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.
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
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/
Except it didn't discourage investment. That was a lie by some ISPs to try and prevent Title II status being made.
How about some other options?
OK, but you don't really offer any. And here's why:
* ISPs cannot be content providers or affiliated with content providers--they can be a data pipe or a content provider but never both
This is a stronger version of net neutrality. Under current rules, they can provide content---but they cannot not deprioritize content of their competitors.
This is actually a more open market than your proposal. They are still allowed to compete with content providers, as long as they do it on a level playing field.
* 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
The only way the FCC can mandate this is by classifying broadband as a Title II service, which is exactly what Pai is trying to roll back.
This requirement is possible under the current classification, but Wheeler waived it in order to exercise a light touch. ISPs would have to revamp their business from top to bottom.
* 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
A city or county would have to decide to build an entire broadband network out of pocket and then force the ISPs to use it. This is insanely expensive---both the actual construction and the inevitable lawsuits.
This is not a practical course of action without federal intervention that eliminates some of the costs and risks.
(AC because of moderation elsewhere in the thread)
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.'"
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.