FCC Chief: Broadband Competition Doesn't Exist

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
At least Captain Obvious here acknowledges the lack of broadband competition in the U.S. and, from the sounds of it, might actually be trying to fix the problem.

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler says broadband competition is seriously lacking in the US, and he outlined on Thursday a set of policies designed to fix the problem. Specifically, he said the FCC will block mergers that reduce competition; implement regulation that supports a free and open Internet; encourage access for all providers to wireless spectrum in upcoming FCC auctions; preempt state laws that prohibit cities from offering their own broadband services to citizens; and redirect universal service funds to ensure that rural Americans get the same access to high-speed broadband as urban Americans do.
Click to expand...
 
No shit Sherlock, what needs to be done is more competition and options for people. Right now I have only 3 options for broadband and that's Comcast Cable, Verizon DSL, and Hughes Satellite.
 
.... says the person who spent his early career making sure that there is no competition.
 
Competition is limited to make it easier for the Feds to spy on you.
 
AthlonXP said:
No shit Sherlock, what needs to be done is more competition and options for people. Right now I have only 3 options for broadband and that's Comcast Cable, Verizon DSL, and Hughes Satellite.
Click to expand...

Ok speeds, shitty customer service (Comcast)
Shitty speeds (Verizon DSL)
and even shittier speeds (Hughes Satellite).

but telco's will say you've got 3 options so you're good to go! :rolleyes:
 
Best lip service so far from the government. Maybe one of the suggestions will make it through the bureaucracy.
 
And yet they're about to let Comcast and Time Warner merge....
Am I the only one getting a "This guy has millions of dollars shuffled off in a Swiss Bank account from the major cable providers" type feel?
 
I don't see anything there against barring non-compete agreements between telcos.
 
Is he going to make it cheaper to run a large broadband ISP?

Going to cut back on local fees? Wait periods? Public comment?

Going to cut how much cable costs, or wages of the laborers to install it? How much specialized equipment costs? How much it costs to buy or rent a backhoe? Conduit? Repeaters?

Oh, I know, he's going to free up way more spectrum and license it out at low costs! No?

So... how is more competition supposed to be fostered, exactly?
 
SRTie4k said:
I don't see anything there against barring non-compete agreements between telcos.
Click to expand...
Exactly. All I see are a bunch of buzzwords being used in a PR to make it look like the FCC is actually going to do something good for consumers for once. This whole administration has been nothing but talk since the start.
 
I agree with most already that this seems like lip service.

I personally am not against monopolies, as long as it's acknowledged that it is a monopoly, and treated accordingly by the government.

dagamer34 said:
Ok speeds, shitty customer service (Comcast)
Shitty speeds (Verizon DSL)
and even shittier speeds (Hughes Satellite).

but telco's will say you've got 3 options so you're good to go! :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

If you can get Comcast/Xfinity, you can get Comcast Business. Great speeds, great service, it's just expensive.
 
GotNoRice said:
If you can get Comcast/Xfinity, you can get Comcast Business. Great speeds, great service, it's just expensive.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't exactly say Comcast Business has "great service" -- but it is light years ahead of the customer/support service on the consumer side. I still dread calling them and they are still a pain, but just not as much of a pain as the Xfinity home support is.

That said, I still would pick either of them WAY over AT&T or any of the other companies we have locally. Charter might have slightly better customer service -- but they have noticeably worse performance on their service, so the pick still goes to Comcast.

Performance-wise, around here, Comcast is second to none (I'm at 105 down/25 up) and they just announced in the paper yesterday that they are bringing 10Gbps fiber to town and it will be available in Q1 2015 (for business primarily, and very $$$, but VERY nice regardless).

So, in terms of the "service" itself, I'd give Comcast a win. In terms of customer service, Business Class is better than consumer, but that is still sort of like comparing a case of the seasonal flu to H1N1. Unfortunately, most of the other providers support would be closer to Ebola!

I've said it before and I'll say it again -- if Comcast want's truth in advertising, their slogan should be "We Suck Less!".
 
AthlonXP said:
No shit Sherlock, what needs to be done is more competition and options for people. Right now I have only 3 options for broadband and that's Comcast Cable, Verizon DSL, and Hughes Satellite.
Click to expand...

You've got three? Luxury!

I've got cable and satellite and that is it unless you count the LTE wireless stuff at usurious prices. I can't even get DSL at anything resembling reasonable speeds.

On the upside, I have cablevision, which would seem to be the least worst.
 
SRTie4k said:
I don't see anything there against barring non-compete agreements between telcos.
Click to expand...

I agree they shouldn't allow these.

The problem is, in my area at least (and many), cable companies/phone companies/etc are basically regulated as utilities and have to petition the county to get access to the poles to hang the wiring. They also have to agree to provide service to an ENTIRE district in the county within a reasonable period of time -- so they can't just cherry pick the areas that purchase the most extended services and raise more money. In other words, they are effectively granted semi-monopoly service by the county government already -- i.e. generally we have one cable provider available and one phone provider available per region of the county. Things have gotten a bit weird since Comcast/Charter started providing phone service and since AT&T u-Verse started offering cable -- but you generally have choice of one or the other. There are a few regions where you also had Knology (now Wow!) as a choice, but they quit expanding their service area after the county caught them cherry picking profitable areas and blocked them in court.
 
mdburkey said:
I agree they shouldn't allow these.

The problem is, in my area at least (and many), cable companies/phone companies/etc are basically regulated as utilities and have to petition the county to get access to the poles to hang the wiring. They also have to agree to provide service to an ENTIRE district in the county within a reasonable period of time -- so they can't just cherry pick the areas that purchase the most extended services and raise more money. In other words, they are effectively granted semi-monopoly service by the county government already -- i.e. generally we have one cable provider available and one phone provider available per region of the county. Things have gotten a bit weird since Comcast/Charter started providing phone service and since AT&T u-Verse started offering cable -- but you generally have choice of one or the other. There are a few regions where you also had Knology (now Wow!) as a choice, but they quit expanding their service area after the county caught them cherry picking profitable areas and blocked them in court.
Click to expand...

Yeah, well, I can contract with no fewer than 3 companies for my electricity and they use the same lines. It is mandated by law that I am allowed this choice. Cable lines can be used by many companies simply by assigning certain frequency ranges to different companies. It wouldn't be hard to convert systems into doing this as they can already configure the frequencies and channels used. But it is of course going to be some work to make sure that the lines are brought into these alternate companies correctly. Like power lines these are still transmission lines and you have to worry about transients and stuff, but it is still possible.

It will take some work on the part of the government to allow this and to make it easier for companies to access these lines, but it's absolutely possible and required.

I won't say it's a trivial change, but it's not major, either.
 
dandragonrage said:
Yeah, well, I can contract with no fewer than 3 companies for my electricity and they use the same lines. It is mandated by law that I am allowed this choice. Cable lines can be used by many companies simply by assigning certain frequency ranges to different companies. It wouldn't be hard to convert systems into doing this as they can already configure the frequencies and channels used. But it is of course going to be some work to make sure that the lines are brought into these alternate companies correctly. Like power lines these are still transmission lines and you have to worry about transients and stuff, but it is still possible.

It will take some work on the part of the government to allow this and to make it easier for companies to access these lines, but it's absolutely possible and required.

I won't say it's a trivial change, but it's not major, either.
Click to expand...


Private companies laid the existing lines, at least for telecom. How much are you ready to pay for those?

Amendment 5:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
 
flashoverride said:
Private companies laid the existing lines, at least for telecom. How much are you ready to pay for those?

Amendment 5:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Click to expand...

They were laid over many years by various companies who then went through a series of dozens if not hundreds of mergers, leading to behemoths like Comcast who have done minimal work rolling out lines (most of it was laid before Comcast formed), and thus barring competition. The lines need to be seized through eminent domain. There is no valid argument for leaving things as they are.
 
SGA76 said:
And yet they're about to let Comcast and Time Warner merge....
Am I the only one getting a "This guy has millions of dollars shuffled off in a Swiss Bank account from the major cable providers" type feel?
Click to expand...

FCC chair is former Comcast CEO. Current Comcast CEO s former FCC chair. There's no "feeling" about it. It's actually happening.
 
dandragonrage said:
They were laid over many years by various companies who then went through a series of dozens if not hundreds of mergers, leading to behemoths like Comcast who have done minimal work rolling out lines (most of it was laid before Comcast formed), and thus barring competition. The lines need to be seized through eminent domain. There is no valid argument for leaving things as they are.
Click to expand...

When you seize things through eminent domain you have to pay for them.

I assumed eminent domain was where you were going, and that was the basis for my question: how expensive do you think that will be?
 
flashoverride said:
When you seize things through eminent domain you have to pay for them.

I assumed eminent domain was where you were going, and that was the basis for my question: how expensive do you think that will be?
Click to expand...

As expensive as the government allows it to be, which should be FAR under the total cost (spread out over decades) of the lines.

I do think the companies should get compensated for it, but honestly I think it should be chump change.
 
After reading this would still not be surprised if the Comcast/TWC merger goes through. This guy is gonna have to do something tangible to sway my perception of him.
 
Sorry to apparently break the news to Mr. Wheeler, but the lack of competition in our country is not limited to broadband service. Four companies now produce over 80% of our food, and a nation of 315 million supposedly free and intelligent people is unable to produce a single objective and unmanipulated search engine for the internet. It's something out of a fucking Twilight Zone episode imo.

The internet is a communications utility which by all accounts has reached common carrier status (e.g. more private mail is now sent via email than USPS etc). It not only can but must be properly protected as such, and other countries are currently doing so. Within five years it will be against federal law in the U.S. for ISPs to deny any legal site access to any subscriber. If we don't install protections like these we're doomed to the 20th Century business models of cable TV: forced advertising, limited access and the rest of Comcast's race to the bottom. It's beyond my comprehension how anyone can turn on cable TV, start switching channels and wish the same fate for the internet.
 
dandragonrage said:
They were laid over many years by various companies who then went through a series of dozens if not hundreds of mergers, leading to behemoths like Comcast who have done minimal work rolling out lines (most of it was laid before Comcast formed), and thus barring competition. The lines need to be seized through eminent domain. There is no valid argument for leaving things as they are.
Click to expand...

I am not aware of too many instances where the government has "seized" something using eminent domain (the fair market value of some of the hardlines could be in the billions for things like FIOS or Google) ... the SCOTUS has ruled in both directions on eminent domain cases ... I wouldn't bet on them allowing the government to seize existing cables ... there is also no difference in power lines that would necessitate running more than one to a residence ... there can be substantial differences in wired connections to houses (copper, fiber, etc) and different types of each

Our system is broken for sure but I don't see how having the government step in and take ownership would help ... you could try changing the laws so that the ISP or service provider cannot also own the lines or you could change them so that a wireless provider cannot also own wired connections ... that would help competition a little, although it also would be a tough legal challenge like using eminent domain
 
Did this guy have a change of heart? Did comcast piss him off? Where they late on their payments? Or is this smoke and mirrors?
 
kbrickley said:
I am not aware of too many instances where the government has "seized" something using eminent domain (the fair market value of some of the hardlines could be in the billions for things like FIOS or Google) ... the SCOTUS has ruled in both directions on eminent domain cases ... I wouldn't bet on them allowing the government to seize existing cables ... there is also no difference in power lines that would necessitate running more than one to a residence ... there can be substantial differences in wired connections to houses (copper, fiber, etc) and different types of each

Our system is broken for sure but I don't see how having the government step in and take ownership would help ... you could try changing the laws so that the ISP or service provider cannot also own the lines or you could change them so that a wireless provider cannot also own wired connections ... that would help competition a little, although it also would be a tough legal challenge like using eminent domain
Click to expand...

They are crucial pieces of technology currently mostly managed by companies who think it's legal to bait and switch by simply redefining terms in their contracts, and by breaking other terms. They'll sell you unlimited access and then redefine what "unlimited" means in fine print. Not sure why it's legal to "redefine" any term in a contract - they should be required to use standard definitions for these words. But they specifically don't. On purpose.

Government seizing the lines would require the government to come up with some sort of plan on how to distribute the lines, so it can't just be done immediately with no plan. But the proper planning will be able to handle this. I am not necessarily against a third party owning lines but never being allowed to directly sell service - I usually mention the two ideas together as both being acceptable - but I think it's actually more likely that politicians in 10 years would strike down the rule banning mergers with ISPs than it is for government to give control of the lines back.

We have major problems with our government where politicians are all dumb and/or bought, and even when they are smart enough to fix a problem, the fix often gets struck down by newer, even more stupid politicians a few years down the road.

Eminent domain has been used tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands or millions of times by our government successfully. I have not heard of many people successfully fighting it off, though most cases I've heard of are MUCH smaller in scope and involve people or corporations MUCH smaller than Verizon and Comcast. I'm sure that the companies will fight for this, but they should lose.

Perhaps what it should come down to is that a company can lay lines and retain exclusive use of them for 5 or 10 years and then open them up. This allowance would only exist in cities where there is existing infrastructure that can compete. So, for example, Verizon can keep exclusive use of their FIOS lines for several years if there is an OPEN cable system in town. This is not a perfect solution, and companies will still not like it all that much. But it is true that we need someone to keep laying new lines and if we immediately take all lines then corporations would never lay lines again. Could there be an "TV/internet tax" to go towards new lines and maintenance of lines by the government? It might work, though stupid politicians will likely screw it up at some point by diverting the funds gathered from that tax to some unrelated pork for a friend of theirs. Another of many possible problems with the 5-10 year plan is that copyrights/IP were once correctly short-term like that, but stupid politicians have been convinced over and over to extend that length of time to ridiculous lengths, so they may turn around and screw us over by doing the same thing here.

Then again, politicians already disregard the CONSTITUTION, so it's not like a well-written law is going to save net neutrality from bad politicians. Bad politicians WILL ruin absolutely anything - it's a question of how long it takes them to get around to doing so, not if they will do it.
 
Steve said:
At least Captain Obvious here acknowledges the lack of broadband competition in the U.S. and, from the sounds of it, might actually be trying to fix the problem.
Click to expand...
Just seeing the thread title from [H] FP News, the first thought that came to mind was "Captain Obvious" as well. :D

I'm in one of those non-compete areas. My only choice is between slow (AT&T DSL) and slower (dial-up). :mad:

Google Fiber, when will you take over this country?!
 
beowulf7 said:
Google Fiber, when will you take over this country?!
Click to expand...

While I realize you aren't completely serious when you say "take over," keep in mind Google has already taken back several promises it had made about their Fiber service. Google in general, as we all know, is not entirely pro-consumer, even though they are better than many other companies like Verizon, Comcast, AT&T, Time Warner, Charter, Cox and pretty much everything else. But without that competition, Google Fiber itself is going to get corrupt like that. No large business without competition will stay moral. A small company might be able to. A large corporation like that, absolutely not. Take away the competition and they will be another Verizon.
 
dandragonrage said:
While I realize you aren't completely serious when you say "take over," keep in mind Google has already taken back several promises it had made about their Fiber service. Google in general, as we all know, is not entirely pro-consumer, even though they are better than many other companies like Verizon, Comcast, AT&T, Time Warner, Charter, Cox and pretty much everything else. But without that competition, Google Fiber itself is going to get corrupt like that. No large business without competition will stay moral. A small company might be able to. A large corporation like that, absolutely not. Take away the competition and they will be another Verizon.
Click to expand...

what? google can do no evil! Have faith, only the Saint Gabe Newel would do better.
 
dandragonrage said:
While I realize you aren't completely serious when you say "take over," keep in mind Google has already taken back several promises it had made about their Fiber service. Google in general, as we all know, is not entirely pro-consumer
Click to expand...
I would like to nominate the above as the biggest understatement I've ever read. About anything.

Dejanews, and the largest single repository of knowledge in human history? Entire groups censored with a corporate fascist fist, and what's left of it has been relegated further and further into their maze of option screens.

Here's a fun exercise: make two lists, one of options added by Google over the last three years, and the other of options removed. Anyone remember "similar images"?, or an option to search for large images? It might open your eyes to the fact that corporate profit will always trump consumer choice, Google's stock price is primarily due to the fact they are currently legally allowed to get away with being the masters of their own destiny, i.e. with a 2/3 share of global web searches they've been given the legal green light to limit their own competition, among a long list of other things.

And before anyone tells me to simply use another search engine, here's what happened when I went to Bing, to search for a 40+ year-old video clip of Joan Rivers. My first attempt produced 110,000 results. The exact same search term with "-youtube" added produced three. And none of them were relevant to the search term.

They've completely lobotimized the internet.
 
dagamer34 said:
Ok speeds, shitty customer service (Comcast)
Shitty speeds (Verizon DSL)
and even shittier speeds (Hughes Satellite).

but telco's will say you've got 3 options so you're good to go! :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Cross technology competition is not competition. People who accept those as proof of competition either don't have a clue or have no shame.
 
jpm100 said:
Cross technology competition is not competition. People who accept those as proof of competition either don't have a clue or have no shame.
Click to expand...

Even worse is when Verizon claims cellular-based service is an alternative even though it doesn't cover anywhere near everyone, and they keep putting unreasonable data caps on their customers while charging them more and more.
 
dandragonrage said:
They are crucial pieces of technology currently mostly managed by companies who think it's legal to bait and switch by simply redefining terms in their contracts, and by breaking other terms. They'll sell you unlimited access and then redefine what "unlimited" means in fine print. Not sure why it's legal to "redefine" any term in a contract - they should be required to use standard definitions for these words. But they specifically don't. On purpose.

Government seizing the lines would require the government to come up with some sort of plan on how to distribute the lines, so it can't just be done immediately with no plan. But the proper planning will be able to handle this. I am not necessarily against a third party owning lines but never being allowed to directly sell service - I usually mention the two ideas together as both being acceptable - but I think it's actually more likely that politicians in 10 years would strike down the rule banning mergers with ISPs than it is for government to give control of the lines back.

We have major problems with our government where politicians are all dumb and/or bought, and even when they are smart enough to fix a problem, the fix often gets struck down by newer, even more stupid politicians a few years down the road.

Eminent domain has been used tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands or millions of times by our government successfully. I have not heard of many people successfully fighting it off, though most cases I've heard of are MUCH smaller in scope and involve people or corporations MUCH smaller than Verizon and Comcast. I'm sure that the companies will fight for this, but they should lose.

Perhaps what it should come down to is that a company can lay lines and retain exclusive use of them for 5 or 10 years and then open them up. This allowance would only exist in cities where there is existing infrastructure that can compete. So, for example, Verizon can keep exclusive use of their FIOS lines for several years if there is an OPEN cable system in town. This is not a perfect solution, and companies will still not like it all that much. But it is true that we need someone to keep laying new lines and if we immediately take all lines then corporations would never lay lines again. Could there be an "TV/internet tax" to go towards new lines and maintenance of lines by the government? It might work, though stupid politicians will likely screw it up at some point by diverting the funds gathered from that tax to some unrelated pork for a friend of theirs. Another of many possible problems with the 5-10 year plan is that copyrights/IP were once correctly short-term like that, but stupid politicians have been convinced over and over to extend that length of time to ridiculous lengths, so they may turn around and screw us over by doing the same thing here.

Then again, politicians already disregard the CONSTITUTION, so it's not like a well-written law is going to save net neutrality from bad politicians. Bad politicians WILL ruin absolutely anything - it's a question of how long it takes them to get around to doing so, not if they will do it.
Click to expand...

Eminent domain has been used, it's true, and not always beneficially. For example Kelo - even though the supreme court disgustingly upheld the ruling, the proposed site never ended up getting built and the whole exercise was a massive waste of time, money, and freedom. Another case is Seattle, where a monorail was supposed to be built and the city seized a bunch of property under eminent domain and then didn't build the monorail. When they sold it back they profited off of some of the owners, selling it back for more than they paid for it or selling them back only portions of their lots.

You seem to have a disdain for politicians. As you know, the government is run by politicians and bureaucrats. I do not understand why then you keep falling back on the government seizing and then running something as large or intricate as the internet as though this would be some kind of improvement.
 
flashoverride said:
You seem to have a disdain for politicians. As you know, the government is run by politicians and bureaucrats. I do not understand why then you keep falling back on the government seizing and then running something as large or intricate as the internet as though this would be some kind of improvement.
Click to expand...

I do hate most politicians, yes. I don't trust the government to handle this correctly. But they need to do something because the system now is about as broken as it could be. I'm skeptical that even if they fix the problem temporarily, someone else will come along and break it again in a few years. Regulation often doesn't work, and the few times it does, some corrupt politician comes around and says "The system is working so the regulation isn't needed" and it gets struck down. But it's like having an incurable and horrible disease (like HIV) but doing well on medication. Then you say, "I'm healthy so I don't need this medication" and stop the medicine and, guess what, you die of AIDS. This is what politicians do. Over and over.

But again, the system isn't going to fix itself. The RIGHT regulation could fix the problem at least for a little while.
 
dandragonrage said:
I do hate most politicians, yes. I don't trust the government to handle this correctly. But they need to do something because the system now is about as broken as it could be. I'm skeptical that even if they fix the problem temporarily, someone else will come along and break it again in a few years. Regulation often doesn't work, and the few times it does, some corrupt politician comes around and says "The system is working so the regulation isn't needed" and it gets struck down. But it's like having an incurable and horrible disease (like HIV) but doing well on medication. Then you say, "I'm healthy so I don't need this medication" and stop the medicine and, guess what, you die of AIDS. This is what politicians do. Over and over.

But again, the system isn't going to fix itself. The RIGHT regulation could fix the problem at least for a little while.
Click to expand...

"But they need to do something"...

Could you stop?

Like, stop thinking that way. At all. Ever.

You are just handing over your agency to the State. Here, State, come up with some half-ass un-implementable solution and enforce it on my behalf, by men with guns.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top