6 ms·

Politics aside, of course. The administration continues to act in removing Federal jurisdiction and regulations from being used as a tool to prevent startup or

Politics aside, of course. The administration continues to act in removing Federal jurisdiction and regulations from being used as a tool to prevent startup organizations from entering established markets. This case is a success in that it removes significant incumbent advantages. Let's hope poor behavior and sloppy work (breaking connections too frequently) doesn't become common. And shame on the incumbents using regulations for financial gain.

ericflo 8y ago
You didn't set politics aside at all in this post. Your opinions are politically charged, or at least have significant political implications —though I suspect you know that.
- foota 8y ago
  That was a fairly factual statement, it seemed?
  - brainwad 8y ago
    Well, in this case the administration is actually introducing regulations, rather than removing them...
    - koolba 8y ago
      I'd say it's more like they're closing a loophole in an existing regulation. Existing pole owners were already required to allow competitors to add their cables. What this does is prevent them from creating indefinite delays to prevent said competitors from actually doing so.
  - matt4077 8y ago
    It’s a factual statement, but false. As but one example: removing net neutrality only serves established players who can afford to pay for access to each of their customers. Just try to start a business when it requires separate contracts with (and payments to) each and every ISP in the country. Most of t admin’s drive against regulations has no impact on startup activity whatsoever: the amount of methane released by oil wells, mileage standards, etc. The statement by OP furthers the fallacy of proportional trade-offs between economic success vs environmental and other harms.
ericdykstra 8y ago
Redirecting money and supporting certain businesses/industries through regulation is one of the more negative consequences that every American government has contributed to. Regulatory capture (like in this case), subsidies that interfere with markets, bailouts, etc all cripple the economy by propping up businesses/industries that would otherwise die and make way for new competition.
- rayiner 8y ago
  Referring to “this case” as an instance of “regulatory capture” is weird. Incumbents lost this particular battle more than two decades ago, when the 1996 telecom act mandated nom discriminatory access to pole attachments for competitors. This is an additional rule to correct behavior that was trying to get around th spirit of the law (causing delays in the process). Regulatory capture requires regulated entities to take action beneficial to incumbent companies. For pole attachments, it’s been a 20 year process og doing the opposite.
bo1024 8y ago
What are the previous actions of this sort?
afpx 8y ago
Is this really a good example of a success? I see it as one incumbent battling another incumbent over literally billions of dollars of future ad revenue. To me, a good example would be a true startup (fewer than 15 people, less than $5M revenue) getting the FCC to side with them without spending millions.
- exelius 8y ago
  Likewise — and people often miss this angle — Comcast is a bit of an upstart itself in comparison to the two major incumbents, AT&T and Verizon. The two basically hold a duopoly on nationwide last-mile access, and they are using all their political power to prevent Comcast from becoming large enough to challenge them as a National last-mile telecom (they currently only offer service in something like 40% of the households in the US). The prime case-in-point is the TimeWarner Cable merger that was scuttled — such a merger would have made Comcast effectively national, and a serious competitor to the old Bells. Meanwhile AT&T purchased DirecTV less than a year later (a deal worth more than the TWC acquisition in both dollars and customers) and the whole thing got rushed through quickly. Do you think we would still have wired home Internet connections without Comcast? I know they’re a terrible company to be a customer of (what telecom isn’t though?) but when you look at the larger picture, they’re constantly stymied by the FCC from getting “too big” — meanwhile, their two biggest competitors are 2-4x larger on a revenue basis. Verizon and AT&T would drop their residential landline business in a heartbeat if Comcast weren’t around driving demand for it — the way Comcast’s tech architecture works makes it cheaper for them to serve the residential market than AT&T or Verizon will ever be able to do with wired connections.
  - snowwrestler 8y ago
    > The two basically hold a duopoly on nationwide last-mile access This is obviously not true since neither Verizon nor AT&T operate hardline access nationwide. Even if you mean copper phone wires specifically, you're leaving out CenturyLink. Copper phone lines are of course the slowest last mile hardlines. Coax is far superior, and cable ISPs are growing relative to DSL--where the choices are Comcast vs Verizon DSL (for example), Comcast has higher market share. https://www.tellusventure.com/blog/cable-gains-subs-as-consumers-flee-dsl/ https://www.tellusventure.com/blog/cable-gains-subs-as-consu... Verizon FiOS competes directly with Comcast, but is offered in only about 20 metropolitan areas--and even then, incompletely. (FiOS is available in DC but not in Alexandria, which is right across the river.) Verizon stopped growing their FiOS footprint years ago. > Verizon and AT&T would drop their residential landline business in a heartbeat if Comcast weren’t around driving demand for it Verizon and AT&T (and CenturyLink) are required by law to provide residential telephone landlines to anyone who asks for it. What does that have to do with last-mile broadband?

ericflo 8y ago

You didn't set politics aside at all in this post. Your opinions are politically charged, or at least have significant political implications —though I suspect you know that.

foota 8y ago
That was a fairly factual statement, it seemed?
- brainwad 8y ago
  Well, in this case the administration is actually introducing regulations, rather than removing them...
  - koolba 8y ago
    I'd say it's more like they're closing a loophole in an existing regulation. Existing pole owners were already required to allow competitors to add their cables. What this does is prevent them from creating indefinite delays to prevent said competitors from actually doing so.
- matt4077 8y ago
  It’s a factual statement, but false. As but one example: removing net neutrality only serves established players who can afford to pay for access to each of their customers. Just try to start a business when it requires separate contracts with (and payments to) each and every ISP in the country. Most of t admin’s drive against regulations has no impact on startup activity whatsoever: the amount of methane released by oil wells, mileage standards, etc. The statement by OP furthers the fallacy of proportional trade-offs between economic success vs environmental and other harms.

ericdykstra 8y ago

Redirecting money and supporting certain businesses/industries through regulation is one of the more negative consequences that every American government has contributed to. Regulatory capture (like in this case), subsidies that interfere with markets, bailouts, etc all cripple the economy by propping up businesses/industries that would otherwise die and make way for new competition.

rayiner 8y ago
Referring to “this case” as an instance of “regulatory capture” is weird. Incumbents lost this particular battle more than two decades ago, when the 1996 telecom act mandated nom discriminatory access to pole attachments for competitors. This is an additional rule to correct behavior that was trying to get around th spirit of the law (causing delays in the process). Regulatory capture requires regulated entities to take action beneficial to incumbent companies. For pole attachments, it’s been a 20 year process og doing the opposite.

bo1024 8y ago

What are the previous actions of this sort?

afpx 8y ago

Is this really a good example of a success? I see it as one incumbent battling another incumbent over literally billions of dollars of future ad revenue. To me, a good example would be a true startup (fewer than 15 people, less than $5M revenue) getting the FCC to side with them without spending millions.

exelius 8y ago
Likewise — and people often miss this angle — Comcast is a bit of an upstart itself in comparison to the two major incumbents, AT&T and Verizon. The two basically hold a duopoly on nationwide last-mile access, and they are using all their political power to prevent Comcast from becoming large enough to challenge them as a National last-mile telecom (they currently only offer service in something like 40% of the households in the US). The prime case-in-point is the TimeWarner Cable merger that was scuttled — such a merger would have made Comcast effectively national, and a serious competitor to the old Bells. Meanwhile AT&T purchased DirecTV less than a year later (a deal worth more than the TWC acquisition in both dollars and customers) and the whole thing got rushed through quickly. Do you think we would still have wired home Internet connections without Comcast? I know they’re a terrible company to be a customer of (what telecom isn’t though?) but when you look at the larger picture, they’re constantly stymied by the FCC from getting “too big” — meanwhile, their two biggest competitors are 2-4x larger on a revenue basis. Verizon and AT&T would drop their residential landline business in a heartbeat if Comcast weren’t around driving demand for it — the way Comcast’s tech architecture works makes it cheaper for them to serve the residential market than AT&T or Verizon will ever be able to do with wired connections.
- snowwrestler 8y ago
  > The two basically hold a duopoly on nationwide last-mile access This is obviously not true since neither Verizon nor AT&T operate hardline access nationwide. Even if you mean copper phone wires specifically, you're leaving out CenturyLink. Copper phone lines are of course the slowest last mile hardlines. Coax is far superior, and cable ISPs are growing relative to DSL--where the choices are Comcast vs Verizon DSL (for example), Comcast has higher market share. https://www.tellusventure.com/blog/cable-gains-subs-as-consumers-flee-dsl/ https://www.tellusventure.com/blog/cable-gains-subs-as-consu... Verizon FiOS competes directly with Comcast, but is offered in only about 20 metropolitan areas--and even then, incompletely. (FiOS is available in DC but not in Alexandria, which is right across the river.) Verizon stopped growing their FiOS footprint years ago. > Verizon and AT&T would drop their residential landline business in a heartbeat if Comcast weren’t around driving demand for it Verizon and AT&T (and CenturyLink) are required by law to provide residential telephone landlines to anyone who asks for it. What does that have to do with last-mile broadband?