7 ms·

Cable lobby tries to stop state investigations into slow broadband speeds

186 points by frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago

Ascetik 9y ago
I think there is certainly some throttling going on for certain sites, although not everyone is technically savvy and doesn't realize that certain webservers et al., are only going to upload at a certain rate, which looks like capping, but is actually just a bandwidth limitation of the server you're connecting to. So even if you're paying for Gig Fiber service for instance, you're still limited by the bandwidth of the server you're connecting to. Steam is great in this regard though, always maxes out my connection, even though I hardly game anymore.
- ceejayoz 9y ago
  That'd be a good explanation for small sites, but it doesn't hold up with the Netflix, Youtube, etc. of the world.
  - BenjiWiebe 9y ago
    And maybe not even a good explanation for small sites. For $5/month your site has a 1Gbps connection out. (Linode)
- YCode 9y ago
  This argument has been used by ISPs for as long as I care to remember and it's always been BS. I used to work for one and I cringed every time I had to say that line to a customer, but that was our official position even regarding speed test sites. ISPs know even most savvy customers wont be able to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are being throttled/not receiving their promised bandwidth and so they use that grey area to say "Yeah, must just be that server or a router or something."
- FireBeyond 9y ago
  So you didn't read the article where Charter was called out by the FCC for renting modems (at an exorbitant rate) that were incapable of more than 20mbps to customers on 100mbps or more plans, and in order to avoid being fined then for deception promised to replace them... three years ago... and hasn't done it whatsoever?
0xcde4c3db 9y ago
It seems like this argument could backfire spectacularly. Isn't the cable lobby also relying on state authority to ban (or at least put gratuitous hurdles in the way of) municipal ISPs in several states?
throwawaymanbot 9y ago
Ah, Yes. American capitalism. Where the "Captains of Industry" wax lyrical about how "competition" and unbridled capitalism, are THE greatest and finest of things. But in reality, in American style capitalism, they pay people off, to kill/crush/stomp competition, while pleading that "regulation" is impeding their ability to do just that.
- josteink 9y ago
  You have to at least admire how openly this occurs. You'd think in a democracy everyone involved in what's the textbook-definition of corruption would try to somewhat obscure what's going on, but nope: it's all in the open.
  - throwawaymanbot 9y ago
    True. But I would say its mostly in the open. We can guess from contributions and declared lobbyist visits. Weasel worded bills and regulations in documents pushed through to old men who have mostly no idea or concept of what they are changing, but who only know the value of $$$ campaign or personal contributions isn't something I would call open.
  - gech 9y ago
    If we didn't have Ars Technica how would we have heard about it?
  - shmerl 9y ago
    No, they hate publicity.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
Spivak 9y ago
This title is horribly misleading. The actual point of contention is whether the FCC's rules on speed disclosure preempt rules enacted by the state. This isn't Big Cable paying off lawmakers to stop some 'investigation', this is companies trying to avoid having deal with 50 different speed disclosure laws, and it could go either way. I don't necessarily like it, but as a matter of law my opinion is that Big Cable should win this one. Setting a uniform national standard is one of the situations where federal laws commonly preempt state laws and the lack of a uniform standard would be confusing to consumers.
- jhall1468 9y ago
  I absolutely disagree for a number of reasons. First, let's stop pretending that 50 state disclosure laws create some massive undue burden for a company that's big enough to be an ISP in all 50 states. That would be a similar argument to saying that states shouldn't have minimum wages because it's "too hard" for Walmart to have 50 different state minimum wage laws. The only difference is disclosure laws are vastly more simple than labor laws. Second, even if you assume the cable industry should have a single uniform standard, that's up to Congress, not the FCC to determine, so not only should Big Cable lose this on the grounds that state-level consumer protections are a good thing, they should on the grounds that the FCC has absolutely no authority to do this.
  - tertius 9y ago
    I completely agree with you regarding the FCC's ability to create "law" and not just weak "regulation" or "rules" and also that the 10th amendment shouldn't be trampled on. I disagree that already having an HR department to deal with employees and labor laws is equal to something else they have to comply with. Not a fair comparison. I do agree though that the burden is not undue.
    - ctrl-j 9y ago
      > ... already having an HR department to deal with employees and labor laws Isn't the HR department a thing because of the employee labor laws? Maybe they need a "Legal team" to manage their compliance with state regulations? Or is it possible Comcast already has a legal team covering all the other state regulations they already have to comply with?
redm 9y ago
It's amazing how quickly technology is changing. I remember paying $350 a month for dual ISDN lines and getting a whopping 128Kbps. People were literally moving to certain apartments that had "high speed" 100Mbps connection shared to the entire complex. I realize this article is about cable providers promising one thing, and delivering another, I think it's interesting how quickly we and technology adapt to high-speed links and immediately demands MORE MORE MORE! It's a great time to be alive.
- Retric 9y ago
  10 years ago people where getting 1Gbps bandwidth for <100$ a month in some areas. Talking about how fast things are moving when you reference stuff from 20+ years ago is hardly convincing. PS: 10Gbps is being rolled out in some area yet many places are still at under 1/1,000th those speeds. The gap has nothing to do with back-haul capacity it's all about monopolies squeezing there customers as much as possible. Consider, South Korea has 1Gbit/s connections for $20 per month. Yet people in the US are paying ~10x as much for 1/10th the bandwidth.
shawnee_ 9y ago
State-level speed tests aren't necessary, the cable and telecom lobby groups argued, because the FCC runs the Measuring Broadband America program to verify whether the largest ISPs' in-home broadband speeds match the providers' speed claims. This is where it is astoundingly obvious that lobbyists have no technical sense whatsoever. It's analogous to saying "States shouldn't be allowed to determine their own optimal speed limits based on the terrain of their counties' geography ... or the conditions of the roads themselves. Potholes don't matter. Mountains, ice, etc., ... those local things are all irrelevant. Just tell us if it's a highway or rural road or freeway, and we'll let you know if it's allowing the best speed." I understand why the telecoms are doing this. The ISPs don't want to have to upgrade infrastructure to deliver on their (often nationally)"advertised" promises. And behemoths like Comcast/Xfinity, Verizon, AT&T really don't want to invest in infrastructure that benefits only "the last mile" when they have impatient investors focused on the short-term stock price. It's harder for a local company to lie to its customers... it will go out of business (or get sued into the ground) pretty quickly when it does. But for these entrenched behemoths, they just don't care. And that is really bad for almost everybody.
nwmcsween 9y ago
It's sad to see the the us becoming a corporatocracy, maybe the idea of more controlling government is less of an evil than the status quo.
Businessmen 9y ago
For those who are not savvy, I'll do my best to explain why. I am not an expert but have a history in this industry at the technician level. The worst possible thing that could happen to the telecom industry is for the government to expose how overcapacity most local networks are. We aren't talking Tier 1 Internet backbone networks. We are talking about local ISPs that usually fall into the category of Tier 2 or 3. That means they purchase "transit agreements" from Tier 1 networks to connect their users to the backbone. Most areas I have seen are way over capacity in need of upgraded equipment, too many splices on the cable, or limited bandwidth to their backbone connection to save money on overhead. Nobody wants to spend the money upgrading infrastructure for a market they are already making the maximum profit on. They do not want to send you a letter telling you that their network is miraculously upgrading to fiber and your speed will increase tenfold for no extra cost because copper is going away. They will maintain the status quo for as long as possible. It is their only option to keep squeezing out every last cent they can on their current equipment and bandwidth agreements. Upgrading gets them very little in ROI. New shit is reserved for new markets like new roads going to high-end subdivisions.
prirun 9y ago
The cable companies disgust me. First they want to neuter the FCC when they don't like a rule (net neutrality), now they want the FCC to step in when they don't like a state rule. Companies dislike regulation, yet their constant stream of lies and half-truths make regulation necessary. Spectrum is the latest champion: I get ads every week to upgrade to HS Internet + TV + Voice for only $29.95/month. Then the small print: that's $29.95/mo for each service, not total. You'd never know it from looking at the ads, and I didn't realize it for months. They should be forced to advertise this as $89.85/month in huge print, not $29.95.

I think there is certainly some throttling going on for certain sites, although not everyone is technically savvy and doesn't realize that certain webservers et al., are only going to upload at a certain rate, which looks like capping, but is actually just a bandwidth limitation of the server you're connecting to. So even if you're paying for Gig Fiber service for instance, you're still limited by the bandwidth of the server you're connecting to. Steam is great in this regard though, always maxes out my connection, even though I hardly game anymore.

ceejayoz 9y ago
That'd be a good explanation for small sites, but it doesn't hold up with the Netflix, Youtube, etc. of the world.
- BenjiWiebe 9y ago
  And maybe not even a good explanation for small sites. For $5/month your site has a 1Gbps connection out. (Linode)
YCode 9y ago
This argument has been used by ISPs for as long as I care to remember and it's always been BS. I used to work for one and I cringed every time I had to say that line to a customer, but that was our official position even regarding speed test sites. ISPs know even most savvy customers wont be able to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are being throttled/not receiving their promised bandwidth and so they use that grey area to say "Yeah, must just be that server or a router or something."
FireBeyond 9y ago
So you didn't read the article where Charter was called out by the FCC for renting modems (at an exorbitant rate) that were incapable of more than 20mbps to customers on 100mbps or more plans, and in order to avoid being fined then for deception promised to replace them... three years ago... and hasn't done it whatsoever?

0xcde4c3db 9y ago

It seems like this argument could backfire spectacularly. Isn't the cable lobby also relying on state authority to ban (or at least put gratuitous hurdles in the way of) municipal ISPs in several states?

throwawaymanbot 9y ago

Ah, Yes. American capitalism. Where the "Captains of Industry" wax lyrical about how "competition" and unbridled capitalism, are THE greatest and finest of things. But in reality, in American style capitalism, they pay people off, to kill/crush/stomp competition, while pleading that "regulation" is impeding their ability to do just that.

josteink 9y ago
You have to at least admire how openly this occurs. You'd think in a democracy everyone involved in what's the textbook-definition of corruption would try to somewhat obscure what's going on, but nope: it's all in the open.
- throwawaymanbot 9y ago
  True. But I would say its mostly in the open. We can guess from contributions and declared lobbyist visits. Weasel worded bills and regulations in documents pushed through to old men who have mostly no idea or concept of what they are changing, but who only know the value of $$$ campaign or personal contributions isn't something I would call open.
- gech 9y ago
  If we didn't have Ars Technica how would we have heard about it?
- shmerl 9y ago
  No, they hate publicity.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

Spivak 9y ago

This title is horribly misleading. The actual point of contention is whether the FCC's rules on speed disclosure preempt rules enacted by the state. This isn't Big Cable paying off lawmakers to stop some 'investigation', this is companies trying to avoid having deal with 50 different speed disclosure laws, and it could go either way. I don't necessarily like it, but as a matter of law my opinion is that Big Cable should win this one. Setting a uniform national standard is one of the situations where federal laws commonly preempt state laws and the lack of a uniform standard would be confusing to consumers.

jhall1468 9y ago
I absolutely disagree for a number of reasons. First, let's stop pretending that 50 state disclosure laws create some massive undue burden for a company that's big enough to be an ISP in all 50 states. That would be a similar argument to saying that states shouldn't have minimum wages because it's "too hard" for Walmart to have 50 different state minimum wage laws. The only difference is disclosure laws are vastly more simple than labor laws. Second, even if you assume the cable industry should have a single uniform standard, that's up to Congress, not the FCC to determine, so not only should Big Cable lose this on the grounds that state-level consumer protections are a good thing, they should on the grounds that the FCC has absolutely no authority to do this.
- tertius 9y ago
  I completely agree with you regarding the FCC's ability to create "law" and not just weak "regulation" or "rules" and also that the 10th amendment shouldn't be trampled on. I disagree that already having an HR department to deal with employees and labor laws is equal to something else they have to comply with. Not a fair comparison. I do agree though that the burden is not undue.
  - ctrl-j 9y ago
    > ... already having an HR department to deal with employees and labor laws Isn't the HR department a thing because of the employee labor laws? Maybe they need a "Legal team" to manage their compliance with state regulations? Or is it possible Comcast already has a legal team covering all the other state regulations they already have to comply with?

redm 9y ago

It's amazing how quickly technology is changing. I remember paying $350 a month for dual ISDN lines and getting a whopping 128Kbps. People were literally moving to certain apartments that had "high speed" 100Mbps connection shared to the entire complex. I realize this article is about cable providers promising one thing, and delivering another, I think it's interesting how quickly we and technology adapt to high-speed links and immediately demands MORE MORE MORE! It's a great time to be alive.

Retric 9y ago
10 years ago people where getting 1Gbps bandwidth for <100$ a month in some areas. Talking about how fast things are moving when you reference stuff from 20+ years ago is hardly convincing. PS: 10Gbps is being rolled out in some area yet many places are still at under 1/1,000th those speeds. The gap has nothing to do with back-haul capacity it's all about monopolies squeezing there customers as much as possible. Consider, South Korea has 1Gbit/s connections for $20 per month. Yet people in the US are paying ~10x as much for 1/10th the bandwidth.

shawnee_ 9y ago

State-level speed tests aren't necessary, the cable and telecom lobby groups argued, because the FCC runs the Measuring Broadband America program to verify whether the largest ISPs' in-home broadband speeds match the providers' speed claims. This is where it is astoundingly obvious that lobbyists have no technical sense whatsoever. It's analogous to saying "States shouldn't be allowed to determine their own optimal speed limits based on the terrain of their counties' geography ... or the conditions of the roads themselves. Potholes don't matter. Mountains, ice, etc., ... those local things are all irrelevant. Just tell us if it's a highway or rural road or freeway, and we'll let you know if it's allowing the best speed." I understand why the telecoms are doing this. The ISPs don't want to have to upgrade infrastructure to deliver on their (often nationally)"advertised" promises. And behemoths like Comcast/Xfinity, Verizon, AT&T really don't want to invest in infrastructure that benefits only "the last mile" when they have impatient investors focused on the short-term stock price. It's harder for a local company to lie to its customers... it will go out of business (or get sued into the ground) pretty quickly when it does. But for these entrenched behemoths, they just don't care. And that is really bad for almost everybody.

nwmcsween 9y ago

It's sad to see the the us becoming a corporatocracy, maybe the idea of more controlling government is less of an evil than the status quo.

Businessmen 9y ago

For those who are not savvy, I'll do my best to explain why. I am not an expert but have a history in this industry at the technician level. The worst possible thing that could happen to the telecom industry is for the government to expose how overcapacity most local networks are. We aren't talking Tier 1 Internet backbone networks. We are talking about local ISPs that usually fall into the category of Tier 2 or 3. That means they purchase "transit agreements" from Tier 1 networks to connect their users to the backbone. Most areas I have seen are way over capacity in need of upgraded equipment, too many splices on the cable, or limited bandwidth to their backbone connection to save money on overhead. Nobody wants to spend the money upgrading infrastructure for a market they are already making the maximum profit on. They do not want to send you a letter telling you that their network is miraculously upgrading to fiber and your speed will increase tenfold for no extra cost because copper is going away. They will maintain the status quo for as long as possible. It is their only option to keep squeezing out every last cent they can on their current equipment and bandwidth agreements. Upgrading gets them very little in ROI. New shit is reserved for new markets like new roads going to high-end subdivisions.

prirun 9y ago

The cable companies disgust me. First they want to neuter the FCC when they don't like a rule (net neutrality), now they want the FCC to step in when they don't like a state rule. Companies dislike regulation, yet their constant stream of lies and half-truths make regulation necessary. Spectrum is the latest champion: I get ads every week to upgrade to HS Internet + TV + Voice for only $29.95/month. Then the small print: that's $29.95/mo for each service, not total. You'd never know it from looking at the ads, and I didn't realize it for months. They should be forced to advertise this as $89.85/month in huge print, not $29.95.