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.
It's all the collusion that is a problem.
Ajit Pai couldn't admit his ass was on fire even he smelt smoke.
I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
Ajit Pai is an industry shill. He will not admit to anything that is not in the interest of his industry masters.
Why is this so hard to understand ?
And they're doing everything in their power (and beyond) to stamp out such competition.
NN would not give us more ISPs. It would not have a diversity of companies laying cable.
And absent more choices in who are our ISPs are from the wire up level... it is pointless.
To solve the problem we need Right of Way for poles and conduits. Absent that, this is just monopolists arguing for their monopoly.
The corporate monopolists want to be the only people that are allowed to run cable in the last mile and the socialist monopolists merely want the government to monopolize it.
The only non-monopolist option is Right of Way to poles and conduits.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
it's because the Republicans can't afford to piss off rural voters. The US system of government gives them a disproportionate amount of voting power and their interests don't often align with the city voters, making them a prime candidate for politicking.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
And yet, Charter / Spectrum decided it would be a good idea to raise my bandwidth to 230 mbit/sec and charge me less than I was paying for 60 mbit.
Maybe they understand simple economics better than you think. A regional telco has been rolling fiber here, and it's got the cable company improving service without increasing price... sounds like competition might actually be a thing, and may actually be paying off for the subscribers.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Some areas have competition, some areas do not... Compare the service between those areas.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
AC then run for local political office. Do a great job and run again for city and state level.
Allow locals to do community broadband and design the networks needed. No more federal NN monopoly rules to hold back community broadband in a city, state.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Too bad your temporary discount doesn't reflect actual competition. Every consolidation of ISPs results in their creating a patchwork of non-competition. The isps are actually more in coordination on availability with each other than they are with you.
Allow locals to do community broadband and design the networks needed.
What does that have to do with NN?
No more federal NN monopoly rules to hold back community broadband in a city, state.
NN does not restrict community broadband efforts. It restricts what the big players can do with traffic. And that just might include what the big players do with traffic that passes through, oh say, community broadband efforts.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
Is rule saying the last mile is a public right.
Yes, Obama technically appointed Pai, but he didn't pick him.
In November 2011, Obama appointed Jessica Rosenworcel for the Democratic seat and Ajit Pai to the Republican seat. Ajit Pai was picked by Mitch McConnell who was minority leader at the time. Only 3 FCC commissioners may belong to the same political party.
I don't really understand how much say the president has over the seats belonging to the other party. In practice, I believe the senate leader of the other party picks them, but I don't think that is a requirement by law. However, even if it isn't the law and the other party is in the minority, you can only piss them off so much without grinding things to a standstill (Trump hasn't figured this out).
This message is encrypted with Quad ROT-13 to protect the author's copyright under the DMCA.
You would discover if you explored history, that the people who advocating shooting for ideological reasons have generally been the brownshirts.
Odd that it took the threat of competition to get better service.
Meanwhile Spectrum just increased my cost by $10/ month with no benefit and in the evenings the bandwidth is shit. My only other choice is frontier dsl.
"Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
Essentially its local Governments granting monopolies to companies in exchange for money and promises. This isn't an issue that can be solved at the Federal level, since it does not cross State lines. This is a local Government issue, with the Government having too much control.
I have a choice of exactly ONE broadband provider - Spectrum (cable). It is good and affordable (400 Mbps down, ~35 Mbps up, 3 TVs, wife has ~200 cable channels, for about $160 per month) but my other alternative is Windstream ADSL at 1.5 Mbps symmetric. That's it, unless I want poor satellite coverage (Frontier is around, but it's a patchwork and they do not service my area). And it's because the local Governments (Ventura County, Oxnard, Ventura, Port Hueneme, Camarillo) granted monopolies to the providers.
It's not so much a free market when the Government picks who can even participate in that free market, and then restricts your options to essentially one. It's more of a fascist thing - Government deciding for you what's best, then enforcing its will via regulation and the power of law to shape the market.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
This is an engineering problem at it's core. Right now, you have cable and DSL. Both are physical infrastructures and both need to secure rights of way. Until you remove that physical limitation, you're not going to get a bunch of ISPs willing to pony up the cash to not just buy and install all the equipment but to pay fees for the rights of way.
The solution is long range mesh wireless. Note that wifi exploded onto the market because it operated in the unlicensed (translation: unregulated or free of charge) frequency ranges.
I have......one option for wireline broadband where I live...Comcast and Verizon. I have to get Verizon because they are the only ones willing to run lines back to my house. Comcast says my house is "too far from the road" and outright refuses to connect me unless *I* foot the bill for it.
According to his video, you can still be a good little consumer.
L'Idiot
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”
Its more complicated than that. The UK also has the advantage of having a high population density in a small constrained area.
zosxavius photography