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
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/
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.
Who is at the root of the CNN news controversies which caused the firing of three "journalists"? Is that Trumps fault too?
Lot's of reason to hate on Trump, blaming him for the GOP's behavior before or after is denying personal responsibility for people.
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.
Ajit Pai is a parasite, a puppet at best.
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
"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.
It happened before, wasn't too pretty when SCOTUS ruled in 1920s Commerce Dept had no enforcement powers. Radio waves became the wild west as stations changed freq and power levels to whatever they wanted, listeners gave up and receiver sales plummeted (ref Gordon West book on General Radio Licensing Manual). More of that adventure from back in the days:
"Pending Radio Legislation"
from the magazine Radio Age, July 1924
CONGRESS has adjourned without acting either way on pending radio legislation, according to the news dispatches from Washington.
Unless a special session is called, which does not seem likely at this time, radio will be untouched by legal attachments until next year, at least.
The two most important measures which were shelved by the adjournment of the well-meaning but unusually deliberative governmental bodies are the White Bill and the Dill Bill. The first proposes to establish governmental control over radio broadcasting, reception and perhaps the industry eventually. This bill, while not viciously attacked, did not go through because some representatives of the people wanted to know just why such a young and untried industry as radio should suffer the bonds of law so soon. Accordingly, it is unlikely that the White Bill will ever become a law -- so the fans may rest assured they will not be hindered for some time to come in that respect.
The Dill Bill is more far reaching in its scope. It is liberal and fair-minded. It asks that the copyright laws be amended so that copyrighted music can be broadcast without the payment of levies to the music publishers. Although this bill has been opposed at every step by huge organizations and moneyed interests, as well as several prominent music publishers, it was about to be passed with a fair majority when Congress adjourned.
There is still hope for the Dill Bill, then, and we hope that when it finally reaches the President's desk it will represent the result of a fair compromise between the broadcasters and the music publishers, in the interests of the fan who listens to broadcast music and helps the sale of the published article by buying the pieces he likes best.
Government legislation, we believe, appears to be the only means yet suggested which offers any kind of a solution to the bitter enmity between the broadcasters and the so-called music "trust."
Radio's recent jump to prominence in official circles such as Congress is only one indication of its growing importance. Big capital interests, legislators and public spirited citizens are realizing more and more that radio will some day control the destinies of our nation; and accordingly they are setting out to prevent its too sudden growth to an unwieldy influence. Quick government control, the legislators aver, will prevent radio from becoming a menace instead of the help and pleasure it should be.
In a measure these radio-legislators are right. Something must be done to prevent the air from becoming a bedlam of tangled wave lengths. Something must be done to prevent the ether from being clogged with propaganda and useless stuff that will discourage interest in the world's latest miracle.
If legislation works along those lines, it will be beneficial. But if it takes a political trend, this country will see a united uprising of righteously aroused fans -- lovers and promoters of the good in radio.
mfwright@batnet.com
Donnie is that you?
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
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.
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.