Slashdot Mirror
Tom Wheeler Defends Title II Rules, Accuses Pai of Helping Monopolists (arstechnica.com)
simkel shares a report from Ars Technica: Former Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler spoke out against the FCC's proposed repeal of net neutrality rules this week, saying the repeal will help monopoly broadband providers abuse their dominant position. There's "a monopoly provider for three-quarters of the homes in America, and no choice," Wheeler said in a forum (video) in Arlington, Virginia Monday hosted by US Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.). "When you've only got one provider, who makes the rules? The provider makes the rules." Wheeler was referring to FCC data that shows most Americans live in areas with either one provider of high-speed broadband (at least 25Mbps downstream and 3Mbps upstream) or none at all. With the FCC's new Republican leadership seeking to overturn net neutrality rules, "the question becomes, will giant companies be able to exploit their monopoly position?" Wheeler said. "Who is going to stand up for consumers? Who is going to stand up for innovation? And who is going to stand up for the most important network for determining our future in the 21st century?"
It will save us. For some reasons someone will find tons of money in rolling out infrastructure to fight those established companies and provide us with competition!
(sarc)W/e we do, we cannot allow the government to create this public infrastructure, its not their place(/sarc)
"...whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive...it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it..."
Wheeler has it right it is the Monopoly Stupid. All monopolistic industries need to be regulated to prevent monopoly abuses. That is an actual free market fact.
More importantly why are we listening to you?
You honestly think THE INTERNET isn't part of "commerce among the several states"?
We're not listening to him. We're reading to him.
Wait, english doesn't work that way...
#DeleteFacebook
Considering how much the federal government has abused the commerce clause over the years, I'd rather they not look at it that way. Some lawyer could probably argue that yohttps://yro.slashdot.org/story/17/06/29/2235208/tom-wheeler-defends-title-ii-rules-accuses-pai-of-helping-monopolists#u scratching your ass while reading this comment affects commerce, which places it in the purview of federal regulation.
Consider yourself lucky. Maybe your brain tuned out this part of the summary so I'll copy it here again for you:
There's "a monopoly provider for three-quarters of the homes in America, and no choice," Wheeler said in a forum (video) in Arlington, Virginia Monday hosted by US Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.). "When you've only got one provider, who makes the rules? The provider makes the rules."
#DeleteFacebook
75% of people only have one provider choice because of government grants of monopoly status.
How about some other options?
* ISPs cannot be content providers or affiliated with content providers--they can be a data pipe or a content provider but never both
* In areas where local government has granted access rights to only one provider, use PSC model to mandate that that provider must provide access to other providers for the backbone to the pole (e.g., the gas line to my house was built by one company, but I can chose to get my gas from any provider in the market via the same pipe)
* Local government could build the pipes and lease them to all providers at the same rates--we can't have 100 companies digging up roads to bury cable or pipes, whether it be for electricity, gas, water, sewer, cable/fiber for TV/internet, but a coordinated infrastructure contracted by local government that does all of the above and then leases non-exclusive access to providers makes a lot of sense
The good thing about SUVs and Humvees is that they are easier targets for RPGs than those pesky little dinky eco models.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
The whole basis of democratic government is, the *people* choose the leadership, so the leaders act in the majority interests of the *people*.
It all falls apart when the President isn't the one the people voted for. Why exactly would his people do anything for the majority of Americans?
You've got Chairman Pai increasing profits for Verizon, his former company (and probably his future employer too). Ka-chink!
You've got Scott Pruit refusing to ban Chlorpyrifos, (a proven brain poision for unborn children in rural areas). Helping Dow Chemicals, who in turn funded Trump both politically, and privately via golf tournaments and corporate events at Trump properties. I guess I can imagine where Scotts next paycheck will come from. Ka-chink!
Healthcare? Tax cuts for health company profits funded by increased levies... 45k more people expected to die each year from the lack of coverage... like a 911 every month, every year. Ka-chink!
Even the NRA now joining in. With a 'Get a gun to defend Trump' advertising message, $3 million donation to him, and in return his promise that "the assault on guns is over". They get a cut of gun sales. Ka-chink!
Can't wait to see what treat he's got as reward for Putin. Let me guess, the "information co-sharing to fight 'ISIS" plan? The one where Putin gets access to US intelligence under excuse of fighting terrorism? He certainly floated the boat on that plan with his test leak.
The reason for this mess is because the squatter in the Whitehouse was chosen by more Russians than Americans. None of them feel the need to do their job for the benefit of Americans.
just because data shows two providers doesn't mean they both work. Buddy of mine fought with his DSL provider for years before breaking down and buying cable. It was twice as much.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
The first thing I say in response to your quote is: who fact-checked this? Anything coming out of a politician or bureaucrats mouth needs fact checking. Tom Wheeler is a Democrat first and whatever else he his, or has been in his life, comes second. That means he has a particular agenda, like the rest of the politicians in this country, in mind when he makes a statement.
My experience over the years has been that even if something a politician or media person says is something I might agree with I need to fact check the statement before I accept it as true. Politicians are politicians because they like power, and when you like power regulation is very attractive as they can be enacted and then pointed at by the politician as something he has "done" for his constituents, even if the unintended consequences of his action are terrible. And then he will deny that those consequences have anything to do with his actions.
Since honest politicians are about as rare as hen's teeth everything they say must be verified and then looked at to see if what he is pointing at is an unintended consequence from his own or other politician's actions.
"while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." de Tocqueville
of the psychosis that permeates the Republican party.
Except it didn't discourage investment. That was a lie by some ISPs to try and prevent Title II status being made.
It's certainly a fair argument that the commerce clause has been a gigantic loophole for pretty much whatever the government has wanted to do.
But that doesn't change the fact that the Internet is, as part of its intrinsic and core nature, a medium for inter-state and international commerce. How many people do most or all of their shopping on the internet? How many businesses rely on the internet to function? If the internet shut down for a day, do you think any business is getting done, at all? I know the company I work for would probably tell everyone to just go home for the day if we didn't have internet. I'd argue that the internet is just as critical to commerce as transportation (roads/rails/shipping).
So sure, push back against the misuses elsewhere - but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
You spent a shitload of time explaining why you shouldn't trust him and you should check up on him, but no time checking up on him.
If you're confused about the specifics of who can get what, check this out.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Except it didn't discourage investment. That was a lie by some ISPs to try and prevent Title II status being made.
You are not really suggesting that someone that hasn't got a clue is posting on Slashdot??
Oh, the horror!!
That would be great, except our choices at the time were either Net Neutrality, or Cable Company F*ckery. Nobody was offering anything to encourage ACTUAL competition.
It would be great if the Republicans in Congress (and elsewhere) started actually supporting measures to break up the monopolistic BS, and arrange a system where companies would actually compete on merits and service and cost and such. If I had a lot of choices, then it wouldn't matter so much if Comcast or Verizon or whomever decided to engage in shenanigans with network traffic. But like the vast majority of Americans, I don't.
Net Neutrality is a band-aid on a deeper injury - but all the Republicans, along with Ajit Pai and friends, are doing for us is ripping off the band-aid and letting us bleed. They're getting rid of Net Neutrality, and telling us that "everything is fine now!" as if that was the problem. No, Net Neutrality was a solution, even if not a good/ideal one. They're not offering other solutions though, because they like the problem staying.
Sounds easy enough.
Ajit Pai is a parasite, a puppet at best.
just putting that out there....
probably the best candidate *either* party could field in 2020. trump? fuck no. clinton? washed up. sanders? will be too old. biden? too old... ryan? romney? bush? walker? hell the fuck no.
No one needs that useless organization who thinks they can play God. Only the laziest most useless asshats work at the FCC. They don't actually fucking work or do anything there.
It would be great if the Republicans in Congress (and elsewhere) started actually supporting measures to break up the monopolistic BS, and arrange a system where companies would actually compete on merits and service and cost and such. If I had a lot of choices, then it wouldn't matter so much if Comcast or Verizon or whomever decided to engage in shenanigans with network traffic. But like the vast majority of Americans, I don't.
The problem is that running cables to houses seems like a natural monopoly. Once you have one cable for an internet connection, you don't actually need a second one (unless it's somehow better than the first one). The only way that I can see to increase competition is to make the actual internet infrastructure a public utility managed by either the local government, not for profit organization, or maybe a corporation that is explicitly prevented from being owned by any service provider(s). However, these steps seem far more intrusive than Title II classification to impose network neutrality...
Fanatically anti-fanatical
And, of course, his pet project to put the internet under the FCC's thumb is now in shambles. Boo, as the snarks say, Hoo.
"When you've only got one provider, who makes the rules? The provider makes the rules."
When you've got a hundred providers, who makes the rules? The provider. I suspect Mr Wheeler is being disingenuous here. He wants to be the one to make the rules. Central rule making by government has never been shown to be a way to encourage "more providers" of a service. If anything it has the opposite effect. Mostly this comes through the increase regulations' cost to startups. More intense regulatory burdens, from administrative to functional, nearly always benefit the larger companies. This works against a desire to increase options and competition. Plus, from a regulatory commission standpoint, the fewer, and larger, players you have the better it is for you because that means more lobbying.
"the question becomes, will giant companies be able to exploit their monopoly position?"
Monopoly abuses is not part of your job, Mr. Wheeler. We already have laws for that, and a means to enforce them. If your concern is abuse of monopoly, talk to the FTC. The Federal Trade Commission is responsible for dealing with that, not the Federal Communications Commission.
"Who is going to stand up for consumers? Who is going to stand up for innovation? And who is going to stand up for the most important network for determining our future in the 21st century?"
Not the FCC. The FCC can't stand for innovation, it moves too slow and enshrines technological choices into law/regs which are too slow to be corrected, and the penalties of them are applied nationally rather than locally. The FTC has the role of "standing up for consumers", not the FCC. The "most important network of our future" is still people, so the FCC would be stretching very heavily to even attempt to "stand up" for that.
Basically, if he wants to feel like he is standing up for consumers, he needs to transfer to the FTC.
My Suburban burns less gasoline than your Prius.
The government is the people, therefore it is the superior provider of public services.
Best comment in the thread! Ajit Pai is in the pocket of the telecoms/ISPs and is peddling a solution that no consumer wants.
Essentially, this Republican appointee is pursuing a corporatist agenda at the expense of citizens. All that Washington lobbying has paid off for the ISPs. And the citizens can go pound sand.
Can we stop winning now?
The economic rules that govern the free market system created the monopolies.
You can't have natural competition in markets that are monopolistic. Eventually, a very small group (tending to 1) of companies will control the market and set the pricing, and service requirements. Thus these industries need to be regulated.
The good thing about SUVs and Humvees is that they are easier targets for RPGs than those pesky little dinky eco models.
I saw a traffic accident yesterday. A Nissan Leaf struck a Toyota Prius at an intersection.
There was glitter all over the place!
I live in a small town in a very rural community. We are more than 70 miles from a town with with at least 50,000 people. In fact, there is only one town of that size within 100 miles of the eastern border of the state. We have several different ISPs. We have cable, dsl, wireless, and satellite internet services. If it is economically viable in a town of less than 7,000 to have that many ISPs then it is economically viable in much larger communities too. We have lived here for 6 years now, and where we lived before, another small town of similar size we had cable, dsl, wireless and satellite internet service.
So pardon me if I am very skeptical of Wheeler's statement.
"while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." de Tocqueville
If it is economically viable in a town of less than 7,000 to have that many ISPs then it is economically viable in much larger communities too.
[citation needed]
What makes you imagine that what is viable on the small scale is necessarily viable on the large scale?
So pardon me if I am very skeptical of Wheeler's statement.
Even if you're right about the economic issues, the barriers do not have to be economic to be valid. They can be political, which is typically the case. Agreements are in place which grant the entrenched providers monopoly over the right-of-way. That's why so much effort is being spent on solving the last mile problem with wireless, e.g. using constellations of satellites. It would make more sense to run wires for more of that distance, and then just use base stations, but the entrenched monopolies have bought themselves legislation or at least contracts which prevent competition.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Wheeler allowed the mergers of Comcast, TWC, AT&T, ... all the while allowing the destruction of local coops and municipal Internet and preventing others like Google Fiber to flourish and now he's complaining that we don't have a choice.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
So why then is a political problem being blamed on business? The problem looks to me to be a problem of corrupt politicians, if it truly does exist.
Get rid of the corrupt politicians and the problem goes away to a great extent.
This is why I am in favor of limited government. The more power we give politicians, the more power corrupt politicians have over our lives. That to me is the underlying problem.
"while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." de Tocqueville
Do you know why Yugos sold in the US had electric rear-window defoggers?
To keep your hands warm while you pushed it!
Just trust bust.
Require last mile providers to be separate from ISPs.
The Internet was created for defense, research and academics. The fact that some people do commerce on it does not mean that this was the intent of the law. And given intent is now all that matters to the SCOTUS, they should apply it as such.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
The problem is that providing last-mile wire or fiber service is expensive, and therefore there's a large barrier to entry no matter what, and the existing players can cut their profits for a time to discourage such investment. The political obstacles are less important.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Agreements are in place which grant the entrenched providers monopoly over the right-of-way.
If they are, then they are in violation of US federal law. Report them to the DOJ.
That's why so much effort is being spent on solving the last mile problem with wireless,
No, the reason effort is being spent on last mile with wireless is not because of any fictional monopoly franchise, but because of the inherent cost of running wires vs. radio.
or at least contracts which prevent competition.
Report them to the DOJ, if you ever find any. But post a link here so we can see where they exist, first.
You tell us that you suffer because you really like the area where you live.
And your minor bitch is that the internetz are too expensive.
Seems you don't really like where you live, then.
Or you like suffering.
What's it to be?
It's hilarious reading all this tripe about government vs the giant monopolies. If we put the government in charge to regulate something, the giant monopolies pay off the people you elected and we end up with legislation that has loopholes specifically designed to favor those monopolies. If we put the monopoly in charge, they do what they want. In both cases, the monopoly does whatever it wants. In the case of the government being in charge, the bribe collectors don't want to lose their cash collecting position in the government, so they temper the unbridled savagery of an unopposed monopoly. Once legislation is passed, the elected bribe collectors make it extraordinarily hard to remove it. Neither government nor corporation is your savior. You can expect no more respite than the minor tempering from an elected official. It is a slow and inexorable trudge towards complete monopoly control, as Capitalism is destined to cause.
But those things could easily go 150mph
Provided you found a cliff high enough to push it from.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.