concrete bunkers.
"Well, good luck finding a judge that doesn't run a bestiality site."
How about just seeking increased ISP competition period? It was great back in the day when the tel-cos had to lease access to their lines to ISPs...you had real completion in DSL....then Cable comes in and wham....everyone dies a slow death and DSL is thrown to the side due to technological limitations.
The building probably pays for a fiber connected to a tier 3 provider, assuming there are enough people in the building to make it worth it.
Unfortunately that comes down to local zoning regulations which has nothing to do with the FCC.
Clearly overreach by the FCC. Let the invisible hand of the free market manage this. Ajit Pai should know better.
I suppose I should enclose that statement with a sarcasm tag.
An effective "democracy" creates the illusion the people have a say in their government.
Bandwidth is not unlimited everywhere.
I could get behind a "last mile" access rights law, however, with mandatory slots for at least 20 competitors.
Bandwidth is not limited in the way it is charged, either.
Specifically, an idle router takes no more electricity than a router operating at it's maximum rated capacity. Yet we get charged more for more use, even when there is idle capacity, rather than the capacity being fairly apportioned between subscribers.
This is primarily due to "oversubscription", which is a code word for "we're selling more bandwidth than we provide, because we expect you to consume content, rather than producing it".
This idiocy is "enforced" by charging for bandwidth above a certain utilization as if it were gold. In other words: it's a bad model propped up by an economic model which benefits the people who want to be paid for packets, rather than being paid for having a "dumb pipe" that they provide. They do not want to be commoditized down to "dumb pipe" status.
What my suggestion does is commoditize bandwidth from the CISCO unit(s) in the basement of the apartment complex utility room into "dumb pipe" status. IF it's done city-wide, then everything's a "dumb pipe".
This is precisely the situation which ISPs want to avoid, because it means they are also "dumb pipes", and thus a commodity.
They have been shitting themselves ever since we moved from circuit-switched communications hardware to packet switched hardware, trying to maintain the "long distance metered rate teat" that they had been feeding off of since the early days of telecom.
The 100+ yr old telecom wiring leases need to stop. Getting repaid over and over for something put in the ground 20 yrs ago is vile.
Which is precisely what I suggested, only somehow you aren't stupid, but choose to call me stupid. City owns the infrastructure, ISP owns the packets. Customer gets to pick who does or does not send them packets.
No matter who sends the packets: the "dumb pipes" are there, and the "dumb pipe" diameter remains the same -- and thus capacity remains the same. You want bigger "dumb pipes"? Pay more taxes.
There's a large coop in New York that gets "free Internet" for the apartments via a package deal the ISP negotiated with the coop management. Presumably the ISP likes the deal because they assume that most of the apartments will also buy their "Premium Cable" and phone packages. The agreement keeps other ISPs out by making it unprofitable for them to bring in service for what they assume will be just a handful of customers.