Senators Blast The FCC For Weakening The Definition Of Broadband To Try And Hide The Industry's Lack Of Real Competition
from the set-the-bar-at-ankle-height dept
Back in 2015, the FCC raised the standard definition of broadband from 4 Mbps down, 1 Mbps up, to an arguably-more-modern 25 Mbps down, 3 Mbps up. Of course the uncompetitive broadband industry (and the lawmakers who adore them) subsequently threw a collective hissy fit about the change, because they realized a higher bar would only highlight their failure to deliver next-generation broadband to vast swaths of America.
And highlight it did: by this new metric, two-thirds of the country lack access to real broadband from more than one ISP. We've explored repeatedly how this is due to a refusal by the nation's telcos to upgrade lagging DSL connections, leaving cable companies with a growing broadband monopoly across huge swaths of the country. With this reduction in competition comes a growing apathy to customer service, as well as the ability to impose new unnecessary and arbitrary usage caps (read: price hikes) without any competitive reaction by the broken market.
Normally, this is where regulators would step in with policies aimed at shoring up this lack of competition. Under the Telecommunications Act, the FCC is required by law to track broadband deployment and competition and -- if things aren't up to snuff -- "take immediate action to accelerate deployment of such capability by removing barriers to infrastructure investment and by promoting competition in the telecommunications market." But if you fiddle with how precisely broadband penetration and competition is measured, you can avoid having to admit there's a problem, or do anything about it.
With industry-ally Ajit Pai now in charge of the FCC, the telecom industry has been lobbying to weaken the standard definition of broadband to help mask the sector's shortcomings. As if on demand, a new FCC proposal would lower the definition of broadband by declaring a region covered if it has access to wireless data connections at speeds of 10 Mbps. The goal: lower the goalposts for the express benefit of lazy telecom duopolies. Duopolies that talk a good game about "closing the digital divide," but refuse to upgrade huge swaths of their networks (espcially the parts where disadvantaged and poor people live) -- and lobby for protectionist state laws ensuring nobody else can, either.
Of course the FCC isn't framing their decision as the industry-coddling myopia it is, instead declaring this a "modernization" of FCC policy, in some instances fooling media outlets into thinking this is about "reclassying wireless broadband" for some ambiguously noble policy purpose. But a handful of Senators this week criticized the FCC's new plan, highlighting (correctly) how lowering the broadband deployment bar to ankle height is a disservice to those waiting for, or trying to deploy, better broadband:
"At this time, such a striking change in policy would significantly and disproportionately disadvantage Americans in rural, tribal, and low-income communities across the nation, whose livelihoods depend on a reliable and affordable broadband connection... In reading this notice of inquiry, it appears that the FCC, by declaring mobile service of 10Mbps download/1Mbps upload speeds sufficient, could conclude that Americans' broadband needs are being met—when in fact they are not. By redefining what it means to have access, the FCC could abandon further efforts to connect Americans, as under this definition, its statutory requirement would be fulfilled."
AT&T, Verizon and the current FCC will tell you that mobile broadband is a perfect substitution for quality fixed-line broadband. And while that might be true by 2030 or so, that's certainly not the case now. Wireless networks certainly can offer comparable speeds to lower-end fixed-line connections, but traditionally at much higher prices -- and often with notable restrictions on usage (more so with the looming death of net neutrality). So these Senators are also right in highlighting how wireless is far from being a suitable-replacement for fixed-line connectivity:
"We believe that mobile broadband service cannot adequately support the same functions as does fixed service currently and, therefore, cannot be a substitute at this time. A small business owner who wants to begin a new venture today would not be adequately supported by mobile-only service. Should the decision to change current policy be made with the technology currently available, it would signal a strong departure from the Commission's mission, while also implying that certain consumers must accept lower-quality connectivity."
Unfortunately, like net neutrality, the quest to erode basic deployment standards will somehow be framed as a "partisan" debate, causing many to lose the plot. And pandering to the Comcast status quo will be framed as some sort of heroic pledge to phony free market ideals none of the regulators or companies backing this effort actually believe in. But lowering the bar to obfuscate the fact U.S. broadband is an uncompetitive market rife with regulatory capture (especially on the state level) isn't some panacea, it's the kind of weak-kneed regulatory apathy that gave us the customer-service abomination we call Comcast in the first place.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: ajit pai, broadband, competition, congress, definitions, fcc
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Not only that
Not just price hikes on bit delivery, there's motive beyond simple cash grabs. It's anti-competitive behavior in the otherwise competitive content industry, using the established broken market to further break other sectors.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A lot of things are mandated, but when you are the one with the power... you kinda get to choose which mandates you follow, including the ones not even mandated.
This ends when "enough" of us get a clue and hold the correct set of people responsible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Try harder, chaps.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Redefine and ignore the past
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Redefine and ignore the past
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Textbook Regulatory Capture
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Textbook Regulatory Capture
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Textbook Regulatory Capture
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Textbook Regulatory Capture
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Everyone loves using "redefined" words against others, but hate it when others use "redefined" words back.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"what do I know."
indeed... what DO you know?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
A person was hit by a vehicle.
This is a fact.
But the definition of a vehicle can mean anything from a tricycle to space shuttle.
So when discussing the definition of "vehicle" in the context of what said person was hit by now becomes a critical part of the discussion... RIGHT?
Or according to you... just need the facts, when facts can be damn misleading!
It is beyond "damn clear" the definitions are important because they "refine" what is being discussed. Especially when the "facts" are involved.
There are many ways to deceive people without lying or avoiding facts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Indeed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
At around 9:15pm, a drunk person walking on the street not the sidewalk, was hit non-fatally by a Honda 1992 sports car which was not speeding and the drive not under the influence or any substance with no previous criminal charges. The victim suffered a broken leg.
Now that looks more like a fact, not a ridiculous statement intended to deceit.
But I agree with anyway, definitions are important so the actual conversation or debate gets focused, and deceitful talk gets minimized.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm ok with this...with one caveat
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'm ok with this...with one caveat
you do realize that they only read this part of your comment right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I'm ok with this...with one caveat
Mostly because that's all that uploaded before they got sick of waiting...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I'm ok with this...with one caveat
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I'm ok with this...with one caveat
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Comcast Doesn't Like the Free Market
It always pisses me off when people use Comcast as an example of why we the free market doesn't work and how we need more government regulation to protect consumers from the greedy capitalists. Comcast is actually an example of a corporate oligarchy colluding with bought and paid for politicians to protect themselves from free market competition.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Comcast Doesn't Like the Free Market
Like the public education system, their solution is to see what they are currently doing fail and asking to just do more of it! No change... just more of it!
More money and government control focused on these business and less involvement and say in the economy from the citizens perspective.
It never ceases to amaze me that after all history, people still ask for a politician to protect them from the very businesses the politicians are openly and publicly colluding with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Comcast Doesn't Like the Free Market
Well, one vote per head rather than one vote per dollar is anti-capitalist. The political system is not supposed to be a market accessible to dollars. When it is, it is usually called "corruption".
And the political system of the U.S.A. is quite more corruptible than a number of other political systems, and it's not exactly because its representatives would otherwise be in danger of starvation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Comcast Doesn't Like the Free Market
I am not sure what you mean there. Capitalism is largely the principle of owning a business instead of the state owning them. Capitalism does not require free market to exist, however a free market does require capitalism to exist.
"The political system is not supposed to be a market accessible to dollars. When it is, it is usually called "corruption"."
Everything is accessible to dollars, including your life. I do agree that it is usually through corruption.
"And the political system of the U.S.A. is quite more corruptible than a number of other political systems, and it's not exactly because its representatives would otherwise be in danger of starvation."
That one is a hard statement to quantify. Whether it is more corruptible than not than others is NOT the objective of our government model. The objective is that our model allows for easy destruction of that corruption when the people are ready to see to its end.
The end does require the people stop letting their partisan politics get the better of them and looking at the fruit of their politicians labors rather than the words coming out of their mouths and memberships.
It is very hard for people to break away from their political parties because the first thing people do on the other side is make it clear they are are not welcoming to anyone else that does not think like them. And when you have throngs of people gunning for you because you don't think like them, then you are likely going to go to the first place the matches you the most and stand with them... even if you do not really believe in everything they say. but you sure are going to tow the line though... it is literally a survival instinct.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Comcast Doesn't Like the Free Market
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Comcast Doesn't Like the Free Market
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Comcast Doesn't Like the Free Market
In a separate thread higher up you typed that. Quick to disavow your own advice and sling ignorance and supposition eh?
Hypocrisy is a nasty habit you should avoid dipping into.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Comcast Doesn't Like the Free Market
I think you are stretching a bit in order to get your dig in there, but your blade is rather dull. Perhaps instead of being Mr. Anarchy, you are in fact the super hero Stretch! If so, can I have your autograph?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Imagine if they kept the higher numbers, slashed all of the anti-competitive bullshit they were paid to put in and consumers had real choice. I bet ya the uppity start-up who offered higher than the broadband definition for a lower price would get tons of customers & force competition that actually benefits consumers & not shareholders.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You are right, but it gets them what they need anyways.
It is the exact same corrupt logic of saying that regulation will save people from "potential" monopolies, by "ensuring" monopolies through regulation.
Both sides have been hugely conned and are now so far down the proverbial rabbit hole that they will not be coming back up.
As a business, I would fight regulation in the public square to get you, as a voter, to unwittingly support me. Then behind closed doors, I will go to your representative and "buy" their favor and manipulate them into giving me the regulations I am "claiming to hate" so that I can protect my business against new startups. I will even think of ways to make these regulations "sound good" while they will just be good for me in outcome. I am more than willing to pay your politicians 1 million so that I can protect my other 50 million.
Big Business does not actually like free-market either.
Just like I can get you to give up your civil liberty under the guise of protecting you from a terrorist, I can get you to give up your economic liberty by claiming to protect you from meany businesses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Big Lie
"AT&T, Verizon and the current FCC will tell you that mobile broadband is a perfect substitution for quality fixed-line broadband. And while that might be true by 2030 or so..."
That will NEVER be true. It's a bold-faced lie only convincing to the technologically ignorant and those whose living depends on them being convinced. Pai is either deceiving or self-deceived on the subject.
If we're going to require market solutions here we have to ensure a competitive market, otherwise treat these monopoly incumbents as common carriers and force them to open up access to their infrastructure to competitors on an equal footing with their own business. Providing funding for the development of municipal and non-profit community-based broadband, as well as pre-empting local anti-competitive laws like those in force in North Carolina is another (and I think, preferable) option.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Big Lie
It would be faster than my current wired internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Big Lie
The signal from a radio transmitter spreads out, and for 4G, that beam will likely cover at least an 1/8 of a circle. That signal, and its corresponding signal from mobile devices, has to be shared between all mobile devices in its coverage area. Further services like 4G are planned on a cellular coverage structure, and the allocated bandwidth is divided into multiple channels, allocated to cells in a pattern that ensure at least on cell between re-uses of the same channel. Available capacity can be increased by reducing power, and reducing cell size.
On the other hand, a single fiber has more bandwidth capability that the bandwidth allocated to mobile technology, further each fiber in a bundle can and does use the same frequencies.
The ultimate capacity, for any given radio technology, would be a cell size the same as a dwelling, but to achieve that require running wire or fiber to every dwelling. Note that the fiber feed will almost certainly have a better data rate than the radio can deliver. Use a hardwired local network, and it then becomes possible to have even more data capacity by running two or more fiber into the dwelling.
WiFi is useful for mobile device and laptops, but hardwired is better for static devices like media center and desktop machines.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The Big Lie
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Big Lie
Yes, my 5G mobile AT&T connection at 4,000 dollars per month is better than my 60 USD, 20Mbps wifi.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]