Slashdot Mirror
Ajit Pai's FCC Can't Admit Broadband Competition Is a Problem (dslreports.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from DSLReports: While the FCC is fortunately backing away from a plan that would have weakened the standard definition of broadband, the agency under Ajit Pai still can't seem to acknowledge the lack of competition in the broadband sector. Or the impact this limited competition has in encouraging higher prices, net neutrality violations, privacy violations, or what's widely agreed to be some of the worst customer service of any industry in America. The Trump FCC had been widely criticized for a plan to weaken the standard definition of broadband from 25 Mbps down, 3 Mbps up, to include any wireless connection capable of 10 Mbps down, 1 Mbps up. Consumer advocates argued the move was a ham-fisted attempt to try and tilt the data to downplay the industry's obvious competitive and coverage shortcomings. They also argued that the plan made no coherent sense, given that wireless broadband is frequently capped, often not available (with carrier maps the FCC relies on falsely over-stating coverage), and significantly more expensive than traditional fixed-line service.
In a statement (pdf), FCC boss Ajit Pai stated the agency would fortunately be backing away from the measure, while acknowledging that frequently capped and expensive wireless isn't a comparable replacement for fixed-line broadband. "The draft report maintains the same benchmark speed for fixed broadband service previously adopted by the Commission: 25 Mbps download/3 Mbps upload," stated Pai. "The draft report also concludes that mobile broadband service is not a full substitute for fixed service. Instead, it notes there are differences between the two technologies, including clear variations in consumer preferences and demands." That's the good news. The bad news: the FCC under Pai's leadership continues to downplay and ignore the lack of competition in the sector, and the high prices and various bad behaviors most people are painfully familiar with.
In a statement (pdf), FCC boss Ajit Pai stated the agency would fortunately be backing away from the measure, while acknowledging that frequently capped and expensive wireless isn't a comparable replacement for fixed-line broadband. "The draft report maintains the same benchmark speed for fixed broadband service previously adopted by the Commission: 25 Mbps download/3 Mbps upload," stated Pai. "The draft report also concludes that mobile broadband service is not a full substitute for fixed service. Instead, it notes there are differences between the two technologies, including clear variations in consumer preferences and demands." That's the good news. The bad news: the FCC under Pai's leadership continues to downplay and ignore the lack of competition in the sector, and the high prices and various bad behaviors most people are painfully familiar with.
The NN rules helped with all the new networks over the years?
All that new community broadband got to start up all over the USA thanks to federal NN rule changes?
Still on paper insulated wireline enjoying federal NN monopoly networks?
The courts saw the federal NN rules and allowed with new community network projects?
New networks have to be allowed many local people can support new community broadband networks. Let cities and states build innovative new networks.
Connect to a long list of ISP and the free market can select from what an ISP offers on that new community network.
The ISP would have to be innovative with what it offers as the network is new and a lot of different ISP are selling plans in that community.
Walled communities, wealthy parts of a city and local business could have had ISP competition on new networks to attract new home buyers, customers, consumers. Digital innovation would more to their city, state rather than other less well networked cities and states.
Resorts, hotels, educational users could have provided new networking to attract paying guests and students with innovative new community networks.
Like local wholesale power cooperatives, the community could have invested profits back into more networking.
Building on what a wealthy community needed rather than been held back by federal NN rules and having to use existing telco monopolies.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Did the years of new NN rules and federal rule changes bring about new innovative community networking all over the USA AC?
Did existing telco network monopolies stay protected from competition thanks to NN rules?
Could some private sector state and city competition build better networks once federal NN rules got lifted?
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"