Slashdot Mirror


Comcast/Charter Lobby Asks FTC To Preempt State Broadband Regulations (arstechnica.com)

Lobby groups on behalf of Comcast and Charter are asking the FTC to preempt state and local broadband regulations. "In comments filed this week, cable industry lobby group NCTA told the FTC that 'there is plainly no reasonable basis in today's marketplace for singling out ISPs for unique regulatory burdens,'" reports Ars Technica. "The FTC should let 'market forces' prevent bad behavior and avoid specific net neutrality or privacy regulation for the broadband industry, the lobby group said." From the report: The comments were filed in an FTC proceeding titled "Competition and Consumer Protection in the 21st Century." The FTC is planning to hold hearings on the communications industry, the FTC's enforcement processes, and other competition and consumer protection topics. "The FTC should ensure that the Internet is subject to uniform, consistent federal regulations, including by issuing guidance explicitly setting forth that inconsistent state and local requirements are preempted," the NCTA wrote.

The FTC should endorse and reinforce the FCC's ruling by issuing guidance to state attorneys general and consumer protection authorities reaffirming that they are bound by FCC and FTC precedent in this arena," NCTA argued. NCTA's filing focused mostly on potential privacy regulation, saying that the FCC should continue its "technology-neutral approach to privacy and data security." Net neutrality concerns are best addressed by existing antitrust laws, the filing said.

17 of 80 comments (clear)

  1. Whine Whine .. by jwhyche · · Score: 5, Insightful

    But But we paid all that money to get our way with the federal.

    Whine ... Whine ... Whine....

    Please don't let the states take away our cash cow. All these regulation we will now have to keep up with.. its not fair....*stomping feet*

    Whine ,,, Whine ... Whine..

    --
    I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
    1. Re:Whine Whine .. by msauve · · Score: 2

      Hey, as long as they're arguing for "market forces," let them eat their cake. If they don't want to be regulated like service neutral common carriers, local governments and private land owners can charge them up the wazoo for "right of way" access. And, they'll have to negotiate with probably hundreds of thousands of entities for that access.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    2. Re: Whine Whine .. by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I can't blame them. They have a sympathetic government regulator, so it is logical for them to try to get as much as they can while the kitchen is open. I don't blame them, I just want them to die in a fire.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    3. Re:Whine Whine .. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I like the way you're thinking. I think they should get a blanket exemption for any kind of government interference. Let the market force take care of people who want to murder them for bad service, of people who want to sell their infrastructure for scrape metal, of people who want to hold their techs for ransom.

    4. Re: Whine Whine .. by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      I can't blame them. They have a sympathetic government regulator, so it is logical for them to try to get as much as they can while the kitchen is open. I don't blame them, I just want them to die in a fire.

      They have a paid crony, so it is logical for them to steal as much as possible from The People while the door is unlocked. I do blame them, so I want them to die of ass cancer... in a fire.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  2. One can dream... by azuroff · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Dear NCTA,

    We agree with you 100% that market forces are the best way to prevent bad behavior. Accordingly, we will instruct each city and state that grants one of your member companies a cable franchise to open up those franchises to any company desiring to provide internet service. Once every household in the country has a minimum of 4 different ISPs to choose from, we can discuss the state-level regulations mentioned in your letter.

    Sincerely,
    The FTC

    1. Re: One can dream... by houghi · · Score: 2

      You kid, but in Belgium by law, three telecom cellphone networks operators are required.
      So when onebought another in a EU deal, they had to sell.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  3. Market forces by yorgasor · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yeah, but market forces only work when there's competition. They've all lobbied to prevent any real competition. I only have one choice when it comes to any real broadband. Satellite just doesn't count.

    --
    Looking for a computer support specialist for your small business? Check out
  4. I wish... by SirAstral · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I could convince all the pro NN folks to drop that pursuit and instead pursue taking the monopolies themselves away from the ISP's entirely. The poles, wires, and buried cable all become publicly funded just like roads and managed by contract bid out to whoever wants to run and maintain them so long as it is never one of the carriers, where the businesses now pay for the % of bandwidth their customers use with the price set by a commission, where anyone willing to start a new ISP can easily move into the marketspace and offer broadband to their neighbors without Comcast, Verizon, Cox, or whoever from blocking them in court or BS laws!

    AND also removing all local municipalities from being able to sign exclusive deals with ISP's entirely!

    Prices would drop like dying flies and every carrier would be advertising how they don't track you, keep your data private, and would never throttle your connection to netflix over comcast!

    1. Re:I wish... by MoralCharacter · · Score: 2

      Honestly breaking their monopolies is probably the key here. Net Neutrality is a solution to a symptom. In order for their 'market forces' excuse to work, they would need to either be broken up or barred from interfering/driving out startups. Seeing as no one has had the balls to hit them with an anti-trust suit. I think the best thing local governments could do is pass laws protecting startup/small ISPs - any time I hear about someone trying to start their own, it's always in a news article about how Comcast or whoever stomped them into the ground using lawyers, or by demolishing the little guys infrastructure to drive away their customers.

  5. States Rights!!!... by Daemonik · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...only matter to Republicans when the states are Republican controlled and don't fight the Republican agenda of giving to the rich and screwing everyone else, otherwise it's Federal Tyranny all the way!

  6. I wish I had mod points to mod this up! by nhtshot · · Score: 2

    You've absolutely hit the nail on the head. Get rid of the monopolies.. give them the same deregulation we gave to the telecom world with CLECs. Suddenly, prices will drop like hail from a thunderstorm.. just like long distance did in the 90s.

  7. It wouldn't do much good by rsilvergun · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Google manged to win the rights to the poles in several markets and didn't do anything with it. They couldn't make it profitable. The problem is the investment is too high. You can't compete. Comcast and cost pay somewhere between $9-$15/mo to get you internet and charge $70+ for it (based on SEC filings). That gives them a _lot_ of room to drop their pants and kill any competitor who enters the market, making competing way, way too risky.

    If you want things to improve you're going to need more regulation, not less. The current market is too far gone. To be honest it was always going to be. The problem with telecom is it's really expensive to build all that wire. That's why they were granted monopolies in the first place. Though if you ask me we should have just built a national public network like we did the the roads. As it stands we paid for it in the form of tax breaks and subsidies and just let a private company profit from it. Not very smart.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  8. Re:Net neutrality is a bad solution to big governm by Z00L00K · · Score: 2

    One way to at least ensure that customers aren't completely tied into one supplier is to use a layered approach so that the cabling is separated from the service provider which in turn is separated from the content provider.

    Right now the goal is to control the customers by making sure that cables, content and connection service is through one single provider and you as a customer have no choice.

    --
    If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
  9. Fuck you, Comcast. by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 2

    Fuck you sideways with a rusty chainsaw, Comcast. You're just waiting for your chance to screw everyone, aren't you?

    1. Re:Fuck you, Comcast. by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 2

      When there's more choices in my area other than Comcast (which kinda sucks) or AT&T U-verse (which really sucks) or 3rd-party companies that just piggyback on Comcast or AT&T (which means they'll suck, too) then I'll be thrilled to switch. Until then it's 'The Devil I Know'.

  10. The states should amend the constitution by shaitand · · Score: 2

    Per Article 5 of the Constitution, 34 states are required to convene a convention and 37 to pass the amendment. Yes, the internet and network neutrality is that important.

    But they could take the opportunity to fix a few other overreaches of federal power as well, reign in the commerce clause, clarify the right to bear arms, the right to privacy, force the federal government to shrink and limit strongarming states with strings attached funding by diverting income tax to the states, put limits on time in position for top brass military and congress, etc.