Susan Crawford is Pissing Off All the Right People Grass Root Attempt to Get Her to the FCC Benjamin N. Cardozo School Professor Susan Crawford's new book Captive Audience has been pissing off all the right people in DC and at major carriers the last few weeks by highlighting the industry's lack of competition. Crawford's making the book promotion rounds, and as a result she has spent the last few weeks being attacked by the usual suspects, paid by carriers to spin yarns, blow smoke and maintain the status quo ( Scott Cleland, Steve Largent, Brett Swanson, Richard Bennett to name just a few). I just finished the book and recommend it whole heartedly; the majority of it will be well-tread ground for regular Broadband Reports readers over the last decade. Namely, a few large companies have lobbied the U.S. government to create geographic monopolies and crush competition, resulting in indisputably mediocre (or worse) broadband across all measurable metrics: availability, speed, price, and coverage. Government regulators from both parties have been complicit in these problems, and nobody wants to fix it because there's too much money being made by gouging the American consumer. As a cherry on top an ocean of paid fauxcademics, astroturfers, lobbyists, hired flacks and consultants (see above) are paid millions annually to try and convince the press and public that nothing is wrong using bogus science and bullhorns. Crawford's cage rattling the last month has resulted in a grass roots effort to try and nominate her for FCC boss, and her complaints about the U.S. broadband market are making a lot of people usually bored by telecom policy take notice. That nomination will likely never happen (our current FCC can't be bothered to acknowledge competitive issues exist, much less bring in someone to do something about it), but she's worth listening to all the same, and the exposure she's bringing to the sector's problems is invaluable. A new interview with Bill Moyers is embedded below. It's worth watching and begins in earnest around 2:07.
|
  trparkyApple... YUMPremium,MVM
join:2000-05-24
Cleveland, OH
kudos:2 | This woman... This woman and her ideas sound like a breath of fresh air amid a room full of smoke. We need to get this person into the FCC! | |
|  |  dillyhammerA. Good. Start.Premium,MVM
join:2010-01-09
Hamilton, ON
kudos:9 | Re: This woman... To hell with the FCC. Put her in charge of Industry Canada, Measurement Canada, and the CRTC all in one go.
Mike | |
| | |  Duramax08Win8 sucksPremium
join:2008-08-03
San Antonio, TX | Re: This woman... nah, get your own!  | |
| | |  TigerLordResident pentaxianPremium,Mod
join:2002-06-09
Canada
kudos:6
 ·ELECTRONICBOX
Host:
International Broa..
Videotron
| said by dillyhammer:To hell with the FCC. Put her in charge of Industry Canada, Measurement Canada, and the CRTC all in one go.
Mike
I know you're joking but I bet she could do all of their jobs better than they have now. | |
|
SunnyD
join:2009-03-20
Madison, AL | Such a shame... She's just going to get buried underneath a pile of political hush money. | |
| |  FBGuyPremium
join:2005-03-19
Evanston, IL | Re: Such a shame... shush debbie downer | |
| | | | | Re: Such a shame... said by FBGuy:shush debbie downer
Based on empirical evidence gathered from historical observations, he's not wrong. Negative? Yes. Wrong? No. | |
| | | | FBGuyPremium
join:2005-03-19
Evanston, IL | Re: Such a shame... We don't have any empirical evidence to suggest that SHE will be like the others. | |
|
| | Here's the link for the petition at whitehouse.gov Anyone help social media-itize this great post from Karl and get it a bit more viral?
»petitions.whitehouse.gov/petitio···73mtqt0q
Gots to be some tens of thousands of us tech nerds who would sign this before Feb. 23rd...not that it's the only way- just sayin
thx | |
| | | oops... sorry Karl, was too excited and didn't look hard enough at your post with the link-
excellent work by the way, really really good go-to place for comm policy info & news, great links.
the BIll Moyers piece with Crawford aired last night here and i was just sending that to people, and checked your site and you had just posted this 6 mins ago- keep up the great work, no need to post this on comments, just saying thanks. | |
|  jester121Premium
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL | Attacked? Why is it that I immediate tune out whenever a partisan "journalist" uses a word like "attack" to describe a someone expressing a dissenting opinion? It seems especially typical when a woman is involved (reference Secretary Clinton testifying before Congress a couple weeks ago), because then she can be degraded by treating her like a victim.
The next time someone asks "why can't we have an honest conversation about XYZ" look no farther than the media hacks who fall back on such tired cliches to try to frame the argument and stifle debate. | |
| | | | Re: Attacked? Attack? The "new" cliche is "war"! Healthcare is now a total war against the church! Regulation is total war against jobs! Only one thing is certain. A large group of our politicians REALLY love war. | |
|
| axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC | cable speeds OK, prices too high Right now my choice is DSL versus cable. The cable speeds are not close to 100Mbit, but they don't sound too bad. I tend to agree with the statement that "most people don't need faster speeds right now".
BUT; some people will use faster speeds for new innovations. There has always been a leading edge that hits the limit, and a few years later everyone else catches up. If the limit isn't going up, progress will stop.
Also, the high price of the faster services discourages people from upgrading. You might say that if you can't afford something, too bad, that's life, but when competition is restrained it becomes an issue of fairness. Things could be better. | |
| | Kamus
join:2011-01-27
El Paso, TX | Re: cable speeds OK, prices too high said by axus:Right now my choice is DSL versus cable. The cable speeds are not close to 100Mbit, but they don't sound too bad. I tend to agree with the statement that "most people don't need faster speeds right now".
BUT; some people will use faster speeds for new innovations. There has always been a leading edge that hits the limit, and a few years later everyone else catches up. If the limit isn't going up, progress will stop.
Also, the high price of the faster services discourages people from upgrading. You might say that if you can't afford something, too bad, that's life, but when competition is restrained it becomes an issue of fairness. Things could be better.
The reason you feel "most people don't need faster speeds right now" is because most people don't have faster internet, so internet applications are designed with that in mind. If uncapped symmetrical connections were ubiquitous, Internet applications would be very different.
I can think of many different applications that would be possible if ISPs kept up with Moore's law. | |
| | | Reviews:
 ·DIRECTV
| Re: cable speeds OK, prices too high Wow,
Nice article Karl!
It's been too long since "We The People" have actually had any ability to control our own government due in large part to the lobbying and undue influence by large corporations. The People don't have a real voice and the results show with a lack of competition in this industry in the most glaringly obvious way.
Actually the way the telecommunications business works today seems down right criminal. | |
| | | | | | Re: cable speeds OK, prices too high Tested speeds are not too bad, locally (on brighthouse), but when it randomly disappears eight or ten times a day for up to a half hour at a time, all the speed in the world is completely useless. You are not getting what you pay for then.
No matter what speed you buy, you are definitely last in line behind Shamoo, Mickey Money, football, etc, etc. | |
|
| | | | does Moore's Law apply to internet service? | |
|
| brad
join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON | said by axus:Right now my choice is DSL versus cable. The cable speeds are not close to 100Mbit, but they don't sound too bad. I tend to agree with the statement that "most people don't need faster speeds right now".
Cable speeds are good for the downstream path but are lacking for upstream, even taking into consideration the technical limitations of DOCSIS.
Cable is capable of offering more than adequate speeds. The real issue is lowering the cost to raise the bar for minimum speed tiers. | |
| | | | | | | Re: cable speeds OK, prices too high finale. about time some one has nailed the written on to the wall for ever one to see | |
| | | elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA | $46/month is the national average for broadband.
Thats dirt cheap compared to what we used to pay.
You have the holy-grail of "better broadband", the muni coop (most untouchable by lobbyists), and yet, you're unsatisfied? | |
| | | | Kamus
join:2011-01-27
El Paso, TX | Re: cable speeds OK, prices too high said by elray:$46/month is the national average for broadband.
Thats dirt cheap compared to what we used to pay.
You have the holy-grail of "better broadband", the muni coop (most untouchable by lobbyists), and yet, you're unsatisfied?
Why should everyone be satisfied with the way things are? We know what is possible with current technology. And what you call the "national average for broadband" is garbage compared to whats possible and feasible.
Thankfully for us, we'll eventually take this out of the incumbents control, but that day can't come soon enough. | |
| | | | | CXM_SplicerLooking at the bigger picturePremium
join:2011-08-11
NYC
kudos:1 | Re: cable speeds OK, prices too high Very true. Just because the national average is better (when you compare it to the way people got ripped off even worse in the past) that doesn't mean it is good. | |
|
| | | | | | | | elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA | Re: cable speeds OK, prices too high Not sure what good your speeds are if the service doesn't work.
Given that its a not-for-profit muni, not a pure coop, what incentive do they have to improve the service? | |
|
| | | Look at cloud applications. Right now we need to use a fairly significant amount of power to run our computers, which all include hard drives that could potentially fail at any time, in our home environments.
Now, imagine if you had the ability to eliminate the hard drive from the equation. Next, you eliminate the tower and data is all accessed in real-time from remote cloud storage with input devices and a monitor of some sort in your home (could also be a tablet or cell phone with current technology).
Not only do you save money on electricity, but you're able to access your data from anywhere in the world with internet access, plus you have the ability to save what you're doing as you're doing it, meaning if you experience a crash or your connection is dropped, nothing is lost.
This may seem like something that may only be needed in "special situations" right now, but it's the way of the future. "Desktop" PC's are getting smaller and the cloud is becoming the way forward. Our limitation right now is our ability to transfer data. If I wanted to transfer the data from my local PC to the cloud it would take me 155 days with my current upload speed. If we ever expect to be able to use similar applications from our home, then we're going to need Google Fiber or its equivalent in every home. There's no reason for us to not be pushing for advancement in broadband. The whole "It's fine as it is" argument is what causes stagnation. | |
| | | elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA | Re: cable speeds OK, prices too high So instead of you taking responsibility for your data, and backing it up locally on a $60 hard drive - or mailing said hard drive to your preferred offsite storage location, the rest of us are supposed to subsidize FTTH for you at $4K/house.
You're proposing a solution in search of a problem.
The market is working its way to provide faster broadband, albeit slower than any of us would like. But that's the only way we're going to see the total cost come down; consumers aren't willing to pay today's price for FTTH, so the ISP industry has to innovate to make it cheaper to deliver. Throwing taxpayer money at the issue will only inflate the cost and encourage waste and corruption.
| |
| | | |  morboComplete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000 | Re: cable speeds OK, prices too high said by elray:consumers aren't willing to pay today's price for FTTH, so the ISP industry has to innovate to make it cheaper to deliver. Throwing taxpayer money at the issue will only inflate the cost and encourage waste and corruption.
Not true. It also doesn't cost $4k per house for service.
I agree that throwing more taxpayer funds at a problem is not the right strategy. However, redirecting existing subsidies and slush funds like the abused and misused USF to the telecom industry is a strategy that I support. | |
| | | | | elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA | Re: cable speeds OK, prices too high If it doesn't cost $4k/subscriber then industry would be stepping on each other to provide the service, at a lower price point - and there is no need to induce them further.
USF should be cancelled and funds returned to the people who paid it, not seized by yet another group of self-appointed guardians looking to play Santa. Likewise for any other slush funds. | |
| | | | | | cramer
join:2007-04-10
Raleigh, NC
kudos:7 | Re: cable speeds OK, prices too high USF should be cancelled and funds returned to the people who paid it, not seized by yet another group of... | |
| | | | | | |
See 11 replies to this post | |
| | | | | CXM_SplicerLooking at the bigger picturePremium
join:2011-08-11
NYC
kudos:1 Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
| said by elray:If it doesn't cost $4k/subscriber then industry would be stepping on each other to provide the service, at a lower price point - and there is no need to induce them further.
You are pretending there is competition... there isn't. There is Cooperation. Why? Because Wall St. told them to play nice and they listened. This is not a market where you or I could just up string up fiber and be a competitor, it is a virtual monopoly. It was deliberately done to bypass the legal requirements that a monopoly would be subjected to while still reaping the benefits of a monopoly and delivering them to the economy-killing monster. | |
|
| | | | | |  Simba7I Void Warranties
join:2003-03-24
Billings, MT | Re: cable speeds OK, prices too high said by Snakeoil:Anything you store on someone else's server is up for grabs. There is no real privacy when you put things in the cloud. Sure it's all nice and wonderful, but in reality, it's a privacy nightmare. I've been saying this for years. Being an Information Systems Technician (was Radioman) in the U.S. Navy, trusting someone elses network with your sensitive data is the DUMBEST thing you can do. Not to mention, if their network goes down, too freakin' bad.
Cloud this, cloud that. The cloud isn't better. It is an enhancement, not a replacement. What happens if a hacker was able to access all your sensitive information utilizing an exploit that allowed him access outside the VM or Sandbox? What about corporate information?
--
Bresnan 30M/5M | CenturyLink 5M/896K
MyWS[PnmIIX3@3.2G,8G RAM,500G+1.5T+2T HDDs,Win7]
WifeWS[A64@2G,2G RAM,120G HDD,Win7]
Router[2xP3@1G,2G RAM,18G HDD,Allied Telesyn AT2560FX,2xDigital DE504,Sun X1034A,2xSun X4444A,SMC 8432BTA,Gentoo] | |
|
| | cramer
join:2007-04-10
Raleigh, NC
kudos:7 | Hard drives fail everywhere. Just because you're paying some random russian website to store your files doesn't mean that drive won't fail, too -- taking your data with it. (it's happened. more than you'd like to know.)
Tower? I haven't used a tower in over a decade. Since about 2001, I've done everything with laptops -- compact, energy efficient, and portable. I can access my data everywhere, because I'm carrying it with me. *I* maintain my backups and the security of those backups, at speeds over a thousand times that of "cloud" storage. The only thing cloud storage gives you is something cheap you don't have to maintain -- at the cost of them having your data, losing that data, or simply going out of business and taking your data with them. | |
| | | | | who wants to use "the cloud"? once you upload your stuff all these companies seem to think they own your data. no thanks. i won't be using "the cloud" ever. | |
|
| | | Susans states that in Hong Kong they gits 500Mbps for $30 my LAN card can barely go that speed, I'm paying $40 for 2 Mbps on WOW I need a twitter app to get this rip off known to the whole populous. | |
|
 winsyrstrifeRiver City BouncePremium
join:2002-04-30
Brooklyn, NY | The last thing you want is for Susan Crawford to become the FCC boss... | |
| | FBGuyPremium
join:2005-03-19
Evanston, IL | Re: The last thing you want care to elaborate? or are you intentionally being vague? | |
| | | winsyrstrifeRiver City BouncePremium
join:2002-04-30
Brooklyn, NY | Re: The last thing you want What I meant was, Susan Crawford is doing a good job. Therefore, the last thing we want is for her to become head of the FCC. Once that happens, it will be business as usual. | |
|
 SnakeoilIgnore Button. The coward's feature.Premium
join:2000-08-05
Mentor, OH
kudos:1
 ·RoadRunner Cable
 ·magicjack.com
| What I'd like to see. 1]No last mile protectionism. Meaning the customer can shop around for the best rates, and it gets delivered over the wires [or wireless]connected to his house.
2]FCC stops censorship. Instead they go back to licensing and monitoring bandwidth usage. Leave censoring up to the parents. For those that say no to this:
What makes you think the government is a better censor then I am? It can't even balance a budget, so how can it know what to censor?
3] Usage meters, really? Usage meters should go away, end of story.
4]Forcing ISPs to be cops and return user surfing habits, needs to stop. Law enforcement wants the info, they have to get a warrant and collect it themselves.
BTW, I hope she gets in.
--
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?. | |
| | | why would a petition make any difference? From Wikipedia:
The FCC is directed by five commissioners appointed by the U.S. president and confirmed by the U.S. Senate for five-year terms, except when filling an unexpired term. The president designates one of the commissioners to serve as chairman.
Obama and Reid are the players here. I don't see either of them paying any attention to a petition.
--
Concentrated power has always been the enemy of liberty - Ronald Reagan | |
| |  shimonmorPremium
join:2000-12-30
Sedro Woolley, WA | Re: why would a petition make any difference? True. A petition can't compete with the corporate contributions to elections campaigns.
Plus the vast majority of American's couldn't care less. BBR readers are tuned into this type of issue, but most everyone else doesn't care, doesn't understand and doesn't want to be bothered. | |
|
 ARGONAUTgot android?Premium
join:2006-01-24
New Albany, IN
kudos:1
·Insight Communic..
| >) We keep hearing the Grover Glenn Norquist fan club keep making statements about drowning government so industry can do whatever the hell it wants.
The FCC proves Norquist cult to be wrong.
--
Hey you, out there in the cold. Getting lonely, getting old. Can you feel me? | |
| | | Full name of the school Benjamin N. Cardozo School
is
Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law | |
|  POBRes Firma Mitescere NescitPremium
join:2003-02-13
Stepford, CA | RE: Susan Crawford Crawford will never see the FCC because consumer advocacy in the U.S. is deader than the Constitution. The likes of Verizon, AT&T et al. will see to it that she is quietly pushed off to the corner meanwhile the "donations" to their favorite Congre$$ional whores will increase exponentially. | |
| | | FCC... Federally Corrupt Communications...
But remember..."he that controls communications...controls all."
-some random person on the internet
--
Splat | |
|  linicxCaveat EmptorPremium
join:2002-12-03
United State
·CenturyLink
| Just sayin. . . I've been saying the same things for 20 years. Unless you live in a mega-city like LA, there is zero competition, unless one considers satellite tv and cell phones local competition. If one lives in a mid size city one may find AT&T, Cox, Comcast or Time Warner. But if one lives in a really small isolated town in middle America it is far more likely to find Suddenlink, Frontier and CenturyLink with whopping internet speeds of 1.5 or no cable, phone or internet.
Sadly, our toothless old lion, FCC, is doing nothing except rewarding the corporate giants who sold out rural America in the 1990s. It pretty sad when you live three miles from a telephone exchange and can't buy, borrow, beg or steal a home phone because there is no copper line to support POTS, or the new DSL (we don't work very well in rural America) landline phones.
--
Mac: No windows, No Gates, Apple inside | |
| | POBRes Firma Mitescere NescitPremium
join:2003-02-13
Stepford, CA | Re: Just sayin. . . False. I live in a "mega-city" that IS Los Angeles, and there is no competition. There are two broadband providers in any given market -one DSL provider and one cable broadband provider. | |
| | | linicxCaveat EmptorPremium
join:2002-12-03
United State | Re: Just sayin. . . LA specific providers that serve only the City of Los Angeles do not serve residents in Orange County.
--
Mac: No windows, No Gates, Apple inside | |
| | | | | said by POB:False. I live in a "mega-city" that IS Los Angeles, and there is no competition. There are two broadband providers in any given market -one DSL provider and one cable broadband provider.
I'll attest to that; and chances are more likely that only one option is available in any given area. | |
|
| |
|
|
