Republicans Push for Major Communications Act 'Reform'

"In the nearly 18 years since the last update of the Communications Act, the world has been revolutionized by broadband and new digital technologies," 

Yet i'm still stuck with crap DSL service from AT&T. I'm sure this is a product of AT&T's lobbying to reduce regulation, when in fact they've proven that more is needed.

Bingo! With Rebooblicans leading the charge no less.

Why don't you start a competing internet service, with better service, more bandwidth and lower prices? Start in your own neighborhood. AT&T are making a pretty profit, so there is room to undercut them.

Except where they buy the politicians to pass laws preventing competitors from operating in areas they don't/under serve.

At least they aren't trying to push a sweeping deregulation bill through Congress to get signed by the President before Christmas. There's plenty of time for dissenting opinions to be expressed and heard/ignored.

Look for the end of strict net neutrality with content providers paying ISPs for improved speeds & availability. Also look for bill-by-byte OKs in new law.

I've been part of several start ups that fit pawpaw's suggestion. I've yet to run into any laws that prohibit competition. Perhaps you can point these laws out?

"Look for the end of strict net neutrality"

I'm waiting on it to begin.

I guess you've never heard of Louisiana, North Carolina, and several other US states where legislators, paid by AT&T and other incumbents, have thwarted (or tried to) efforts by citizens to better serve their areas. Have you lived under a rock?

Maybe Fuziwuzi is thinking about municipal ISPs and the hurdles they often face instead?

As I asked before, please point out the laws that prohibit anyone from starting their own ISP in any state.

I know I'll sound cynical and jaded, but if we follow the money trail I predict bi-partisan support from the Energy and Commerce committee on the reform issue.

The communications and electronics sector was second in donations ($2,883,820) to the committee members, trailing only the health care industry, energy was a distant third (see: »www.opensecrets.org/cmte ··· hamber=H)

In terms of individual congressman Ed Markey (D, MA) was by far the largest recipient of largesse from related industries, followed closely by Mr. Upton and Mr. Walden.

Telecom services and equipment:
Ed Markey (D-Mass).....$79,000
Greg Walden (R-Ore)....$41,250
Fred Upton (R-Mich).....$11,750
»www.opensecrets.org/cmte ··· ndus=B09

Telephone utilities:
Ed Markey (D-Mass).....$53,250
Greg Walden (R-Ore)....$36,250
Fred Upton (R-Mich).....$22,650
»www.opensecrets.org/cmte ··· =B08

TV/Movies/Music
Ed Markey (D-Mass).....$288,000
Greg Walden (R-Ore)....$121,300
Fred Upton (R-Mich).....$50,850
»www.opensecrets.org/cmte ··· ndus=B02

In other words, we totally screwed everything up back in 1996 and just as things are kind of sorting themselves out, we need to screw it all up again. Not to mention the campaign contributions have been drying up and we need to fleece the telecom's for more contributions. How better to motivate them than to propose legislation that affects them.

Plus, since congress is bought and paid for by industry insiders, you can be sure whatever reforms comes out of Washington will strip whatever rights consumers have to competition and turn over the entire industry to a cabal of companies such AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, Cox and Charter. TWC is really not a player as they will be sold off soon enough. On the bright side, unless Obama pulls a Clinton, it is probably DOA until the next presidential election.

I'm confused. You are citing laws that prevent competition. But people are complaining that there is not enough regulation. So which is it? More or less regulation?

It was a Dem-crap who allowed Comacast to buy NBC to create an even larger monopoly. ALL career politicians need to go!

Start a co-op with your neighbors and expand it. DO NOT make it a Muni and don't believe what you read on the front page. AT&T does NOT stop you from starting an ISP like many on where want to make you believe and call for Muni/Federal Fiber for everyone.

The communications act in many ways helped consumers. Big Cable lauding a revision can only be a bad thing.

Where do you propose the middle ground should be? I agree that things like we should prioritize certain categories of transmission, like VOIP and medical data. But allowing the prioritizing of one's own content without some limits seems like a recipe for disaster for the open Internet.

I'm OK with a provider who uses QoS to deliver their Voice on their own network. I'm not OK with providers (I'm looking at Comcast) who monkey with things that break other provider's voice. I'm more than happy to get mixed in with all the noise as I can usually come up with a way to make the customer happy. I've got a big problem with providers who do things to break other provider's voice.

FWIW the Comcast thing seems to be a market by market problem and not nationwide.

Thanks for posting this, I had remembered Mr. Upton as being a tool of AT&T and was just going to go look for that information, but you beat me to it!

Right, they only stop YOU from being an isp if YOU are a group called a community and are banded together by a voting majority.

Washington State. It is against the law for any public agency to provide end user internet services. Period. Law passed with the help of GTE when the first Public Utility Districts created fiber optic networks in the late 1990's.

Public electricity. Ok. Private electricity. Ok. Public internet. NOT OK. Private internet. Ok. See the problem here? I do, too many people who believe "the way it is" is the answer and solution to let private business monopolize a sector that applies to almost everyone in a government jurisdiction.

When people want something, when people band together to create something, when people vote to approve something, they should be allowed to do so with no interference from non-voting entities. Businesses can't vote. Corporations can't Vote. CEO's living in other jurisdiction can't vote. But the reality and the actual laws don't seem to convey these blatant points into reality every day.

That's just dumb, nothing on the network should be prioritized. It's just a con to allow greased palms.

How would you feel if the new update cuts off your DSL, and forces you to move or get LTE?

Uh... How about some intelligent regulation? The world does not fall into two categories where there is either "more" or "less" regulation. Your simplistic view of things is appalling.

Because the initial capital expenditure required to compete in a saturated infrastructure market is astronomical? The ROI is in the multiple years? You have to not only undercut the incumbent, who has already paid off the cost of their lines over the last couple decades, this putting you at a massive cost disadvantage, but you have to spend exorbitant sums on advertisement to steal away customers from them.

This is basic Econ 101. Why do you feign ignorance of how infrastructure tends toward natural monopolies?

a lot of Dems also

Exactly! Wireless is not a viable replacement for wired internet. AT&T get's my vote for the worst company in America.

As it stands right now, providers are able to surreptitiously to undermine certain content on their networks, and the FCC/FTC can't do much about it. While there is a lot of talk about how this shouldn't be allowed, there's not a whole lot of political will power to create tougher enforcement standards. As it is, the FCC has probably gone farther than its authorizing statute allows, and like it or not, Republicans will remain a strong force in the house for many years because of redistricting.

Allowing for at least some prioritizing in a theoretical redesign of the FCC Act would give policy makers the window to implement a more effective enforcement mechanism to enforce those priorities. That's part of the given and take of Washington, that's how sausage is made.

Admittedly, I''m not an expert, but I still think there's a reasonable line to draw out there, and I don't buy the doom and gloom predictions about the end of the internet as we know it. Slippery slope arguments are pretty weak in my opinion, but if there's a logical argument for why we need strict neutrality, I'd listen.

In NC they only stopped government systems from being built not private systems. I can't remember if the fight they had in Louisiana was private or municipal. I think one of the power companies is building a fiber system a couple counties away. Not sure yet.