GOP Tech Platform: Give More Spectrum to AT&T and Verizon Filter Porn, Fight Neutrality Rules, Deregulate Incumbents The New Republic notes that one of the cornerstones of the GOP's technology agenda being firmed up at the convention this week (aside from censoring porn, opposing net neutrality and further eliminating consumer protections) is "spectrum reform." The New Republic argues that spectrum reform in GOP parlance is really just code for taking any and all spectrum you can find and selling it to AT&T and Verizon, so they can squat on it and prevent additional competitors from entering the marketplace (aka protectionism). In addition to just throwing money at the GOP, the incumbents and the GOP sell the idea of further protecting the nation's duopoly from competition by insisting they're just super concerned about bringing broadband to rural users. For those who actually pay attention however, history has shown repeatedly that a concern for rural America or even broadband coverage has never been anywhere on the GOP or incumbents' radar: Auctions haven’t done much to expand access in the rural areas Republicans claim to love. They have, however, enriched the big businesses who generally love Republicans. Spectrum auctions are nearly always won by the behemoths AT&T and Verizon, which build out infrastructure in more urban areas and leave less-populated areas alone, in the kind of classic market failure that Republicans find so difficult to recognize. However, the report ignores how the Democrats also love to fail miserably on this front, with both parties buying into the spectrum-apocalypse scenarios painted by AT&T and Verizon to help them gobble and squat on any and all spectrum for the promise of a brighter tomorrow. The current Democratic FCC in particular professes to care about rural users, yet consistently ignores competitive issues and just signed off on a Verizon cable deal that could give cable a more potent monopoly over landline broadband in rural markets than ever before. As for new spectrum, the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology is urging the Obama administration to push for new shared spectrum technology allowing industry and government to co-inhabit some airwaves, but that's a plan both AT&T and Verizon lobbyists are doing their best to put a stop to. In a few weeks you'll get to see the Democrats take their turn at pretending to support concepts like "Internet freedom" while quietly building a platform built almost solely on AT&T and Verizon wishes and cash.
|
 Reviews:
 ·Callcentric
1 edit | Truth The RepubliCon party always beats on about capitalism and the free market, yet fails to grasp or accept that the cornerstone of the free market is competition; which drives the invisible hand.
Therefore, why is it that time and time again, their policies encourage monopolies and duopolies, which actually go against the free-market and are more akin to corporate fascism.
Of course, they excuse this with claiming it's survival of the fittest, failing to ever mention how their creed benefits the American consumer - it doesn't.
Common sense. 5 wireless carriers are better for the consumer than 2 alone. Sprint and Tmobile for example, do not have the spectrum or quality of spectrum to compete with these two incumbents, yet AT&T and VZ want even more. | |
|  | | | Re: Truth With LTE Advanced on the way, the FCC should free up a 100MHZ somewhere and allow communities to service their own.
Such bandwidth would allow full speed of well over 1GB/s and not face any of the shortfalls of community WIFI projects. | |
| | | | | Re: Truth With LTE Advanced on the way, the FCC should free up a 100MHZ somewhere and allow communities to service their own. | |
|
| elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA | said by Telco:The RepubliCon party always beats on about capitalism and the free market, yet fails to grasp or accept that the cornerstone of the free market is competition; which drives the invisible hand.
And the Left fails to grasp or accept that rural consumers are unwilling to pay rates sufficient to attract competing vendors.
GOP respects consumer's rights to NOT purchase services they don't want, unlike the current regime, which will fine tax you if you don't buy their "affordable care" policy.
Rural markets are natural monopolies, and should be regulated accordingly; while that will generally mean substantially higher prices for broadband, it will assure its availability. | |
| | | Reviews:
·Callcentric
| Re: Truth said by elray:And the Left fails to grasp or accept that rural consumers are unwilling to pay rates sufficient to attract competing vendors.
GOP respects consumer's rights to NOT purchase services they don't want, unlike the current regime, which will fine tax you if you don't buy their "affordable care" policy.
Rural markets are natural monopolies, and should be regulated accordingly; while that will generally mean substantially higher prices for broadband, it will assure its availability.
Fair enough. Can you explain the monopolies in almost every metro area throughout America?
I live in one of the wealthiest counties in the country and close to a major city yet only have Comcast, not even VZ DSL.
What's even more laughable is someone on the west coast defending telecoms in America, considering how limited choices are there - in AT&T country. The limited choices in the San Jose area for example are a complete joke. | |
| | |  quetwoThat VoIP GuyPremium
join:2004-09-04
East Lansing, MI | said by elray:And the Left fails to grasp or accept that rural consumers are unwilling to pay rates sufficient to attract competing vendors.
GOP respects consumer's rights to NOT purchase services they don't want, unlike the current regime, which will fine tax you if you don't buy their "affordable care" policy.
Then how do the laws that were passed preventing rural communities from establishing their own broadband networks come into play with all this. One of the big elephants in the room is that the big telcos have lobbied extremely hard in many states to prevent local, rural communities from starting their own ISPs, by local votes, by their own community members. These are often areas that want the service but the telcos are unwilling to serve them due to population density -- or it just plain doesn't fit their market plan. | |
| | | |  pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | Re: Truth said by quetwo:Then how do the laws that were passed preventing rural communities from establishing their own broadband networks come into play with all this. The only such laws are those which save taxpayers money by restricting the ability of local governments to waste it on things like broadband.
As this site has reported, there have been many municipal internet rackets that have gone under and left taxpayers holding the bag.
Of course, there is nothing stopping private investors from using their own money, or raising money, to fund such a venture.
--
Romney/Ryan 2012 - Put a couple of mature adults in charge. | |
| | | | | Reviews:
·Callcentric
| Re: Truth Which municipal FTTH project failed?
Actually, the legislation was proposed by the large Telcos in various states, to completely prevent any county or city from installing their own FTTH. That decision should be left up to the voters of a community, not Republican legislators and their corporate cronies.
said by pnh102:Of course, there is nothing stopping private investors from using their own money, or raising money, to fund such a venture.
Which part of they do not want to service these areas do you fail to grasp? Moreover, am I surprised with you stance? No. Republicans hate government yet have no problem whatsoever using it to push a corporate agenda. | |
| | | | | | pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | Re: Truth said by Telco:Which municipal FTTH project failed?
Here are a few. And why do you conclude that any government-funded project has a guaranteed success?
»A Municipal Failure
»www.carolinajournal.com/exclusiv···?id=7562
»www.smartplanet.com/blog/thinkin···fi/11546
»www.technologyreview.com/view/42···romised/
said by Telco:Actually, the legislation was proposed by the large Telcos in various states... I couldn't care less who proposed it. In the end the taxpayers win because their money isn't wasted on something that isn't vital.
said by Telco:Which part of they do not want to service these areas do you fail to grasp? Ok I am typing this really slow so that you understand. My suggestion was for *private* entities and persons to raise their own money to build their network. You do realize this doesn't have to mean a cable or telephone company, right?
--
Romney/Ryan 2012 - Put a couple of mature adults in charge. | |
|
| | | elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA | said by quetwo:said by elray:And the Left fails to grasp or accept that rural consumers are unwilling to pay rates sufficient to attract competing vendors.
GOP respects consumer's rights to NOT purchase services they don't want, unlike the current regime, which will fine tax you if you don't buy their "affordable care" policy.
Then how do the laws that were passed preventing rural communities from establishing their own broadband networks come into play with all this. One of the big elephants in the room is that the big telcos have lobbied extremely hard in many states to prevent local, rural communities from starting their own ISPs, by local votes, by their own community members. These are often areas that want the service but the telcos are unwilling to serve them due to population density -- or it just plain doesn't fit their market plan. Your assertion is simply untrue.
Rural communities are not prevented from establishing their own broadband networks. Only the local government.
There are several avenues to form your own broadband service without using the government, and hundreds of communities have done just that, whether or not it is fiscally advisable.
It isn't that telco is unwilling to serve; customers are unwilling to pay the rates necessary to support the service. That's not a condemnation, its simple math. Low-density rural broadband has much higher costs per household, wired or wireless, while rural people are more likely to not subscribe.
We can and should continue to dialogue on the 21st-century meaning of "universal service", which may mean more than just dialtone... but does it mean the rest of us have to subsidize every rural household $10K to plumb fiber, and ongoing subsidies to buy down the monthly rate to $30/month from the real-world cost of $100+?
I don't think so. | |
| | | | | Reviews:
·Callcentric
| Re: Truth said by elray:Your assertion is simply untrue.
Likewise. What rock have you lived under, as you clearly missed the Telcos lobbying, state after state, (R) legislator to prevent any county from installing their own FTTH network.
Once again, if a telco is unwilling to service a county or adequately, why should they (i.e. Americans) be prevented from installing and operating their own network???
Nobody is asking some twit from Santa Monica to fund anything. Rather, communities want the right deliver a service, when your beloved private sector has failed; as it does so frequently. | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Truth I just love how AT&T and South Carolina legislation defines broadband at 190 kb/s. Way to keep us in the 20th century along with blue laws. | |
| | | | | | pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | said by Telco:Likewise. What rock have you lived under, as you clearly missed the Telcos lobbying, state after state, (R) legislator to prevent any county from installing their own FTTH network. Yes... any government from doing it. Any private interest can still do it. There is no law that prevents any private individual, organization or entity from setting up and operating a private broadband or cable provider.
That is, unless of course your beloved government decides to stop it.
--
Romney/Ryan 2012 - Put a couple of mature adults in charge. | |
|
| | Reviews:
·Callcentric
| Re: How about looking at GOP platform First off, the GOP has consistently illustrated this election that their words mean nothing and that they are willing to lie through their teeth to get elected. It's like listening to Sudasky claim he's innocent.
Ironic to see the preamble on the first page, something every Republican seems to ignore. "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union".
Amazing how I do not see the words "shareholder, profiteer, superpack, CEO, Board, Wall-street, corporation, conglomerate, bankers, etc etc" in there; i.e. the Republican creed. | |
| |  BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | How about YOU actually understanding what they REALLY mean? Seriously quit drinking the Kool-Aid. | |
| | | | | | | Re: How about looking at GOP platform (please avoid long quotes!)
Says it all. Thanks for trolling for mitt...
--
Splat | |
| | | | | So you're saying we should only pay attention to the political sales pitch but ignore decades of history for both parties? How convenient. | |
| | | |  LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 | Re: How about looking at GOP platform said by Alex J :So you're saying we should only pay attention to the political sales pitch but ignore decades of history for both parties? How convenient.
No I am saying don't make up meanings in a document that isn't in the document. Which is exactly what a lot of bloggers are doing.
--
»www.mittromney.com/s/repeal-and-···bamacare
»www.mittromney.com/issues/health-care | |
| | | | | | | Re: How about looking at GOP platform There's nothing in the document but a bunch of fluff and bullshit, like all political documents from both parties. I'll rely on actual history to tell me who I should believe, thanks -- and it shouldn't be politicians with a generation of lies under their belt. | |
| | | | | | LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 | Re: How about looking at GOP platform said by Alex J :There's nothing in the document but a bunch of fluff and bullshit, like all political documents from both parties. I'll rely on actual history to tell me who I should believe, thanks -- and it shouldn't be politicians with a generation of lies under their belt.
That's fine. But also don't believe bloggers & commentators with their own history of distorting reality to further their own agendas - like a lot of these so-called consumer protection groups that are just shills for more gov't control of everything..
--
»www.mittromney.com/s/repeal-and-···bamacare
»www.mittromney.com/issues/health-care | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: How about looking at GOP platform with their own history of distorting reality
It's fascinating that everybody in this country screams and cries about distortion, or bias when something doesn't fit their (usually very narrow) world view, but is utterly incapable of seeing that their own lense out onto the world creates distortion of its own.
Stop buying into partisan nonsense. It might help keep you from over simplifying consumer advocate positions as "more gov't control of everything." Most of them are trying to represent the public -- a novel notion indeed. | |
|
| | | | | | not a document. it's a brochure. | |
|
| | | Just another load of Bovine excrement. I've yet to see either party even remotely support their platforms. In reality, it's nothing but a get re-elected action list that makes the populace "think" they represent them. Lofty platitudes coming from the GOP dais is here today and gone tomorrow, same with the Dems. The nation wanted national security, we got the Patriot Act, Homeland security and countless other violations of our privacy. We have Presidents saying its legal to go to foreign countries and execute American citizens without a trial. We have wholesale sellout of the taxpayer to Big Money a la the bailout of the Banking thieves, continuation of the War machine, failure to protect our sovereign borders while sending our sons daughters, wives and husbands to die in foreign lands. I don't swallow the BS coming from either the Romney camp or the Obama camp because its just too hard to forget the past failures to deliver on promises. | |
|
dynodbPremium,VIP
join:2004-04-21
Minneapolis, MN | TNR? Really, Karl? You're citing the partisans at TNR now?
All that's being proposed is that more of the spectrum be offered up for use via the fairest way to distribute it- by auction.
If the rural carriers need more bandwidth / spectrum, they only need buy it at the market rate.
Supply and demand- you've heard of the concept, no? | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | Re: TNR? Really, Karl? If the rural carriers need more bandwidth / spectrum, they only need buy it at the market rate. | |
| | | | Distribute it by auction so all can fairly bid right?
Lets see, last time I checked:
- The person with the most money wins an auction.
- Monopolistic companies will burn money for the simple reason to prevent competition.
So I guess fair to you is to give AT&T and Verizon all the spectrum for a few dollars more than what their biggest "competitors" can spend and then the "free market" has worked it's wonder. Take note, I use the word competitors very loosely there. | |
| | | dynodbPremium,VIP
join:2004-04-21
Minneapolis, MN | Re: TNR? Really, Karl? said by Skippy25:Distribute it by auction so all can fairly bid right?
Lets see, last time I checked:
- The person with the most money wins an auction.
- Monopolistic companies will burn money for the simple reason to prevent competition.
So I guess fair to you is to give AT&T and Verizon all the spectrum for a few dollars more than what their biggest "competitors" can spend and then the "free market" has worked it's wonder. Take note, I use the word competitors very loosely there.
Nobody is proposing that the FCC "give" AT&T or Verizon spectrum.
As the two largest providers with the lion's share of the market, is it really so untoward that they'd be buying the most spectrum at auction in an era where demand has grown tremendously?
In spectrum there is a limited (by physics no less!) supply. An open auction is the fairest way to distribute such a commodity. Government officials deciding which of their most favored campaign contributors get it... not so much.
If it can be proven that the big providers are engaging in monopolistic practices for the sole purpose of quashing competition, that can be dealt with. What's being complained about here is speculation on what might happen should everybody be given a fair shot at bidding for spectrum. | |
| | | | | | Re: TNR? Really, Karl? LOL, you are funny!
How about this... we auction it off but AT&T and Verizon is excluded from being able to bid? Would you agree to those terms? | |
| | | | | | If you really believe this stuff then you sir are a comedian of great renown.What's being complained about here is speculation on what might happen should everybody be given a fair shot at bidding for spectrum. | |
|
| | Looks like BBR jumped the shark Booooo. The ugly head of hyperpartisanship has reached BBR.
Clue stick time. BOTH parties want to sell off spectrum to the wireless companies.
Why do you think Obama is continuously harping about broadband?
Genachowski has been pushing for ending of OTA TV as we know it and selling the spectrum to wireless companies. Ever heard of the national broadband plan?
Genachowski aint no GOPer! He was Obama's best bud in Harvard Law School.
IT DOES NOT MATTER which party is in power. Whoever is in power will be dictated to by their telco masters. | |
| |
See 7 replies to this post | |
slckusrPremium
join:2003-03-17
Maumee, OH
kudos:1 | It makes sense. Keep the rural areas ignorant to counter the big city voters. Easy access to the internet provides more knowledge with knowledge comes enlightenment. Keeping folks in the dark furthers both platforms agendas. | |
| |  firephotoFacts hurtPremium
join:2003-03-18
Brewster, WA | Re: It makes sense. said by slckusr:Keep the rural areas ignorant to counter the big city voters. Easy access to the internet provides more knowledge with knowledge comes enlightenment. Keeping folks in the dark furthers both platforms agendas.
Because rural people who make significantly less than urban people want to pay the same urban rates for equal or slower "LTE".
It's already happening too. The people who own the pipes are laying new fiber to mountaintops just to provide service for verizon or att and selling it has providing next gerneration broadband to rural users.
It's a load of overpriced and restricted crap.
--
Say no to astroturfing. actions > Ignore Author | |
| | | | Yep. One (and sometimes both) party in particular loves to cut education funding for the exact same reason. If people were able to think critically, they might stop and realize they're being fed a line of crap year after year after year. Especially at these conventions.
Look how much this article (which is really only saying that both parties are full of crap and ignoring the will of the public in exchange for telco cash) upsets all the little partisan droids and girls who insist it's full of vile lies and distortions. | |
|
decifal
join:2007-03-10
Bon Aqua, TN
kudos:1 | donno I donno, this to me is like giving more guns to the Nazi party back in WW2...
Maybe i'm just not a fan of both of these companies buying their power from our government though. :-/ | |
| | | Really? If that is true then why is it the current Democrat administration has let Comacast gobble up NBC? Why have they allowed Verizon and Comacast to partner? Why have they basically been the administration that never saw a monopoly they didn't like? | |
| |  tshirtPremium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:3 | Re: Really? And that is somehow different than the last 5-6?
Oh yeah, perhaps you forgot about that little AT&T~T-mo thing? | |
| | Reviews:
·ooma
 ·Optimum Online
 ·Verizon FiOS
| said by Truther :If that is true then why is it the current Democrat administration has let Comacast gobble up NBC? Why have they allowed Verizon and Comacast to partner? Why have they basically been the administration that never saw a monopoly they didn't like?
Basically, the copyright industry isn't big enough to force wholesale changes down the throats of the American people (alone), so getting in bed w/ the ISPs so that their values align and their wallet is big enough to bribe EITHER party to make these changes.. least, we forget.. a substantial # of these committees are shared responsiblity (rarely, if ever do you have ONE GUY saying "Oh hell no, this far and no further..."). They already know that this 6x (strikes) plan is going to be a big mess and will in the end cost the ISPs some customers.. and jusitfy usage based billing and rate hikes as an end game (aka final solution) to the copyright industry's problem. In Canada, they tax storage hardware & media..
However, these changes aren't a Republican or Democrat issue, it's more a corruption issue than anything.. if you ask the common man about the AT&T/Tmobile merger, they were against, it.. usage based billing (data)... against, Comcast caps... against.. Comcast/Nbc.. skeptical, AT&T/Bellsouth merger... for, but there were alot of broken promises, so that ended up changing as time clicked by and they did not fulfill the merger principles for owning Bell South/Cingular. Who does this all benefit? Three beneficiaries come to mind: Lawyers, Wall Street, and the 1%... Who does it hurt? Joe, the average rate payer.. | |
|
Reviews:
·ooma
·Optimum Online
·Verizon FiOS
| can't buy into the GOP, or sell out.. AT&T and VERIZON should be broken up, rather than get ONE MORE GOODIE from the federal government, or state & local governments for that matter..
in 2007 & 2008, as millions of jobs were hemorraging.. somebody gave the then candidate John McCain the bright idea to say "the fundamentals of the economy are strong"...
When you represent the 1%, it's hard to argue with things being so bad... until there is a French style revolution and the people want heads to roll (literally)... on THAT day, it won't be such a great day to be in support of these policies..
»www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9a5-E5Zk3w | |
| | | | Re: can't buy into the GOP, or sell out.. AT&T and Verizon should be left alone. I don't want to have to paying for roaming again. | |
|
 SnakeoilIgnore Button. The coward's feature.Premium
join:2000-08-05
Mentor, OH
kudos:1
·RoadRunner Cable
·magicjack.com
| I stopped at "Filter porn" When ever I see "Filter porn", "fight porn", I flash back to the Christian Coalition. They would have us back in the days of where woman had no rights, you could be burned at the stake for not attending church, etc.
I for one don't need to live in a country that would restrict my freedoms in such a manner.
IMO, "filter porn" is a parents job, not the governments. If the parent fails to do their job, that is on them, and no one else. Parents need to parent and not give it other to the schools or the government to do the parenting.
--
Is a person a failure for doing nothing? Or is he a failure for trying, and not succeeding at what he is attempting to do? What did you fail at today?. | |
|
| |
|
|
How about looking at GOP platform
