10 ms·

Trump's FCC Votes to Allow Broadband Rate Hikes for Schools and Libraries

59 points by petemill 9y ago

gogopuppygogo 9y ago
It's going to be fun cleaning all this up in 4 years.
- averagewall 9y ago
  The previous 3 presidents all had 2 terms. Any reason to thinks Trump or at least the republican party won't too? Just because you don't like him doesn't mean everyone else doesn't either. Real humans who really wanted him voted him in and they're probably happy with their choice.
  - burkaman 9y ago
    You don't have to guess, there are plenty of polls. He is historically unpopular.
    - snowpanda 9y ago
      > there are plenty of polls You mean the same polls that were 100% sure that he wouldn't win? [1] [1] https://i.imgsafe.org/ed39a859e5.jpg https://i.imgsafe.org/ed39a859e5.jpg
      - bikitan 9y ago
        An aggregate +6.3 for Clinton doesn't translate to "100% sure he wouldn't win"
        astrodust 9y ago
        Amazing how a 60% chance of winning doesn't mean "guarantee", huh?
    - wtf_is_up 9y ago
      "Trump will never run for President" "Trump will never make it past the first debate" "Trump will never win the Republican primary" "Trump will never win the general election" (You are here)
      - wavefunction 9y ago
        "Trump will never fulfill his promises" (I'm over here)
        jplayer01 9y ago
        He doesn't need to.
      - astrodust 9y ago
        "Trump will never be impeached." "Trump will never do jail time." "Trump will never lead a prison riot that gets a thousand prisoners killed." "Trump will never cruise the nuclear wastelands of America with his gang of misfits in their hacked together deathmobiles..."
    - r00fus 9y ago
      So was GWB right before 9/11...
    - leereeves 9y ago
      42.5% average approval, according to RCP, the same as Obama in 2014. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_trump_job_approval-6179.html http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_trum... http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obam...
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > The previous 3 presidents all had 2 terms. That's a pretty small universe. Of the most recent 6, only 4 had two terms. Of the most recent 9, still only 4 had two full terms. > Any reason to thinks Trump or at least the republican party won't too? Yes. > Real humans who really wanted him voted him in and they're probably happy with their choice. Most of the minority that voted for him may, though polling data show that Trump has lost standing with most groups, including those he was strongest with, since the election. With a barely-sufficient minority win, Trump can't lose much ground and hope to be reelected.
- astrodust 9y ago
  Presuming sanity prevails and people don't double down at the Crazy Buffet wanting more. Remember 2004?
averagewall 9y ago
Maybe the reason the market is uncompetitive is because of the price caps? Fighting monopolies with regulation constraining their prices seems like a risky solution. Isn't there some action that would open up the market to more competitors? Even if another company had to lay their own cables, that happens and isn't impossible.
- xenadu02 9y ago
  Are you serious? I'm not being flippant here, but your question doesn't seem to be an honest one. Laying cables is really expensive. It takes a lot of capital and the return on investment is long-term. Two things that aren't very popular among Wall Street or VCs. Even assuming you undertook such a venture, Comcast/ATT/Verizon have really _really_ deep pockets. They can undercut any price you care to offer. The idea that "regulation" is causing high prices is farcical on its face. There aren't enough schools and libraries to make any difference to the bottom line. The market is uncompetitive because broadband is a natural monopoly. Just like roads, water, sewer, and electricity. The capital costs are so high there is usually no business justification for having more than 1-2 providers in a given area. There are a few exceptions but they prove the rule. A "free market" in broadband would look much like the "free market" in electricity: Either the government or a regulated utility granted monopoly power by the government should run the fiber. Any ISP that wants to compete can hook up at the local CO. The equipment on both ends of that fiber can even be owned by the ISP so if new technology allows faster speeds nothing blocks the upgrade (the favorite excuse for pro-corporatist shills). The big three have fought anything that smells like a free market tooth and nail, outright purchasing legislation at the state level to squash municipal attempts to do anything like this. The funny thing is the big ISPs rely on government-granted taking of private property in the form of right-of-way to run their cables... something for which property owners receive no compensation. So much for "using our lines" as the ATT CEO likes to claim.
  - defined 9y ago
    Well said.
  - WalterBright 9y ago
guelo 9y ago
What's alarming is how silent the giant Silicon Valley companies have been as the FCC proceeds to destroy the foundations of the open web. It was little noted at the time that Google actually sent a letter in support of the new policy giving ISPs the right to sell customer browsing data. Without Sillicon Valley in our corner there's not much hope. It's all corporations in lock step aligned with the government against consumers.
- NotShockingDuh 9y ago
  SV is full of people like Pai. Their culture is one of haves vs have nots. Hope you're in with the right caste, it's coming to a town near you.
Turing_Machine 9y ago
Can someone explain to me why an FCC that is currently made up of three Obama appointees is "Trump's" FCC? Trump did name Pai as chair, but he was already on the commission (appointed by Obama in 2012). That's a terrible, click-baity headline, even by the low standards normally set by vice.com.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- overcooked 9y ago
  Appointing the chairman is really one of the few influential bits that the President can do with the FCC. The chair sets the agenda for commission meetings, manages the commission's ~1700 employees, and sets enforcement priorities. Other than actually adopting new regulations (which requires a vote by all commission members), the FCC chair IS the FCC. Also, while Commissioners Pai and O'Rielly were nominated by Obama, they were chosen in consultation with Republican congressional leadership (because the FCC must remain bipartisan by law). I'm not sure that one can say that they are "Obama appointees" in the same way that judicial appointees are.
- disposition2 9y ago
  The Trump reference is valid, he is POTUS. Despite the 'independent' claim, the agencies of the government are often influenced by their masters. There is only 1 Democrat currently on the FCC board, the other 2 (despite being nominated by the former POTUS) are Republican and since gaining the chair the GOP led (i.e. Trump) FCC is rolling back Obama initiatives that were in support of the Open Web in favor of Trump / GOP initiatives that favor the 'free market'.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > Can someone explain to me why an FCC that is currently made up of three Obama appointees is "Trump's" FCC? Because it has a Republican majority as a result of Trump's election, and Trump selected the chair from among the two Republican members, so Trump's election and Trump personally have set the direction of the current FCC. Hence, Trump's FCC.

59 points by petemill 9y ago

gogopuppygogo 9y ago

It's going to be fun cleaning all this up in 4 years.

averagewall 9y ago
The previous 3 presidents all had 2 terms. Any reason to thinks Trump or at least the republican party won't too? Just because you don't like him doesn't mean everyone else doesn't either. Real humans who really wanted him voted him in and they're probably happy with their choice.
- burkaman 9y ago
  You don't have to guess, there are plenty of polls. He is historically unpopular.
  - snowpanda 9y ago
    > there are plenty of polls You mean the same polls that were 100% sure that he wouldn't win? [1] [1] https://i.imgsafe.org/ed39a859e5.jpg https://i.imgsafe.org/ed39a859e5.jpg
    - bikitan 9y ago
      An aggregate +6.3 for Clinton doesn't translate to "100% sure he wouldn't win"
      - astrodust 9y ago
        Amazing how a 60% chance of winning doesn't mean "guarantee", huh?
  - wtf_is_up 9y ago
    "Trump will never run for President" "Trump will never make it past the first debate" "Trump will never win the Republican primary" "Trump will never win the general election" (You are here)
    - wavefunction 9y ago
      "Trump will never fulfill his promises" (I'm over here)
      - jplayer01 9y ago
        He doesn't need to.
    - astrodust 9y ago
      "Trump will never be impeached." "Trump will never do jail time." "Trump will never lead a prison riot that gets a thousand prisoners killed." "Trump will never cruise the nuclear wastelands of America with his gang of misfits in their hacked together deathmobiles..."
  - r00fus 9y ago
    So was GWB right before 9/11...
  - leereeves 9y ago
    42.5% average approval, according to RCP, the same as Obama in 2014. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_trump_job_approval-6179.html http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_trum... http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obam...
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > The previous 3 presidents all had 2 terms. That's a pretty small universe. Of the most recent 6, only 4 had two terms. Of the most recent 9, still only 4 had two full terms. > Any reason to thinks Trump or at least the republican party won't too? Yes. > Real humans who really wanted him voted him in and they're probably happy with their choice. Most of the minority that voted for him may, though polling data show that Trump has lost standing with most groups, including those he was strongest with, since the election. With a barely-sufficient minority win, Trump can't lose much ground and hope to be reelected.
astrodust 9y ago
Presuming sanity prevails and people don't double down at the Crazy Buffet wanting more. Remember 2004?

averagewall 9y ago

Maybe the reason the market is uncompetitive is because of the price caps? Fighting monopolies with regulation constraining their prices seems like a risky solution. Isn't there some action that would open up the market to more competitors? Even if another company had to lay their own cables, that happens and isn't impossible.

xenadu02 9y ago
Are you serious? I'm not being flippant here, but your question doesn't seem to be an honest one. Laying cables is really expensive. It takes a lot of capital and the return on investment is long-term. Two things that aren't very popular among Wall Street or VCs. Even assuming you undertook such a venture, Comcast/ATT/Verizon have really _really_ deep pockets. They can undercut any price you care to offer. The idea that "regulation" is causing high prices is farcical on its face. There aren't enough schools and libraries to make any difference to the bottom line. The market is uncompetitive because broadband is a natural monopoly. Just like roads, water, sewer, and electricity. The capital costs are so high there is usually no business justification for having more than 1-2 providers in a given area. There are a few exceptions but they prove the rule. A "free market" in broadband would look much like the "free market" in electricity: Either the government or a regulated utility granted monopoly power by the government should run the fiber. Any ISP that wants to compete can hook up at the local CO. The equipment on both ends of that fiber can even be owned by the ISP so if new technology allows faster speeds nothing blocks the upgrade (the favorite excuse for pro-corporatist shills). The big three have fought anything that smells like a free market tooth and nail, outright purchasing legislation at the state level to squash municipal attempts to do anything like this. The funny thing is the big ISPs rely on government-granted taking of private property in the form of right-of-way to run their cables... something for which property owners receive no compensation. So much for "using our lines" as the ATT CEO likes to claim.
- defined 9y ago
  Well said.
- WalterBright 9y ago

guelo 9y ago

What's alarming is how silent the giant Silicon Valley companies have been as the FCC proceeds to destroy the foundations of the open web. It was little noted at the time that Google actually sent a letter in support of the new policy giving ISPs the right to sell customer browsing data. Without Sillicon Valley in our corner there's not much hope. It's all corporations in lock step aligned with the government against consumers.

NotShockingDuh 9y ago
SV is full of people like Pai. Their culture is one of haves vs have nots. Hope you're in with the right caste, it's coming to a town near you.

Turing_Machine 9y ago

Can someone explain to me why an FCC that is currently made up of three Obama appointees is "Trump's" FCC? Trump did name Pai as chair, but he was already on the commission (appointed by Obama in 2012). That's a terrible, click-baity headline, even by the low standards normally set by vice.com.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
overcooked 9y ago
Appointing the chairman is really one of the few influential bits that the President can do with the FCC. The chair sets the agenda for commission meetings, manages the commission's ~1700 employees, and sets enforcement priorities. Other than actually adopting new regulations (which requires a vote by all commission members), the FCC chair IS the FCC. Also, while Commissioners Pai and O'Rielly were nominated by Obama, they were chosen in consultation with Republican congressional leadership (because the FCC must remain bipartisan by law). I'm not sure that one can say that they are "Obama appointees" in the same way that judicial appointees are.
disposition2 9y ago
The Trump reference is valid, he is POTUS. Despite the 'independent' claim, the agencies of the government are often influenced by their masters. There is only 1 Democrat currently on the FCC board, the other 2 (despite being nominated by the former POTUS) are Republican and since gaining the chair the GOP led (i.e. Trump) FCC is rolling back Obama initiatives that were in support of the Open Web in favor of Trump / GOP initiatives that favor the 'free market'.
dragonwriter 9y ago
> Can someone explain to me why an FCC that is currently made up of three Obama appointees is "Trump's" FCC? Because it has a Republican majority as a result of Trump's election, and Trump selected the chair from among the two Republican members, so Trump's election and Trump personally have set the direction of the current FCC. Hence, Trump's FCC.