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..."
...after his wife was given a job at an Alphabet subsidiary. Why are we listening to this man again?
They don't call it Arse Technica for nothing.
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.
Nowhere in the constitution does it specifically delegate the power to regulate healthcare or broadband internet to the federal government. Ergo, the federal government does not have that power and is acting illegally. The construction and operation of broadband infrastructure is best left to private companies in healthy competition and when one company manages to get a leg up it is counterproductive to start screaming 'monopoly!!'. Why on earth would anybody ever try to provide good service to achieve a dominant market position if the end result of such a successful enveavor is the losers chasing you around with pitchforks crying that you have achieved a monopoly and need to be regulated or broken up? Everything the government touches becomes priced into the stratosphere due to inefficient and apathetic management, multiple layers of red tape and bureaucracy, overpaid and unionized employees, and a lack of work ethic, competition, and incentive to do better. This is no different. I have at least 4 choices for broadband where I live and I like it that way. Regulation and subsidies are not the answer.
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
Look at those filthy crap people in rags. They can't even afford a good 'murican SUV. Watch me while I drive over them with my Humvee.
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/
of the psychosis that permeates the Republican party.
Net Neutrality just locked that situation in place and made the ISPs into permanent monopolies by discouraging investment in infrastructure.
It was a stupid idea and deserved to die.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
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.
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.
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
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.