FCC Backs Off Plan to Weaken Broadband Definition, But Still Can't Admit Limited Competition Is A Problem
from the two-centimeter-high-jump dept
You might recall that a few years ago the FCC under Tom Wheeler bumped the standard definition of broadband to 25 Mbps downstream, 3 Mbps upstream. This greatly upset the broadband industry (and the numerous lawmakers and policy flacks paid to love them) because it highlighted a lack of broadband competition and deployment. That's especially true at higher speeds, where two-thirds of the U.S. lacks access to more than one ISP at that speed.
But recently, the FCC under industry BFF Ajit Pai began playing around with the idea of weakening this definition. Under Pai's plan, the FCC would have declared that 10 Mbps down, 1 Mbps up wireless also counts as "broadband competition," letting the industry effectively say "mission accomplished." The problem is that wireless is often more expensive, capped (especially in rural areas), and inconsistently available (carrier coverage maps are notoriously unreliable).
Fortunately, the FCC last week stated that for some, unspecified reason they'd be backing away from the plan. Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 requires the FCC to continually assess whether broadband is being deployed on a "reasonable and timely basis," and if not -- to do something about it. While the FCC hasn't released its full assessment yet, Pai ponied up a statement (pdf) last week that makes it clear that Pai believes everything is going swimmingly in the broadband market, thanks largely to his frontal assault on consumer protections like net neutrality:
"The draft report indicates that the pace of both fixed and mobile broadband deployment declined dramatically in the two years following the prior Commission’s Title II Order. However, the draft report also discussed how, over the course of the past year, the current Commission has taken steps to reduce barriers to infrastructure investment and promote competition in the broadband marketplace. Taken together, these policies indicate that the current FCC is now meeting its statutory mandate to encourage the deployment of broadband on a reasonable and timely basis."
So we'll note for about the hundredth time that the claim that net neutrality hurt investment is a lie easily disproved by publicly-available data. We'll also remind you that in Pai's world, "reducing barriers to infrastructure investment" means gutting broadband programs for the poor, protecting the cable industry's monopoly over the cable box from competition, making it easier for prison phone monopolies to rip off inmate families, dismantling generations old media consolidation rules simply to aid Sinclair Broadcasting's merger ambitions, killing net neutrality, killing meaningful broadband privacy protections, and helping protect the business broadband and wireless backhaul industry from actual competition. You know, potato, potAHto.
Fortunately, buried in Pai's rose-colored glasses assessment of the sector is the admission that he won't work to erode the base definition of broadband, and an acknowledgement that wireless isn't a valid replacement for fixed-line broadband:
"The draft report maintains the same benchmark speed for fixed broadband service previously adopted by the Commission: 25 Mbps download/3 Mbps upload. The draft report also concludes that mobile broadband service is not a full substitute for fixed service. Instead, it notes there are differences between the two technologies, including clear variations in consumer preferences and demands."
Yay? While that's a tiny bit of good news, it's pretty much standard operating procedure for revolving door regulators like Pai to fiddle with the numbers to pretend a lack of competition isn't a real problem. After all, if the data suggests there's a problem, as a public servant you might just be required to push policies aimed at addressing it. So while Pai has retreated from this particular effort to lower the bar to ankle height, you should expect the effort to resurface somewhere else with a decidedly different hue of public relations paint.
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, fcc
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
PotAHto Pai?
We still have quite some time of this bloke as the head of FCC and even if somehow the legislative or the lawsuits can reinstate previous rules he can always give his pimps at the telcos some more time by simply not enforcing the rules. Considering he couldn't care less about his legal obligations in the process of gutting said rules I can imagine him completely ignoring them even if the rules are reinstated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wireless *should* count, kind of
There's no reason wireless can't count as broadband, we just need some objective criteria for it. For example, uncapped untrottled 25/3 wireless that allows tethering should count (if it existed), whereas a wired 25/3 connection with a 10 GB cap would be laughable (dialup allows a little over 15 GB, for reference, which is more than many wireless plans).
Wired vs. wireless reflects the reality that wireless has been crap so far. In terms of the future, it would be better to describe what we actually want/need rather than an irrelevant technological factor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wireless *should* count, kind of
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Wireless *should* count, kind of
Sure, but there's no reason to reject an airplane out of hand. Instead, we might request something that can conveniently go door-to-door in 5 minutes, operable by an average person and with a reasonable carbon footprint. A plane can't do that. But adjust the definition for a cross-country trip and we might get a different result.
There's no reason to say "no wireless". Instead we say it needs to work in bad weather, with certain latency and bandwidth, allowing minimum quantities of data, without being tied to a specific device, etc. The wireless market is far from meeting any of these goals, but why not future-proof it a bit and open the possibility we could be pleasantly surprised? Whether or not there's a wire is not what people actually care about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Wireless *should* count, kind of
There are a lot of technical and physical restrictions on wireless. Setting rules for them may seem reasonable, but how do you define bad weather in a way so it covers, at what distance and with how many trees between you and the tower etc.? Who is responsible for measuring it?
It is unfortune, but as Mike mentions, the coverage maps from the telcos are famously unreliable for the very easily mapped wired connections. Standardizing wireless would be a daunting task since it is a lot more difficult to 3D-map all of USA, including trees. Topology providing obstacles to signals is a known problem.
Standardizing measuring weather impacts is more of a curiosity that would probably end in something akin the fuel efficiency tests of cars (worthless theoretic overstatement of effect since wireless would optimize towards the test and the test cannot take all cocktails into consideration!).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wireless *should* count, kind of
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Wireless *should* count, kind of
I agree, but it doesn't require FCC involvement. Researchers find ways to bypass limits, and the FCC only needs to make sure they won't interfere with other users... which isn't relevant here, because they're only trying to define "broadband".
Here, the FCC just needs to set our target. Whether or not wireless can meet that target is up to the telcos, the research labs, and the physics of the universe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Wireless *should* count, kind of
.. and grifters find ways to bypass laws and regulations
- so what?
I responded to the comment which claimed there is "an irrelevant technological factor" by pointing out that it is not irrelevant.
I doubt there is enough time and space in this blog to throughly explore the technological limits much less the physical limits of our present environment relative to this industry.
And flippant remarks do not add to the discussion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
wassa matta?
Like I said... that dagger in your back is the one you handed them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
So I only supported them because I had little choice, YOU supported them by inviting them to run the store so I would say the "type" of support is the problem here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Now, before you attack me, please understand this isn't because I'm "shilling" for the ISPs. Quite the contrary. I want better laws put into place to protect the internet, and I feel Title II isn't good enough to do so.
Let me preface by saying Title II can offer protections, but they're largely pointless because of the gaping holes the Title doesn't cover. Let's review them, if you don't mind.
1) Zero Rating - this is blatantly anti-consumer if I ever saw it. Businesses with the resources can easily pay the gatekeeper (and remember, there's more than one) to allow their content to be streamed without cap consequences to the user.
Title II doesn't not prevent caps.
2) Paid Prioritization - in conjunction with the above, this is also anti-consumer. Businesses with the means can easily circumvent any restrictions of their content, which by default, would limit everyone else. While our broadband infrastructure is decent, it's not unlimited.
Multiple times, it's been shown the US infrastructure is designed wholly for blocking access across the nation. When compared to other countries, our broadband sucks.
Unfortunately, we've gotten used to what's offered to us because of the lack of competition. If the infrastructure is designed to be limited, then throttling is inevitable when companies pay for prioritization.
Title II doesn't not prevent paid prioritization nor does it govern a requirement to broaden the infrastructure.
3) The other Titles can dictate Title II. People often refer to Title II being the "savior" of the internet, but this simply isn't true.
There are a total of 7 titles under the Communications Act and each on can affect another title.
It's been said the internet is a communication platform, and this is true. But it's *also* a distribution and broadcast platform, which means other Titles can be applied to it (the cable industry has long used this tactic to push the right title toward their goals).
The "fight" ISPs are having right now is an incredible ruse against the public and politicians who just don't care. The "rescinding" of Title II doesn't affect them one way or another, because they can always fall back on the other titles to continue their anti-consumer practices.
This is why many people, who still have cable and internet, are being itemized two charges despite data traveling identically across the platform.
Title II does not protect against other restrictions of titles on the books, which still apply to millions of people.
4) The biggest culprit: price gouging. We're all aware of how ISPs have increased costs over the years, but Title II will not protect consumers against this. ISPs can, and will, continue to abuse the policies in place to ensure they can get away with price gouging until true laws are enacted to stifle this practice.
Title II doesn't protect against price increases.
Pai may not be honest with the public when he speaks about our broadband infrastructure, but he is right to say Title II isn't needed (though our reasons vastly differ).
What we need are new laws enacted to protect the *internet*" not regulations written at the turn of the 20th century and slightly updated over the years.
Think about this a second. Why allow regulations written at the turn of the *20th century* dictate a technology which didn't exist then?
The most updated change came in 1996, and there's good proof this *removal* of regulations lead to our internet of today.
Let the FCC revoke Title II, please! Instead, focus the attention on Congress to pass a newer, more accurate set of regulations to govern the *internet*, not an act drafted nearly 100 years ago.
If I had any belief Title II was helpful, I'd be alongside the crowds requesting its reinstatement.
But I don't believe Title II is the correct option, and should it be reinstated, would prevent further legislation from being written as the title leaves the most egregious loopholes open for ISPs to continue abusing.
The definition of today's "broadband" of 25/3Mbps is an appalling figure when compared to the rest of the world offering more at a cheaper price.
Title II doesn't change this either, just to add.
Backing away from changing the definition shouldn't be the focus in this situation.
Failing to update the definition to increase the current limits should be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That's reasonable enough, and probably why Mike was initially against Title II. People warmed to the idea because it looked like the most politically practical solution.
It'll be funny if Pai's actions here end up effecting stronger legislation, something like the telephone regulations in their "strict" period with price controls etc. Or there's the "simple" plan: say an ISP can't own wired or wireless infrastructure, and an infrastucture provider can't do anything at the IP level. Most of our problems are in the "last mile"—eject Comcast and AT&T from there, and see how well they compete as "ISPs only" (having to lease the wire/towers from someone else) when there are many others. Some areas had hundreds in the dialup days.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
imperfect? no they were corrupt.
I know you are too stupid to understand a few things Thad, but this is all a ploy. The ISP are smart, unlike you, they are smart enough to know that Wheeler vision allows for them to game the system so they know fighting it is a good way to get these rules set as the standard. They get to keep their monopolies, they get to keep zero rating, and they get to trick idiots like YOU into thinking you have a solid win if you get the rules put back in. And when people like you win, you get tired and lose the will to fight much further.
You are ignorant, stupid, and easily played against yourself.
You are going to lose the fight whether you get NN or not. You are still going to be throttled, you are still going to be Capped, and you are still going to be gouged. NN saves you from non of that.
O yea, you are still going to be spied on and tracked too!
Enjoy your empty win, I hope you get it... because I will back here again next year reminding you all about it when people start bitching about how NN is failing them after they fought so hard to get it back!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh look idiot liar #1337 has shown up to spew more bullshit, not a shocker there.
If you look at a previous post I made in this article you would have noticed the part where I said I wanted to destroy the regulation empowering the monopolies. Sure, that statement requires more intelligence to understand that an idiot like you can muster but so be it. It still gives more than enough information about what type of solution I would bring despite your constant claims I offered none.
Additionally, the problem here is not who has the best solution, we have a problem where people like you are ignorantly playing ball for the wrong team without knowing it. I need to get you folks to stop ignorantly playing on the ISP monopoly team before we can get much farther.
And it's not really like I am pulling a rabbit out of my hat when I call a group of idiots what they are. You are sorta making that part really easy for me.
My predictions always come true because they are stupid easy to guess. I barely takes any intelligence to figure this shit out. You are smart enough to do it yourself, well... just as soon as you wash yourself clean of your political religion. People are not very fond of taking that shower, it sort of works against the human nature to form up groups for safety and security soon followed by the believe that they have 100% of the solution to every problem.
I don't have the solution to every problem, because no fucking such thing is possible. I just have the best ways to mitigate and deal with problems and often times they require people like you to sober up.
Let me sum up the difference between people like you and people like me.
You think you can cure everything and that a utopia is possible through government regulation.
I just know better than to believe that fantasy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You.... are like... so.... cool, man.
Girl smartened up and left with the kid huh wiLLie? That why you got so much time here and on YT recently?
Best thing she could have done.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, you keep on screaming that regulation need to be destroyed, and that people who do not agree with you are fools. That is not the way to solve any problem, at least not unless you can use force to impose your views on others. Most people recognize that some regulations are necessary, so put forward some regulation that will solve the problems. Hint, a free for all in installing infrastructure is not a solution, as duplicating the infrastructure in a completive fashion is wasteful, and mainly results in a good service int ares where people can pay more for a service, and so make the competition economically viable.
Regulating the infrastructure as a shared resource available to all service providers does make sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
U sure do’s, Chip, u sure do’s.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Apparently all they are capable of passing at the moment is gas.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If there was a real wish for getting something better than Title II, congress would have made another legislative framework that encompas it, while Title II was still in place...
By removing Title II regulations first, you are not trying to make anythng that is better than Title II. You are just incentivising people with lobbyist wishlist legislations in the drawer, like Marsha Blackburn, to push a bandage and for others to accept the crap since it is litterally "better than nothing", AKA. The alternative. Marsha Blackburns past makes ane "solution" she may come up with smell like it was bought to hell and back by telcos...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
While I don't disagree that state owned infrastructure is a lot better than the current system, transitioning to such a solution is almost impossible given the disdain people have for deep government control. Incentivizing spin-off of the infrastructure and infrastructure development parts would make it a lot easier to regulate targeted, so as to avoid the current ISP-crying and you could probably do that in a way most people see as "light touch", but alas...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
However, with the fast pace of technology, whatever rules we have, they must be agile and adaptable. Congress moves at glacial pace, they have been generally hands-off in the net neutrality issue, up until this year when they used the much easier and less politically consequential congressional review process to strip privacy protections. Whatever legislation we eventually get, good or bad, will basically be permanent, regardless of how the world of internet service changes. Seems to me that congress would better serve the people by ensuring we have a transparent agency, that is responsive to the public and the fast paced nature of the industry, instead of trying to write legislation about technology they don't understand (Things like "a series of tubes", "a neighborhood bridge" and "Obamacare for the internet" come to mind).
The other issue with a legislative fix, that even though congress should be more accountable to the voter, corporate interests have far more sway. Considering we have been trying to get legislation for Dreamers for 17 years, but got tax reform in a couple of months; tax reform that that the telecoms and cable companies teamed up with their unions to make a very public agreement to give raises and bonuses to workers if the tax reform went through. I'm not criticizing the tax policy, but it's a clear demonstration that net neutrality legislation would bend to the telecom and cable company favor.
Lastly, we ended up in this duopoly/oligopoly situation due to legislation from congress, laws that were enacted 30 to 100 years ago. The FCC has a more flexible structure that could be better utilized. It just needs to have it's powers checked.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is not "backing off",
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"...for some, unspecified reason they'd be backing away from the plan".
If you see Bill Belichick's team take an intentional safety against you, you may not know how it will play out but you should probably expect to lose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
IN all of this..
A corp is taking over a company that took over a company, that Took over a Company that INSTALLED HARDWARE 40+ years ago..
Telephone poles, and infrastructure for installation, that has been around and REPLACED, after it was damaged..hardly ever..(they belong to the city)
They DONT want to fix/replace/upgrade anything...they just want to SIT and take the cash..
WHY? BECAUSE INSTALLING A NEW SYSTEM AROUND A METRO AREA IS EXPENSIVE.. Even after Our Gov. has PAID FOR most of it.(yep, we paid twice over the last 17 years)
NOW! Why do they want to include the Wireless ssytem as PART of the old/updated system.. BECAUSE setting up wireless would save money.. But its stupid to think WIRELESS, is better then HARDWIRED, PROTECTED SYSTEM..
This system is the Phone/Cable/Sat/Emergency/Internet System..
REALITY..
NOTHING in this nation has Every been Improved/upgraded/advanced UNLESS the gov. PAID for it to be done..
WE had to create the park system to keep Corps from Bull dozing ALL the land in this nation.
WE paid for the intercontinental rail system..
WE paid the corps to install POWER and phone systems into the RURAL AREAS..They didnt want to do it, as there was/is no profit in it..
Without the Gov. FORCING corps to do ANYTHING, we would be back in the 1800's..And the Mississippi would be the Separation line..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SEC
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: SEC
[ link to this | view in chronology ]