Senators Ask FCC To Investigate Cable And Broadband Prices

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
As long as it brings down the amount we pay for cable and broadband, I guess this is something we can all get behind. ;)

In a letter to FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler, Sanders wrote that only 37 percent of Americans “have more than one option for high-speed broadband providers.” Because of the de facto monopoly situation in much of the country, cable and broadband providers “are able to charge ridiculous prices and add hidden fees onto a customer’s bill,” Sanders added in a press release.
 
Although they might be able to improve the disclosure of fees in the bills I don't see how the price of the internet services is within the scope of the FCC ... if they are colluding to keep prices higher then it is an FTC violation and their jurisdiction ... if they are not, then they are all for profit public companies and under no obligation to charge low prices or jeopardize the profits and revenues that their investors expect them to provide ... this is just grand standing for pre-election coverage :(
 
Although they might be able to improve the disclosure of fees in the bills I don't see how the price of the internet services is within the scope of the FCC ... if they are colluding to keep prices higher then it is an FTC violation and their jurisdiction ... if they are not, then they are all for profit public companies and under no obligation to charge low prices or jeopardize the profits and revenues that their investors expect them to provide ... this is just grand standing for pre-election coverage :(

Well, when you are handed a monopoly, you do have someone that regulates your price, actually. This is why your water company, the only one you have the option of using, doesn't start raising their price 300% per year.
 
Well, when you are handed a monopoly, you do have someone that regulates your price, actually. This is why your water company, the only one you have the option of using, doesn't start raising their price 300% per year.

That is true and all public utilities are regulated monopolies (at the local level usually) ... the cable and internet companies are not currently regulated that way though and it is outside the jurisdiction of the FCC to be that regulator (unless Congress changes the laws again) ... currently their profits would fall under the scope of the FTC (not the FCC) and as long as they are not acquiring them through illegal means (collusion) they can pretty much charge whatever they see fit (unless Congress intervenes and changes the law to make them regulated utilities) :cool:
 
I'm calling bullshit on that 37% number. One of my in laws lives out in the middle of nowhere and no cable company goes out there. She still has Dish, Verizon, Sprint and AT&T as choices for Internet. If you can get a cell signal you can get Internet from one of the 3 major carriers at least. I have a hard time believing that 67% of the country can't get a a cell phone signal.

This sounds more like election time bull shit so these crooks in DC can go to the low information voters next year and show them how hard they're working for the "middle class".
 
Hooray for Google Fiber coming to Atlanta, GA and shake up the stiff oligopolies there. Hoping there will be changes in the future on broadband pricing (hopefully lower instead of higher).
 
I'm calling bullshit on that 37% number. One of my in laws lives out in the middle of nowhere and no cable company goes out there. She still has Dish, Verizon, Sprint and AT&T as choices for Internet. If you can get a cell signal you can get Internet from one of the 3 major carriers at least. I have a hard time believing that 67% of the country can't get a a cell phone signal.

This sounds more like election time bull shit so these crooks in DC can go to the low information voters next year and show them how hard they're working for the "middle class".
You consider cell data service to be a proper internet connection? I only consider it something for when I'm out and using the cell by itself, or a backup when the power is out from a storm. I couldn't image living with those awful speeds and latency for day to day browsing.
 
I'm calling bullshit on that 37% number. One of my in laws lives out in the middle of nowhere and no cable company goes out there. She still has Dish, Verizon, Sprint and AT&T as choices for Internet. If you can get a cell signal you can get Internet from one of the 3 major carriers at least. I have a hard time believing that 67% of the country can't get a a cell phone signal.

This sounds more like election time bull shit so these crooks in DC can go to the low information voters next year and show them how hard they're working for the "middle class".

Cell internet is not a good choice, I don't know what it's like in the us but in canada cell internet costs you $100/month for 10GB of data. It's not feasible or proper internet in anyway.
 
Well considering they redefined how fast broadband is, this statement is now more true since most of AT&T is not broadband anymore, even their Uverse stuff.
 
I'm calling bullshit on that 37% number. One of my in laws lives out in the middle of nowhere and no cable company goes out there. She still has Dish, Verizon, Sprint and AT&T as choices for Internet. If you can get a cell signal you can get Internet from one of the 3 major carriers at least. I have a hard time believing that 67% of the country can't get a a cell phone signal.

This sounds more like election time bull shit so these crooks in DC can go to the low information voters next year and show them how hard they're working for the "middle class".

You can call bull shit if you want but you obviously don't keep up on data costs on those connections do you? I pay 225$ for 60 gigs of data through Verizon and even then it's only because I got on a deal where they were doubling the data for free. I would love to have a cable company option even if it was something that had a 250 gig cap for 120$, but because of my job and where I live there is no other real option. So I also call bull shit, but I think the number is too low. Cell phone providers should not count.
 
You consider cell data service to be a proper internet connection? I only consider it something for when I'm out and using the cell by itself, or a backup when the power is out from a storm. I couldn't image living with those awful speeds and latency for day to day browsing.

Exactly, and the very limited GB per month. At my apartment, when I moved in, I only had the choice of Time warner rr, or 3mb dsl. which to me is only one choice.. RR is much faster.
 
Would be more interested in the bullshit GB caps removed. 30mbps is the fastest speed here but the cap is 250gb unless you want to pay the penalty.
 
I live in a heavily populated area of southern California, yet my only choice for internet is COX, <3mb DSL, or very high priced/limited cell service.

No complaints about internet speed or reliability with Cox, just that the price goes up every year.
Meanwhile at the office, they offer us better speed or a lower price on the internet (fiber connection) every year.
 
Well considering they redefined how fast broadband is, this statement is now more true since most of AT&T is not broadband anymore, even their Uverse stuff.

Uverse is rebranded DLS crap with fiber to the neighborhood. ITS STILL CRAP!!!!!!! :mad:
 
Good Lord! The Communist Bernie Sanders and the other uber liberals!? I don't care how the press makes it sound, but whatever they're behind it cannot be good.
 
Good Lord! The Communist Bernie Sanders and the other uber liberals!? I don't care how the press makes it sound, but whatever they're behind it cannot be good.

You should do some research on communism, liberalism, and socialism. They are not the same thing. That's your homework for tonight.
 
Although they might be able to improve the disclosure of fees in the bills I don't see how the price of the internet services is within the scope of the FCC

The mission of the FCC, as stated in the Communications Act of 1934 and amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, is to "make available so far as possible, to all the people of the United States, without discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex, rapid, efficient, Nationwide, and world-wide wire and radio communication services with adequate facilities at reasonable charges."
 
The mission of the FCC, as stated in the Communications Act of 1934 and amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, is to "make available so far as possible, to all the people of the United States, without discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex, rapid, efficient, Nationwide, and world-wide wire and radio communication services with adequate facilities at reasonable charges."

And how do you define "reasonable charges" for publicly held profit driven companies ...the government will have similar problems with the airlines and their anti-trust case there ... the airlines must disclose their expansion strategies and strategies on their fees to their investors to give them guidance on the strength of the investment (that information also allows their competitors to align their strategies for maximum profitability ... which investors like) ... this allows price synchronicity without the need of collusion

I pay about $145/month for cable and internet through Comcast ... I paid a similar amount in my previous city for FIOS and Time Warner ... I didn't consider the fees unreasonable (for the tier I was at, and there were lower tiers if I needed to save money)... there are always lower cost solutions (with lower speeds or fewer features) available for people who do not wish to pay for the broadband/higher tier services (which with the new FCC definition will only be in the highest price tiers of most providers)

Also, the section you quoted doesn't mention income so there can be different services available for different income tiers ... it also doesn't mention speed, so if there is a $30 DSL service (pretty reasonable) and a $50-60 Cable/Fiber service (reasonable for that tier) then they could claim to have met their mission goal ... this is just Democrats doing a little pre-election grandstanding ... it is the States that created these monopolies (not the federal government) and it is not the federal government's role to interfere with State financial and business arrangements (unless they are illegal ... which these will not be) :cool:
 
Really, I live in one of these rural areas where Dish, cellular etc. sound like great ideas, but in reality, they are completely garbage. Sure they sound great, but look behind the scenes. Satellite, "high speeds" of up to 15mbps, the catch, a MINIMUM latency of 676ms. The cell service internet, yea it has decent speed, also has decent latency, but for any reasonable amount of data, you will pay ridiculous prices. Oh yea, satellite has bandwidth caps as well.
 
Amen! LTE is not broadband. Verizon's coverage map is BS & AT&T's is worse (basically an interstate LTE coverage provider). Verizon & AT&T's tiered plans are designed for pools of money....

I would argue that LTE is much closer to broadband than the DSL most small town phone companies push. If we could get reasonable data caps on LTE I would take it any day over the "fiber to the home" 2mbps $120 per month internet I currently have.
 
I'm calling bullshit on that 37% number. One of my in laws lives out in the middle of nowhere and no cable company goes out there. She still has Dish, Verizon, Sprint and AT&T as choices for Internet. If you can get a cell signal you can get Internet from one of the 3 major carriers at least. I have a hard time believing that 67% of the country can't get a a cell phone signal.

This sounds more like election time bull shit so these crooks in DC can go to the low information voters next year and show them how hard they're working for the "middle class".
100%-37%=63%
Remeber Broadband is defined as 25/3mbps down/up by the FCC now. Not impossible to do with a cellular device, but you do need pretty good 4G reception.
It also states "more than one", so a large portion of the remaining 63% may indeed have one option.
 
Considering how well their regulation of cable television turned out, I think I'll pass.
 
Good Lord! The Communist Bernie Sanders and the other uber liberals!? I don't care how the press makes it sound, but whatever they're behind it cannot be good.

Yeah, after all it was the 'Communists' who almost brought the World Economy to the brink in 2008.
 
Yeah, after all it was the 'Communists' who almost brought the World Economy to the brink in 2008.

It wasn't the cable companies who did it either ... it was the banking industry ... you can't lump all corporations into one big bucket (regardless of what people think of them) ... and as long as the cable and ISP companies are publicly traded companies they will have to be for profit ... I don't think we really want to turn them into a Federal public utility (if you think they are bad now, just wait until you have Congress telling them how much they can charge)
 
It wasn't the cable companies who did it either ... it was the banking industry ... you can't lump all corporations into one big bucket (regardless of what people think of them) ... and as long as the cable and ISP companies are publicly traded companies they will have to be for profit ... I don't think we really want to turn them into a Federal public utility (if you think they are bad now, just wait until you have Congress telling them how much they can charge)

That goes without saying. But pinning crap on the Communists does not distract from the fact, that if one should not trust governments for help, then one should definitely not definitely trust corporations, for the simple reason that they do not necessarily have the satisfaction of their customers at heart, but rather the well being of their shareholders' wallets. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing, as long as competition strives to make consumers happy.
I, for one, do not mind paying for the higher priced service, if there is a clear advantage to be had. However, if there is but one provider in one given area, what assurances are there that I am getting the better bang for the buck? There are not many, if none.
But if paying to upgrade the infrastructure and increase speeds - to levels similar to those offered in other countries - and thus make customers happier, but will leave the shareholders missing out on a couple of cent a share, you bet the project that could yield a higher customer satisfaction falls on the wayside, on account of those measly cents.
As you know, competition is good. Even in the broadband field.
 
Although they might be able to improve the disclosure of fees in the bills I don't see how the price of the internet services is within the scope of the FCC ... if they are colluding to keep prices higher then it is an FTC violation and their jurisdiction ... if they are not, then they are all for profit public companies and under no obligation to charge low prices or jeopardize the profits and revenues that their investors expect them to provide ... this is just grand standing for pre-election coverage :(

THey don't have to collude. In most cases, they're a defacto monopoly. In the last 10 years, my choices broadband choice has been whatever Cable company serves the area.

We KNOW that they set prices lower when they have competition. Look at AT&T. IN austin, Gigabit is the same as Google. In Dallas it's $120. The only difference is they have no competition. And Wheeler isn't running for office, so he doesn't need to grandstand.
 
Good Lord! The Communist Bernie Sanders and the other uber liberals!? I don't care how the press makes it sound, but whatever they're behind it cannot be good.

The English language changes too fast. I can't keep up. Communism means honesty now? Times are changing...
 
Yeah, after all it was the 'Communists' who almost brought the World Economy to the brink in 2008.
The world's economy was not on the Brink. A handful of investment banks got themselves in trouble and used their buddies in GOVERNMENT to scare the public and elicit a trillion dollar bailout (initially). The problem would have initially been limited to the investment banks but the panic mongering by the GOVERNMENT did more to hurt the general economy than those actually being in trouble actually mattered. The housing bubble that the investment banks got themselves in trouble with was going to pop no matter what anyone did. A bubble that was fueled by GOVERNMENT pressure to have banks give out loans like candy as part of a social engineering effort.

So in a way you're right, 2008 had more in common with the tactics and fruits of Communism than 2007 did.
 
The world's economy was not on the Brink. A handful of investment banks got themselves in trouble and used their buddies in GOVERNMENT to scare the public and elicit a trillion dollar bailout (initially). The problem would have initially been limited to the investment banks but the panic mongering by the GOVERNMENT did more to hurt the general economy than those actually being in trouble actually mattered. The housing bubble that the investment banks got themselves in trouble with was going to pop no matter what anyone did. A bubble that was fueled by GOVERNMENT pressure to have banks give out loans like candy as part of a social engineering effort.

So in a way you're right, 2008 had more in common with the tactics and fruits of Communism than 2007 did.

Actually when Clinton rolled back Glass-Steagall investment banking and consumer banking were then able to coexist. This meant that the entire banking industry was at risk. It most definitely was not limited to investment banking.

A bubble that was fueled by GOVERNMENT pressure to have banks give out loans like candy as part of a social engineering effort.

It wasn't an effort by the government, not directly anyway...well you could make a case for Clinton's part in it, but government is not the one that increased the rate of sub prime loans. The banks did that all on their own. Its a common trope but there is no law that forces banks to hand out bad loans to unqualified people. It didn't have to happen, nor was it inevitable.

Essentially the banking industry thought that if the mortgages being sold were sliced and diced that a few bad mortgages here and there would not cause a problem. Basically it was looked at as a win win. More mortgages meant more money, of course more homes being built, which also raised prices. Therefore mortgage backed securities were free money. So they increased the number of mortgages being sold (remember consumer and investment were combined). To make additional money they thought they could sell more subprime loans because they have a higher rate of return (normally). The credit agencies made this problem worse by not evaluating them properly. When customers started defaulting on their sub prime loans, it affected the entire banking industry and since other banks in other countries were buying our securities it became a global problem.

In order to keep the banking system afloat most countries took tax payer dollars and dumped it into the banks in order to recaptialize them. This debt was taken on by governments most of them anyway. Greece didn't. They just straight up lied about their debt. In order to be able to actually pull that off most European countries began which we all know as austerity. Essentially the slashing of local services so that they could stay afloat themselves since they were carrying debt to GDP ratios of 300 and 400%.
 
THey don't have to collude. In most cases, they're a defacto monopoly. In the last 10 years, my choices broadband choice has been whatever Cable company serves the area.

We KNOW that they set prices lower when they have competition. Look at AT&T. IN austin, Gigabit is the same as Google. In Dallas it's $120. The only difference is they have no competition. And Wheeler isn't running for office, so he doesn't need to grandstand.

I still don't see how this is the jurisdiction of the FCC ... the FCC didn't create the monopolies, the cities and States did ... as long as each company owns and installs its own infrastructure there will always be a limit on the total number of providers and the federal government should never be in the infrastructure business (it should always belong to private industry or the cities) ... Wheeler didn't request this, 3 democrats and 1 so called independent did ... the republicans are not trying to participate in this charade

I still don't see what the government can do about this (and the Senators didn't ask for action, only pricing information) ... this appears to be a precursor to the standard democratic tactic of running against business ... who is to say which fees are unreasonable and what price the internet should cost ... I dislike the idea of price controls in any market and it seems that is what the dems are sniffing around for, a justification for price controls on the ISPs and Cable (which would be horrific for their stock prices and probably the general stock market)
 
I still don't see how this is the jurisdiction of the FCC ... the FCC didn't create the monopolies, the cities and States did ... as long as each company owns and installs its own infrastructure there will always be a limit on the total number of providers and the federal government should never be in the infrastructure business (it should always belong to private industry or the cities) ... Wheeler didn't request this, 3 democrats and 1 so called independent did ... the republicans are not trying to participate in this charade

I still don't see what the government can do about this (and the Senators didn't ask for action, only pricing information) ... this appears to be a precursor to the standard democratic tactic of running against business ... who is to say which fees are unreasonable and what price the internet should cost ... I dislike the idea of price controls in any market and it seems that is what the dems are sniffing around for, a justification for price controls on the ISPs and Cable (which would be horrific for their stock prices and probably the general stock market)

AND I QUOTE FROM EARLIER IN THREAD
"The mission of the FCC, as stated in the Communications Act of 1934 and amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, is to "make available so far as possible, to all the people of the United States, without discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex, rapid, efficient, Nationwide, and world-wide wire and radio communication services with adequate facilities at reasonable charges."

TLDR the fcc can bend them over a barrel and give it to them in the bum.
 
AND I QUOTE FROM EARLIER IN THREAD
"The mission of the FCC, as stated in the Communications Act of 1934 and amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, is to "make available so far as possible, to all the people of the United States, without discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex, rapid, efficient, Nationwide, and world-wide wire and radio communication services with adequate facilities at reasonable charges."

TLDR the fcc can bend them over a barrel and give it to them in the bum.

Again, what is a "reasonable charge" (that is not an objective measure) ... and since these are democrats asking for the information they can easily solve this by giving the people who can't afford internet the government subsidized rate (at the other taxpayers expense ;) ) ... which in an election year is more of a vote getter

Personally I hope the FCC does do something that stupid (give it to them up the bum) as it will finally wake up people to the dangers of price controls as our economy goes crashing into depression so they will vote in Libertarian candidates who won't interfere with economic growth or the stock market
 
So, the only interference we need is monopolies and Bernie Madolffs.... :rolleyes:

Madoff committed a criminal offense and WAS punished for it (although his punishment wasn't severe enough ... they should have executed him) ... monopolies are a part of life and not illegal in and of themselves ... only the abuse of monopoly is illegal ... high prices are not necessarily abuse (depending on other factors)

Google has lower prices because they can monetize the user in other ways (though their data and advertising) ... we need to give companies more opportunities like that or give Google the monopoly (since they are less likely to abuse the price position) ... I wouldn't have a problem with the Federal government giving a low interest long term loan to Google to expand nationwide (even though that violates Libertarian principles since I think they are the best overall company for internet access)
 
why do I feel like they'll target a few fees to lower our bills, but then at more taxes to fill in the gap, and then some.

Maybe they should start some sort of investigation up on how Verizon, ATT etc... used those billions of tax dollars for "rural buildouts" that never happened, and make them give us rural people LTE at more reasonable rates and more reasonable cable like data caps of 150-250gb per month vs 5-10GB. I can blow through 5-10 in a week easy just surfing and no videos.
 
Back
Top