Slashdot Mirror


FCC Sides With Google Fiber Over Comcast With New Pro-Competition Rule (arstechnica.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: The Federal Communications Commission today approved new rules that could let Google Fiber and other new [ISPs] gain faster access to utility poles. The FCC's One Touch Make Ready (OTMR) rules will let companies attach wires to utility poles without waiting for the other users of the pole to move their own wires. Google Fiber says its deployment has stalled in multiple cities because Comcast and AT&T take a long time to get poles ready for new attachers. One Touch Make Ready rules let new attachers make all of the necessary wire adjustments themselves. Comcast urged the FCC to "reject 'one-touch make-ready' proposals, which inure solely to the benefit of new entrants while unnecessarily risking harm to existing attachers and their customers." FCC Chairman Ajit Pai rejected this argument, saying that startups are unnecessarily delayed when they have to wait for incumbent ISPs before hanging wires. Here's what Pai had to say: "For a competitive entrant, especially a small company, breaking into the market can be hard, if not impossible, if your business plan relies on other entities to make room for you on those poles. Today, a broadband provider that wants to attach fiber or other equipment to a pole first must wait for, and pay for, each existing attacher to sequentially move existing equipment and wires. This can take months, and the bill for multiple truck rolls adds up. For companies of any size, pole-attachment problems represent one of the biggest barriers to broadband deployment."

134 comments

  1. Good for the FCC by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 3, Insightful

    For once anyways.

    --
    Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    1. Re:Good for the FCC by Anubis+IV · · Score: 2

      My thoughts exactly. I don't know how it happened, but I'm glad it did, because this is the right decision.

    2. Re:Good for the FCC by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    3. Re:Good for the FCC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      he was promised a pole up his ass by google.

    4. Re:Good for the FCC by zlives · · Score: 1

      google is/will be a major ISP.

    5. Re:Good for the FCC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait, wait, wait...I thought it was determined by Slashdotters who hate Trump & Pai during the NN kerfluffle that Ajit Pai and the FCC were in the pockets of the major ISPs!?!?

      This is unpossible!

      Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

      But everyone on the Left said it was not a "stopped clock" situation, that rolling back Title-II NN was not based on principles, they loudly proclaimed it was corruption...that Ajit Pai and Trump had 'sold out' to the ISPs. Is it still the Left's stance that Pai rolling back Title-II NN was because of corruption?

      Could the Left have been...*gasp!*...wrong??

      Could it be that the Left doesn't actually give a shit, that they just want to use anything and say anything at all they can to damage Trump & Pai while they try to grab more power, irregardless of the facts or if it harms their constituents? You know, like when they championed the KKK, slavery, and racial segregation? Could it be the Party of Jim Crow simply sticking to the traditional methods they're used to?

    6. Re:Good for the FCC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We'll see. As new entrants just start stringing cable, I predict the cables on poles will become even more of a disorganized shit show than they already are. Then when storms hit and we get outages, the finger pointing will start, delaying repairs.

      The law of unintended consequences will strike again.

    7. Re:Good for the FCC by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Is it still the Left's stance that Pai rolling back Title-II NN was because of corruption?

      Corruption or merely tending to favor the same positions that you held while working in the industry, which are skewed by the types of companies you worked for. Either way.

      Could the Left have been...*gasp!*...wrong??

      Unlikely. As someone else pointed out elsewhere in the thread, the very telecom company that Pai used to work for, Verizon, will benefit greatly from this decision during their 5G rollout, because it will require adding orders of magnitude more cells in densely populated areas, which must be fed with fiber, and Verizon isn't the primary wire-line provider in much of its coverage area.

      They didn't want the rules when it benefitted Google over them. They do want the rules when it benefits them over somebody else. Simple enough.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    8. Re: Good for the FCC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the cables are in such a poor state that they can't be moved without breaking, then Comcast and the rest should spend some of their billions on fixing their crappy infrastructure instead of giving it to executives and shareholders.

    9. Re:Good for the FCC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's because Verizon favors it.

    10. Re: Good for the FCC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You lost me at irregardless

    11. Re:Good for the FCC by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

      I use Military Time, you Insensitive Clod!

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    12. Re:Good for the FCC by Dread_ed · · Score: 0

      If it was the people vs a corporation we know what way it would have gone. Fortunately it was two companies with lobbyists vs one company with lobbyists, and the FCC came down firmly on the side of nepotism, greed, and graft, as usual. Only this time it was congruent with increased choice and market diversity, oddly enough.

      All the American people need to do to get favorable decisions is to find a way to appeal to the shameless self interest of our government. It is their better nature.

      --
      When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
    13. Re: Good for the FCC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed. Doesn't make up for net neutrality, but it is a pleasent surprise.

    14. Re:Good for the FCC by guruevi · · Score: 1

      But... Pai was evil incarnate... net neutrality *twitch* Trump *twitch* Comcast kicked out of NY... WHAT'S HAPPENING!!

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    15. Re: Good for the FCC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe they will entice competition, then net neutrality becomes moot.

    16. Re:Good for the FCC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except google is as bad as comcast. Google in my area just wants to hang fiber on poles where it is cheap and easy. No trench. So to me, the deal should be, sure you can hang fiber on poles IFFF you trench in areas with underground. And you have to do them simultaneously. For every house you pickup on a pole, you have to pick up a house underground with fiber. Fail to do that, and we charge you 100K per house in deficit.

    17. Re: Good for the FCC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No.

    18. Re:Good for the FCC by pots · · Score: 1

      Credit is not due, this is his current excuse for killing network neutrality - that net neutrality isn't necessary in a competitive marketplace, and that competition will somehow materialize if only they regulate this one little thing. It's a stalling tactic. It'll be years before the ISPs' politicians are willing to admit that this doesn't work, and then maybe they'll come up with some other stupid little thing to blame instead of actually addressing the problem.

    19. Re:Good for the FCC by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

      Yeah, but that's correct through inaction. This was surprisingly correct and due to unexpected action taken.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    20. Re:Good for the FCC by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      You're mistaking NN as a Left v. Right issue. It's not, and I'm saying so from the right.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    21. Re: Good for the FCC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is entirely possible to have fierce competition and yet all of the competitors violate net neutrality, or offer neutral service only at absurd prices.

    22. Re:Good for the FCC by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

      Yeah, but that's correct through inaction. This was surprisingly correct and due to unexpected action taken.

      I think the correct phrase should have been "broken clock". The broken FCC was shockingly correct in this one decision. I'm suspicious as to why, as this is so uncharacteristic of Pai's FCC. The answer likely lies in whose pockets stand to gain lots of cash. Pai is assumed to be in front, of course.

      This one activist action by Pai also displays the Pai's hypocrisy. You can't claim overreaching activism from the previous FCC when you engage in it yourself.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
  2. I....agree with Ajit Pai? by imgod2u · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I feel dirty. Good for him though; I guess they're really trying to make good on that whole expand competition thing.

    1. Re:I....agree with Ajit Pai? by dgatwood · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Of course, Google Fiber basically stopped expanding more than a year ago. It may be that Pai's FCC stopped resisting this change only because his major-telecom overlords concluded that the threat has passed.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    2. Re:I....agree with Ajit Pai? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well. Now Google and every other small ISP has to fight every state and local government to even serve those areas. The duopolies have already pre-preemptive this in most states

  3. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  4. For all those who were hopeless... by TimMD909 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... About now is a good time to realize that world isn't fucked up beyond recognition. We take steps forward and back all the time. Let's celebrate that the FCC took a huge step forward. They've done enough back steps recently...

    1. Re:For all those who were hopeless... by fafalone · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you read the article you'd see Verizon supported this. So calm down, Ajit Pai and the FCC are still wholly owned subsidiaries of big telecom, it's just this time his owner supported a good policy.

    2. Re:For all those who were hopeless... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Correct. Verizon has been running into the same problem's Google did. Verizon is trying to install mini-cell towers called nodes on telephone poles in areas where reception is poor as a way to fill in the holes in coverage from the main towers. It's a really great idea actually.

  5. Someone wants their own $20,000 jacket by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Paid for by Comcast and AT&T.

    And maybe some hookers, etc, too.

  6. Solution to Net Neutrality by js290 · · Score: 1, Troll

    The solution to net neutrality is more ISP competition.

    --
    "Tempers are wearing thin. Let's just hope some robot doesn't kill everybody." --Bender
    1. Re:Solution to Net Neutrality by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1, Troll

      Yeah, sure. You're an antelope and you're in a room full of lions, and tigers, and cheetahs, who are arguing over who gets to eat you. Do you really think they're going to unanimously agree to not eat you? At worst, they kill each other off until one is left, who then proceeds to eat you. At best, they agree to split the kill; then they all eat you, they just get a little less. In the latter scenario, they further agree to split all future antelope. Welcome to CAPITALISM.

    2. Re:Solution to Net Neutrality by suutar · · Score: 2

      except that they don't want to eat you (a one-time benefit) they want to milk you month after month, so the analogy breaks down pretty quickly.

      Let's try a car analogy. You gotta buy gas, but you get to choose which station to use of the ones near by. The more stations are in the area, the more they have to avoid pissing you off to get your business.

    3. Re:Solution to Net Neutrality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I bet capitalism pays your salary..... Or does the company you work for do things for free, and thus you work for free as well?

    4. Re:Solution to Net Neutrality by js290 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yeah, sure. You're an antelope and you're in a room full of lions, and tigers, and cheetahs, who are arguing over who gets to eat you. Do you really think they're going to unanimously agree to not eat you? At worst, they kill each other off until one is left, who then proceeds to eat you. At best, they agree to split the kill; then they all eat you, they just get a little less. In the latter scenario, they further agree to split all future antelope. Welcome to CAPITALISM.

      I think you just described democracy:

      “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!” Benjamin Franklin

      --
      "Tempers are wearing thin. Let's just hope some robot doesn't kill everybody." --Bender
    5. Re:Solution to Net Neutrality by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Car analogy
      No, that's Old and Busted. Let's try a vampire analogy instead:
      You're in a room full of vampires, and they're goddamned thirsty. They could fight each other over who gets to drain you. Or they could decide to tie you up, put a feeding tube down your throat, and install a valve on a handy vein, so the can drain you regularly. Which do you think they're going to do? Oh and don't forget that thye're not giving you a choice in any of this.

    6. Re:Solution to Net Neutrality by mi · · Score: 1, Interesting

      In you analogy, the victim dies pretty quickly and the feeding stops completely. Thus, the analogy is bullshit, like everything else you've posted. Remember to logout.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    7. Re:Solution to Net Neutrality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Y U SO MAD THO??? xD xD xD

    8. Re:Solution to Net Neutrality by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      Missing the point!
      ..because Google is just so much more trustworthy than Comcast, or AT&T, or anyone else. Same greedy bastards, different company. They just want their share of the five liters in your veins and they won't be any nicer about it than anyone else, and oh by the way if Ajit Pai is involved in this then the whole deal is automatically suspect based on his history. Also fuck you.

    9. Re:Solution to Net Neutrality by arbiter1 · · Score: 1

      If you have choice of 3-4 ISP's, you don't need net neutrality law as the isp's will keep each other in check.

    10. Re:Solution to Net Neutrality by mi · · Score: 1

      Also fuck you.

      Now here is your real problem...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    11. Re:Solution to Net Neutrality by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 2

      No, capitalism is you have the freedom to simply say "no" and walk out of the room full of predators.

      Or you can negotiate with each predator one at a time to determine who wish to sit with (and define what their limits are as well).

      Fascism (or a dictatorship) is when the Government locks the door and FORCES YOU to make a choice of which predator will eat you, because it's in the best interest of the common good (meaning - the folks who locked the doors and the predators).

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    12. Re:Solution to Net Neutrality by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

      so you're saying hes right?

    13. Re:Solution to Net Neutrality by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

      "don't believe every quote you read on the internet because its attributed to a famous person" - President Barack Obama

    14. Re:Solution to Net Neutrality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck off

  7. Disaster waiting to happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Do you honestly think Google or whoever else is going to do a decent job relocating the existing wires on the poles? They'll likely be ripping them off brute force and hammering them back on with bent nails. What a clusterfuck this is going to become. I don't know why they would be allowed to touch anything up there that is not theirs. They should be building underground anyway. Everything should be moving off the poles.

    1. Re:Disaster waiting to happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They should be held liable for any damage or service interruption they cause. In many places, it's the same contractors that do the work for all the utilities. It's just who pays them that differs. As for underground, not all areas are well suited for underground.

    2. Re:Disaster waiting to happen by Mike+Van+Pelt · · Score: 2

      And the representative from Comcast appears...

    3. Re:Disaster waiting to happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess Slashdot should be flattered to have been included among the targets for this FUD astroturf campaign.

    4. Re:Disaster waiting to happen by arbiter1 · · Score: 1

      Well I think its fair to allow them to move lines if the incumbent decides to drag their feet on purpose.

    5. Re:Disaster waiting to happen by sjames · · Score: 1

      Probably because the incumbents have been treating a public right-of-way that they have been graciously permitted to use as if it was their own private property. If you leave your bike in the common hallway, eventually someone will move it out back against the wall.

  8. Okay... by GerryGilmore · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...just where is the real Ajit Pai and what have you done with him?

  9. Dammit, Pai by phalse+phace · · Score: 3, Funny

    What are you doing? First you vote against the Sinclair-Tribune merger and now you side with Google.

    Stop trying to make me like you.

  10. How much did Google pay Ajit Pai? by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 4, Funny

    Zebras don't change their stripes. Ajit Pai is an asshole, clearly and objectively, therefore Google must have bribed him in some way to get this 'ruling'. The question remains: how much?

    1. Re:How much did Google pay Ajit Pai? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bribed?
      I think they just told him his search history and those few .. um .. sensitive ... um .. photos in that email that .. um .. he deleted .. um ... a few years ago will be made public.
      Google does not need to bribe anyone. They can ... um ... motivate ... um ... you in other ways.

    2. Re:How much did Google pay Ajit Pai? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not a bribe! That's illegal! A substantial donation was made to the Republican party (this time) to help Pai reconsider utility pole access law interpretation.

    3. Re:How much did Google pay Ajit Pai? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure he is an asshole, most people in government are. But it could very well be that his philosophy about how the FCC should operate might actually not be as simple as "telcos paid him off". There are other reasons to dislike net neutrality if you are willing to not strawman people. He could legitimately be pro market competition and deregulation and these are the first examples after net neutrality repeal we've seen of it. Could be, I could also be wrong and he is bought and paid for but I find it hard to believe that he would rule against Comcast if he were. He likely just has a very different ideology than people were expecting.

    4. Re:How much did Google pay Ajit Pai? by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 1

      The question remains: how much?

      Well, he'll need a job after his time on the FCC board is done and I'd guess Google can always use someone good in telecom lobbying...

      --
      That is all.
    5. Re:How much did Google pay Ajit Pai? by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Zebras don't change their stripes. Ajit Pai is an asshole, clearly and objectively, therefore someone must have stopped bribing him in some way to get this 'ruling'. The question remains: who?

      FTFY

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    6. Re:How much did Google pay Ajit Pai? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Guess he hid the 'CP' too well, eh? xD

    7. Re:How much did Google pay Ajit Pai? by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      *Thoughful look*
      Hmmm........

    8. Re:How much did Google pay Ajit Pai? by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      *DING DING DING DING DING* Winner winner chicken dinner!

    9. Re: How much did Google pay Ajit Pai? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You could try Googling it!

  11. AT&T SUX by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    they wont bury the fiber across my yard FOR SIX MONTHS NOW.

    my dog and my tegu keeps trying to EAT IT.

  12. See how it goes... by InvalidsYnc · · Score: 0

    While I applaud that the little guys, or anyone for that matter, don't have to wait for the existing tenants on the pole to do something, there is a fairly large risk to have someone move someone else's equipment and/or wires. Sure, maybe 99% of the work that the new guy does is AOK, and no issue, but what about that 1%? People are trained specifically I would guess to work on/in the environment for their company and its particular resources. If someone comes along, that doesn't have the same training, or cuts corners, and messes something up, who gets to pay for that? If "New Guy Cable" comes along and dorks with the pole outside my house because he's hanging some new wire and causes me an internet outage, I'm going to call my cable company. They'll have to send out a truck, check it out, incur all of the costs to get things going again. What if the dingaling for New Guy Cable causes an outage for my whole neighborhood? What then?

    Anyway, all for easing restrictions and making it easier for competition to get things done, but the risk averse side of me cringes.

    Time will tell.

    1. Re:See how it goes... by suutar · · Score: 1

      Then the dingaling for New Guy Cable is gonna get sued, and almost certainly lose, and New Guy Cable is going to pay (unless the dingaling was really stupid with his contract) and fire the dingaling, thus eliminating one incompetent contractor.

    2. Re:See how it goes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe they can bill them for the breakage.

    3. Re:See how it goes... by mysidia · · Score: 2

      What if the dingaling for New Guy Cable causes an outage for my whole neighborhood

      How about holding the new Guy responsible to repair or pay for repairing the damage when they do that ?

      In most cases the people running lines for New Guy Cable will have former employees of the Incumbent cable provider, or may even be the same contractors that the incumbent provider uses; so the only question then is about shady contractors who screw something up ----- which can happen even if they don't use the poles and decide on directional drilling instead -- This is why permitting is required, and if the contractor starts causing too much disruption, the municipality can order them to pause or suspend their activities for a time, until what's going wrong can be investigated.

      By the way, I believe if the incumbents are THAT concerned, they have the opportunity to do the work themselves, if they don't delay ---- the problem is those arseholes use delaying tactics to try and stop new competition coming in.

    4. Re:See how it goes... by Tailhook · · Score: 5, Informative

      there is a fairly large risk to have someone move someone else's equipment and/or wires .... doesn't have the same training, or cuts corners, and messes something up

      Either you haven't investigated this or you're spreading FUD. The OTMR rules require the utility pole owners to designate qualified contractors to do the work. Only these contractors are eligible to move or add anything. The poles won't be swarmed by unaccountable bozos wrecking everything.

      With change comes risk. Try not to be a sackless coward, prattling on about the parade of horribles inside your head. They're just wires on poles. We can cope with them as we have for 150+ years now. The only actual problem with any of this is that it's at least twenty years overdue.

      --
      Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
    5. Re:See how it goes... by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      What if the dingaling for New Guy Cable causes an outage for my whole neighborhood

      How about holding the new Guy responsible to repair or pay for repairing the damage when they do that ?

      So New Guy Cable installer causes an outage. This forces Incumbent to spend money fixing it, maybe lost revenue when pay-per-view users cannot view what they want to pay for. Then Incumbent has to not only prove that New Cable installer moved their stuff, but that he broke it when he did. It goes to court, it takes years to resolve. In the meantime, New Cable goes bankrupt because they didn't get enough subs and they have to pay a bunch of lawyers to defend them.

      You WANT to create a system where the only people who win are the lawyers, and everyone else loses?

      By the way, I believe if the incumbents are THAT concerned, they have the opportunity to do the work themselves, if they don't delay

      It could be extremely costly for an incumbent to have to hire a contractor on short notice, and a lot of such infrastructure work is done by contractors.

      Let's put it in a standard analogy form. Would you be happy if someone wanted to park in the space your car is located and he could just move your car out of the way on his own? Or closer to the actual circumstances -- you parked too close to the line in your space, and instead of waiting for you to move your car someone else could hire a tow truck to move you?

    6. Re:See how it goes... by InvalidsYnc · · Score: 1

      Gee, thanks for your completely reasonable response. hahahahaha. You could have made the same point without being a total ass.

      Have a great weekend!

    7. Re:See how it goes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its also important to not that the owner of the existing equipment on the poll has 60 or 90 days to move it themselves if they want, AFTER WHICH the new guy can send in contractors and do it themselves.

      All OTMR does is prevents existing companies from stalling forever to prevent competition from moving in by making it so they have a period to react that is reasonable for both parties.

    8. Re:See how it goes... by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

      You think the incumbents don't have standing contracts with the contractors that do the work? Do you think they don't have "on call" technicians? Do you think they have no outage emergency plans? Because they do. They have all of those. And some like COX even has their OWN installers and techs, they ALSO have standing contracts with multiple companies. Same with Century Link.

    9. Re:See how it goes... by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      You think the incumbents don't have standing contracts with the contractors that do the work?

      I didn't say that.

      Do you think they don't have "on call" technicians?

      I didn't say that, either.

      Do you think they have no outage emergency plans? Because they do.

      I didn't say they don't. Sheesh, three for three. What's next?

      Now, what you don't seem to understand is that those "emergency outage" protocols COST MONEY and TAKE TIME. I spoke about money and time.

      And some like COX even has their OWN installers and techs,

      "They may have. Probably do. They have daily operations staff. Fixing a broken main feed is not an "installer and tech" job.

      Do you have something to argue with me about something I actually said?

    10. Re:See how it goes... by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

      "They may have. Probably do. They have daily operations staff. Fixing a broken main feed is not an "installer and tech" job.

      Its a damn coaxial cable. i know children that can fix them.. and as far as fiber goes, you would be surprised how easy that is now a days and who you can teach to do it. as for my original comment, i was being snide about the fact that you seemed to think that they dont have any emergency procedures in place, i can be an asshole sometimes even when i dont try.

  13. No favorites here by RonVNX · · Score: 1

    In Comcast vs. Google the GOP has no predetermined outcome. Both companies are not considered friendly to their interests.

    1. Re:No favorites here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Or it just fits a philosophy of less regulations and promoting an environment where market forces determine outcome.

    2. Re:No favorites here by sycodon · · Score: 1

      Competition is in everyone's interest

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    3. Re:No favorites here by zlives · · Score: 2

      you mean like net neutrality?

    4. Re:No favorites here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly

    5. Re:No favorites here by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Net Neutrality as mandated by the GOVERNMENT isn't "competition" of the free market. Quit pretending it is.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    6. Re:No favorites here by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Considering most of those poles sit on right of ways, I don't think there should be any question. Existing cable and telco companies have gained enormous advantage for decades of what is essentially a subsidy, so frankly, I think the question should be posed "If you want that much control, we're going to start renting those right of ways, at say, $1000 per foot per year adjusted annually for inflation, and then you can dictate who gets on those poles, otherwise, don't ever waste our time again."

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    7. Re:No favorites here by aisaac · · Score: 1

      Stop pretending that the government cannot promote competition via regulation. It can; it just did. With net neutrality it did not. Net neutrality need not limit competition, but it does forbid certain abuses of monopoly position. (And many people have few choices of ISP.) Even the anti-net-neutrality crowd acknowledged this; they just claimed anti-trust law offered an effective remedy. This was quite wrong, as many economists explained.

    8. Re:No favorites here by mi · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I think the question should be posed

      The people in a position to pose the question are local bureaucrats. They have long-running "relationship" with the cable monopolies and would never do, what you wish them too. Earlier laws and regulations have kept them in power to do that, while ya'll rioted for nationalizing Internet service-providers.

      Good to see Trump Administration addressing this problem too.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    9. Re:No favorites here by sjames · · Score: 1

      Can you kindly point out why net neutrality and "pole neutrality" are somehow of a different nature?

    10. Re:No favorites here by arbiter1 · · Score: 1

      Both Comcast and Google are very Pro-democrat supporting company. So Even with Google being pro-democrat, GOP seems more friendly to them.

    11. Re:No favorites here by arbiter1 · · Score: 0

      Net neutrality also let a few companies off the hook like google and facebook. They were exempt from it so they could do what they wanted including all the censoring that happened. Most people didn't notice the censoring was happening even under so called net neutrality cause they could.

    12. Re: No favorites here by ravenshrike · · Score: 1

      Besides the obvious fact that the utility poles are public property?

    13. Re:No favorites here by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Net Neutrality as mandated by the GOVERNMENT isn't "competition" of the free market.

      In the absence of [meaningful] competition among ISPs, it certainly is. It remains to be seen if this latest move actually fosters significant competition.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    14. Re: No favorites here by sjames · · Score: 1

      And so every last bit that travels through the net is traveling through cables that are graciously allowed to traverse public property.

    15. Re: No favorites here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you decide who should win or lose a case based on political sides, you have of sense of justice.

      In this case, the principles of fair competition decided who won.

    16. Re:No favorites here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What specifically are the GOP interests? And how did you determine them?

    17. Re: No favorites here by zlives · · Score: 1

      yes but, Obama.

    18. Re:No favorites here by BankRobberMBA · · Score: 2

      You are conflating the monopoly-style abuses of individual companies managing their sites with the arbitrage abuses of ISPs.

      The first are (at least somewhat) addressable via market mechanisms, as consumers can redirect their traffic to other sites more in line with their views.

      The second are not addressable via market mechanisms because the arbitrage happens out of the sight of the consumers. This means that the ISPs get to choose winners among content providers. This is why Netflix sued Comcast. Net neutrality regulation is designed to prevent this second kind of abuse.

      Mixing these two problems up just impedes the conversation.

    19. Re:No favorites here by dog77 · · Score: 1

      Maybe you can explain why you think they are of the same nature.

      Net neutrality is the government putting rules on how an Internet provider must operate (more restrictions). Pole neutrality is the government allowing Internet providers easier access to a public resource (less restrictions).

      However, maybe you are thinking that the Internet is like the pole in that it is a public resource and net neutrality allows less restricted access to this public resource. The problem with this line of thinking is that the Internet is not a public resource, but run by many organizations both public and private. So with net neutrality you are making things less restrictive for the user, but more restrictive for the provider. With pole neutrality you are only making things less restrictive for the provider, but you are not restricting anyone.

    20. Re:No favorites here by sjames · · Score: 1

      Pole neutrality is restricting the incumbant's on the pole by not allowing them to block the newcomer. Net neutrality is restricting the ISPs from blocking 3rd parties in support of their own services.

      The internet is a DARPA project that made good and the ISPs are using that as well as access to the public domain ( through right-of-way). If not for those two things, there would BE no ISPs.

      The only reason non-neutrality can work out for an ISP is the sweetheart deals they got from government that allowed them to dominate whole regions of the country. Pole neutrality says Comcast has to get out of the way for Google. Net neutrality says Time-Warner has to get out of the way for Netflix.

      If you don't like net neutrality, you are effectively fine with Ford producing cars where only a Chevron station's nozzle can fill the tank, even if, through special deals, there isn't a non-ford dealership to be found within 500 miles of you.

    21. Re: No favorites here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This was deregulating the utility poles. Very Trump.

      So the government just increased competition through deregulation.

      Tell that to your lefty friends.

    22. Re: No favorites here by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      In the vast majority of the US, the utility poles are owned by a private electric company.

    23. Re: No favorites here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The utility pole on my land is not public property. It is mine with a government forced exclusion of my rights to allow corporations to profit at my expense.

    24. Re: No favorites here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If ISP had equal access to poles (they do not) then we would not need net neutrality. I could in that fantasy world choose a better provider.

      Net neutrality is a broken band aid for the monopoly pole system now in place. Fix the root cause and we get better prices and service through competition and choice. Net neutrality is socialism, a known failed system.

    25. Re:No favorites here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you start off strong with truth and reason, then you go total straw man. this is why nobody takes you seriously.

    26. Re: No favorites here by Wycliffe · · Score: 2

      Google and facebook can't violate net neutrality because they are not ISPs. No one is letting them off the hook. Net neutrality is about having free and open access to the internet pipe. It says that an ISP can't give preferential treatment to Netflix or penalize bittorrent. It's a work in progress as plenty of ISPs violate it with zero rating and other nonsense but facebook and google aren't the offenders

    27. Re: No favorites here by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Net neutrality is socialism, a known failed system.

      All government which does things for the people is socialism. The only question is how much socialism you've got in your government.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    28. Re: No favorites here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Didn't you know there was an easement on the property you were buying? Sounds like you didn't do your due diligence when you signed the papers.

    29. Re: No favorites here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes - very much this.

    30. Re:No favorites here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Forcing ISPs to allow competitors to use their infrastructure, while a arguably a very good call, is actually a case of more regulation rather than less.

    31. Re: No favorites here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the poles are in *public* ground. Without taxpayers, there would be no Internet and cable. Period.

    32. Re:No favorites here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The poles in question are shared infrastructure, not the property of the ISPs. Incumbents are demanding that only they be allowed to move their wires on the shared poles, ostensibly to avoid network reliability issues. That would be fine, except that the incumbents are abusing that right, as a tactic to stall competitor's deployments.

    33. Re: No favorites here by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      And the poles are in *public* ground. Without taxpayers, there would be no Internet and cable. Period.

      Which doesn't change that the poles are not public property. They're private property.

      Also, the vast majority of the time it isn't "public" ground. Utilities are usually run through an easement on private property. You buy your house, and the deed will say "the government can allow utilities to run though this strip without asking you". That strip is usually on the edge of the property. And it's existence is part of why there are building setbacks on single-family houses. But legally, it's your land.

  14. Small towns need this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Net neutrality is just a catchy phrase. It meant little when it was in place, and won't do anything if brought back. We need to erase the franchise agreements with cities and allow other ISP providers a way in to a service area to compete.

  15. Wait - Ajit Pai is not the devil's spawn?? by eclectro · · Score: 1

    Maybe he might be wrong about one thing, but not other things? How is this possible???

    --
    Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
  16. In case you're wondering why Pai would do this.. by SeanTobin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Don't worry - Pai isn't suddenly getting a conscience. Remember that Pai is basically beholden to Verizon (where he will end up at after his "public service"). Verizon is not a wireline provider (like AT&T, Comcast, Cox etc...) When 5g starts to roll out, one of the key battles is going to be over telephone poles. There are going to be tens of thousands of mini-cells mounted on poles to support this rollout - and if you don't own the poles (like Verizon), you're going to be at a disadvantage compared to the companies who do (like AT&T)

    This vote isn't pro-internet or pro-freedom or anti-monopoly - it's entirely about ensuring that Verizon isn't at a competitive disadvantage in rolling out their 5g network.

    --
    Karma: SELECT `karma` FROM `users` WHERE `userid`=138474;
  17. Cities should own the poles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    There is absolutely no reason why telecom companies should own poles within cities/states/country limits. These should be owned and maintained by the city, in order to let any who wish to make use of the poles, actually use them without having to pay extra fees to a company that would be their main competitor.

    1. Re:Cities should own the poles by PPH · · Score: 1

      Poles are usually installed* by the power company (when power is one of the utilities sharing the poles). Power goes above all other utilities and is usually put up first. Then everyone builds down from there.

      *Ownership of the pole is often transferred to a privately owned real estate holding company and then leased back to investor-owned utilities. This is to circumvent regulations on utility ROI limits in some states.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    2. Re:Cities should own the poles by that+this+is+not+und · · Score: 1

      Out here, the power comes in on one row of poles, and the cable, telecom, etc. all comes along on a separate row of poles. I'm not in a congested city, though.

  18. What the... by cmdr_klarg · · Score: 1

    Why am I in hell, and why is it so damned cold?

    --
    THE SOFTWARE, IT NO WORKY!!!
  19. Re:In case you're wondering why Pai would do this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    not true i have verizon fios

  20. Sounds about right :( by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It isn't like Comcast does do this already when convenient. The power pole here was just replaced. The power company came and put up a new pole and moved their wires. 3rd party came out and moved the rest and even cleaned up the mess from USWEST/Qwest/CenturyLink over the decades. I believe the same crew then took down the old pole and patched the hole even. It is not like Comcast feels the need to do it themselves then.

    So this would just be Google hiring the 3rd party crew instead of power company. Seems reasonable enough.

  21. Re:In case you're wondering why Pai would do this. by hondo77 · · Score: 4, Informative

    ...and if you don't own the poles (like Verizon)...

    Verizon, the telephone company, does not own telephone poles? That seems...wrong.

    To be fair, they own a lot less than they used to.

    --
    I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
  22. Won't be useful by LocalH · · Score: 2
    --
    FC Closer
  23. Re:In case you're wondering why Pai would do this. by arbiter1 · · Score: 2

    Pretty sure Verizon is focused on doing wireless service now and any physical lines they would love to just do away with.

  24. What they deserve by manu0601 · · Score: 1

    While it makes sense to reduce the amount of people touching the infrastructure, the telecom companies seem to have considered delay as an entry barrier. This decision is what they deserve.

  25. MAGA one pole at a time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Gonna need this or 5G will never ever happen as a viable protocol.

  26. Re:In case you're wondering why Pai would do this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're predicting Pai's next job? Really?

    Having said that at the very beginning of you note, I suppose the rest of your comments have as much validity....

  27. Google Fiber? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I remember hearing early last year that they had indefinitely stopped all growth/expansion/new installs. I remember thinking at the time, "So typical of Google, come up with an awesome product that people actually want and then completely bail for no good reason."

    Have the incompetent fucks calling the shots over there finally been replaced with capable people again who are ready to get back to making American internet great (not again, but for the first time)???

  28. Enemy of my Enemy friend by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Koch vs Trump ?

  29. Re:In case you're wondering why Pai would do this. by guruevi · · Score: 1

    Low-frequency 5G (which Verizon and T-Mobile have heavily invested in the past for UHF spectrums) has much larger bandwidth and equal range to 3G and 4G. No way will Verizon set up hundreds of million mini-cells on telephone poles just because. Sure they purchased millimeter wave companies, but that is an entirely different market. 26GHz transmitters in cell phones are going to be bulky and prone to dropouts.

    --
    Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
  30. New future employee by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is just Ajit Pai keeping his post-government employment options open.

    Or he'll end up "consulting" for both....

  31. Re:In case you're wondering why Pai would do this. by jwymanm · · Score: 1

    Verizon is working with Spectrum to roll out using their fiber, poles, and outdoor wifi in all areas for the "5g" service.

  32. comcast = msnbc by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Comcast owns NBC. NBC owns MSNBC. MSNBC is a left-wing shill constantly attacking Trump and Republicans. Why would the Republicans want to help Comcast?

  33. Makes sense by GrahamJ · · Score: 1

    Pai's overlord Verizon needs this for 5G cell rollouts so this makes sense. I'm sure he'll find a way to prevent Google and newcomers from benefitting.