Slashdot Mirror
129 Million Americans Can Only Get Internet Service From Companies That Have Violated Net Neutrality (vice.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Motherboard: Based on the Federal Communications Commission's own data, the Institute for Local Self Reliance found that 129 million Americans only have one option for broadband internet service in their area, which equals about 40 percent of the country. Of those who only have one option, roughly 50 million are limited to a company that has violated net neutrality in some way. Of Americans who do have more than one option, 50 million of them are left choosing between two companies that have both got shady behavior on their records, from blocking certain access to actively campaigning against net neutrality.
Aside from being a non-ideal situation for consumers like me, this lack of competition is another dock against the FCC's plan to repeal net neutrality rules later this week. In arguing against net neutrality rules, FCC Chairman Ajit Pai has repeatedly cited a free market as just as capable of ensuring internet freedom as government regulations. "All we are simply doing is putting engineers and entrepreneurs, instead of bureaucrats and lawyers, back in charge of the internet," Pai said on Fox News's "Fox & Friends," in November. "What we wanted to do is return to the free market consensus that started in the Clinton administration and that served the internet economy in America very well for many years." But how can market competition regulate an industry when more than a third of the market has no competition at all, and even those that do have to choose between options that don't uphold net neutrality?
Aside from being a non-ideal situation for consumers like me, this lack of competition is another dock against the FCC's plan to repeal net neutrality rules later this week. In arguing against net neutrality rules, FCC Chairman Ajit Pai has repeatedly cited a free market as just as capable of ensuring internet freedom as government regulations. "All we are simply doing is putting engineers and entrepreneurs, instead of bureaucrats and lawyers, back in charge of the internet," Pai said on Fox News's "Fox & Friends," in November. "What we wanted to do is return to the free market consensus that started in the Clinton administration and that served the internet economy in America very well for many years." But how can market competition regulate an industry when more than a third of the market has no competition at all, and even those that do have to choose between options that don't uphold net neutrality?
All they have to do is stop promising to uphold Net Neutrality precepts, and then they're totally in the clear.
The important thing here is that Trump's rich friends will milk some more money from the not-rich in return for degraded services; this is good for the average person somehow.
Where we live and in most municipalities, I believe, broadband is regulated by the city. In the city where we live, when Comcast wanted to move in, city council wouldn't let them until another provider could also move in.
Want to fix the problem in rural areas? The federal government owns more than half of the available RF spectrum. Free up some so we can get wireless broadband going.
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
It's not that hard a concept to grasp: Free market capitalism is fundamentally and inherently anti-democratic. Corporations and oligarchs will do what they've always done... if we let them.
So, 129 million have only one ISP available.
40% of them have, as their one ISP, a company that has violated net neutrality.
Another 50 million have two choices for ISP, both of which have done things that violated net neutrality.
So, given that information from the summary, why is the headline "129 million Americans can only get Internet Services from Companies that have violated net neutrality"?
I mean, it's not all that hard to add the 50 million from the first paragraph to the 50 million from the second. And it's not like /.'ers are innumerate...Oh, wait. Never mind....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
It's the government that blocks other companies from competing.
Thank you, Bradley Manning, Edward Snowden and so many others, for courageously defending humanity, my freedom and more!
All we are simply doing is putting engineers and entrepreneurs, instead of bureaucrats and lawyers, back in charge of the internet...
In the first place, how many engineers are "in charge" of the Internet? The vast, vast majority of them answer to the MBA's and other assorted bankster wonks who ultimately answer to the CEO, who ultimately answers to the board and the shareholders. Secondly, calling the likes of AT+T, Verizon, etc. "entrepreneurs" tells me that you are either a liar, (which I already knew), or stupid, (which I've long suspected). While you're busy metaphorically sucking the metaphorical dicks of the evil men who own your soul, please at least try to disengage your vocal cords and refrain from making stupid noises about how all is well. Piss off mate - nobody believes your bullshit.
'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
I reject "net neutrality" on a federal level, as it does NOTHING to fix the underlying issues. It's a straw man! The underlying issue is that there isn't enough competition in the ISP space to give people a valid choice, and there isn't enough "information" on what is actually happening behind the scenes (throttling, etc) for people to make an informed choice anyway. An ISP will simply not get as much transit/peering/etc related to certain traffic than others to effectively "throttle" it, even if they aren't directly doing so. Also, as more "cord cutters" are being made, prices will go higher... with no other choices while everyone complains that a commercial company isn't charging them a lower price on a government granted monopoly.
Most localities grant monopolies to the incumbent carrier, and make it difficult or impossible for new players to enter the market. My preferred solution is to make it easier for new carriers to enter the market by not allowing monopolies to be granted. However, one size doesn't fit all. There are many small towns of a few thousand people that would have never gotten internet service without that type of agreement. It takes millions of dollars to build out a network to service a small town like that in many cases, and if there is any competition the carrier wouldn't be able to recoup their cost (so they won't build it out in the first place.) Another option is municipal internet, or, as other people have pointed out having the city/town own the 'wires' and lease them to other areas. However, both of those options may not be appropriate for all areas due to the overhead of providing either of those services.
My point here is, stop trying to "fix" the problems on a federal level. Your solution in Iowa may not be appropriate for my area in Massachusetts, but, most people seem to think it is.. and more importantly, stop focusing on "net neutrality" (which as implemented is not what you think it is in many cases) instead of the actual issues!
As someone who has been running a small, independent, ISP since 1996, I have seen the steady anti-competitive lobbying to get congress to legislate us out of business. In 1994 Congress signed the 1994 Telecom Act, that basically assuaged the iLECs pissing and moaning that they need to get into LD in order to make money. The act basically says they can get into LD, but since they claim there is zero profits in local and last-mile services, they must sell wholesale access to their competitors to provision in order to boost options for consumers.
For a while we saw a boom in local CLECs, some more physical, some merely billing and administrative, by buying unbundled circuits like Uni-T1s and Uni-DS3s to their customers that connected back to the CLEC over the iLECs last-mile. Then came the Patriot Act and CALEA. In the interest of political expediency, Congress and the FCC has slowly, but surely, eroded the 1994 telecom act into nearly nothing left to enforce. In order to effectively issue wiretap orders on unsuspecting citizens, the telecoms argued, it makes more sense to engage with only a few players than tens of thousands.
First to disappear were the unbundled T1 and DS3 circuits. Now if you wanted to provision T1/PRI to a customer you were forced to buy your own unbundled copper. Then, in a surprise move, the FCC and Congress agreed with a Verizon case, that "New Technologies" should be exempt from equal-access provision of the 1994 Telecom Act. This effectively allowed Verizon to deny all competition to their Fiber circuit. Since the telcos, cable, and power companies have exclusive rights to last-mile access to telephone poles, no CLEC has the ability to just roll out their own last-mile to the customer except in some extremely densely populated cities where puttting a fiber shelf and mux in the bottom of a 500 suite building paid for itself. The biggest example of this anti-competitive behavior was when Verizon engaged in the practice of ripping out ever inch of copper to a customer once they bought into Fios service. Now the customer has a choice of Fios or Fios. No competitor even has left over copper available to be ordered to the customers premises.
Next up was project PRISM installed in MAE-East and MAE-West. In order to ensure all traffic traversed through the prisms for cloning (yes actual prisms were used to split the fiber stream), they had to reduce the number of carriers and peer points that could bypass these points of capture. By allowing the largest LECs to build monopolies, they LECs sold your souls to the devil, in exchange for running CLECs out of town via new regulations and 'understandings' of legislature.
It is no surprise that no anti-trust suits have ever been brought to claim against these LECs. Its FAR easier to spy on everyone when only 5 companies control traffic versus thousands of others.
as a ISP, I cant even get people the same DSL that the Telco's offer. 12mb ADSL2+ is the best I can get even though the LEC does SHDSL, VDSL, and 20Mb ADSL2+. They will also not let us get naked DSL (no $60 phone line charge in addition to DSL) or do G.Bond (two copper pair to double the throughput). We are stuck with wireless, and that has real world issues form lightening, wind, and other weather.
Competition requires action by a government in the first place to establish rights of way. Otherwise, non-subscribing landowners could block providers from crossing subscribers' land with their copper or fiber by asserting the exclusive right that essentially all industrialized countries' governments recognize in land.
Anarchy is so much better.