Support NeoGAF

[bigmit3737]

The Federal Communications Commission has voted to reverse a stringent merger requirement on Charter Communications Inc. CHTR, +0.51% that would have compelled the company to build out internet service to one million households already being served by a competitor, FCC officials said.

The vote overturns one of the toughest conditions that the FCC, under the Obama administration, had imposed on Charter’s roughly $60 billion deal to buy Time Warner Cable and Bright House Networks last year. The condition at the time had called for Charter to build out high-speed internet access to a total of two million homes, with half already being served by a broadband provider like other cable companies.

That would have been a significant move in the cable industry, which has long divvied up areas geographically rather than compete head-to-head. Under the prior chairman, Tom Wheeler, the FCC had pushed for the provision to create more competition in high-speed internet.

Under current Chairman Ajit Pai, the FCC has voted to nullify the “overbuild” requirement and simply compel Charter to build out to two million homes that don’t currently have broadband access. The FCC is expected to make an official statement Monday.


http://www.marketwatch.com/story/fc...mpetition-2017-04-03?mod=MW_story_latest_news


Full version At WSJ (I think behind pay-wall )



I personally have mixed feelings regarding this. If the Chairman realizes that there is a need for more competition and we don't have much choices, then no problem.


Aren't there a lot of state regulations that prevent more competition?
If so, how about we work on that?

 

[WillyFive]

Aren't there a lot of state regulations that prevent more competition?
If so, how about we work on that?

Vote in 2018.

 

[aeolist]

I personally have mixed feelings regarding this. If the Chairman realizes that there is a need for more competition and we don't have much choices, then no problem.


Aren't there a lot of state regulations that prevent more competition?
If so, how about we work on that?

ajit pai is an industry stooge who doesn't care about competition. it was a band-aid requirement that wouldn't really have amounted to much but it gives you yet another indication of where the FCC is going to go over the next few years (bad places).

the biggest reason there's no competition is the immense cost involved with laying cables, especially in the last mile. to the extent that state or municipal regulations are retarding competition it's generally because of legislation that's been outright bought by incumbent ISPs - for example google fiber faced a lot of industry opposition in the form of utility pole access rules that companies like AT&T lobbied for.

 

[FantasticMrFoxdie]

drain the swamp

 

[Marvie_3]

Of course they did

 

[Flying Toaster]

Like stated above. There is little to no competition because getting into this industry is a money sink.

Still the situation sucks.

 

[Septimus Prime]

I don't know how Ajit Pai sleeps at night. Like, even Trump, I can kind of get: he neither understands nor cares about the ramifications of what he does, as long as he deregulates everything. Pai, meanwhile, is not an idiot and should know that what he's doing is bad for everyone in the long run.

 

[SyNapSe]

ajit pai is an industry stooge who doesn't care about competition. it was a band-aid requirement that wouldn't really have amounted to much but it gives you yet another indication of where the FCC is going to go over the next few years (bad places).

He's also from rural Kansas and has indicated that he thinks getting broadband to as many people as possible should be a priority. From that perspective, this move makes sense.
People without an option for broadband internet are probably worse off than those of us who have it but could probably be paying less if there were more competition.

 

[Ogodei]

Ajit Pai is a pod person created by the Telcos. There's like no other reason for someone to be that deep inside them.

 

[aeolist]

He's also from rural Kansas and has indicated that he thinks getting broadband to as many people as possible should be a priority. From that perspective, this move makes sense.
People without an option for broadband internet are probably worse off than those of us who have it but could probably be paying less if there were more competition.

https://www.engadget.com/2017/02/03/fcc-halts-nine-companies-from-participating-in-the-lifeline-pr/

🤔

 

[devilhawk]

The change is good for those million that have no broadband option, bad for those that have only one option. Mixed bag, really.

Like stated above. There is little to no competition because getting into this industry is a money sink.

Still the situation sucks.

This is why I laugh when people talk about the free market in this area. The infrastructure that companies now control was built off of massive subsidies and tax breaks. Even though I am libertarian on many issues, the telecom industry can't be one of them because of this. It isn't possible to have a free market and deregulation to insure competition when the government has long since chosen the winners.

 

[The Albatross]

Vote in 2018.

To be fair, though, Democrats have not had a good record on promoting more competition in internet providers, either. States like Massachusetts, which literally have no Republicans in state senate and progressives in every branch of government, have been single-provider for decades as well.

 

[aeolist]

To be fair, though, Democrats have not had a good record on promoting more competition in internet providers, either. States like Massachusetts, which literally have no Republicans in state senate and progressives in every branch of government, have been single-provider for decades as well.

the only good solution to universal, affordable internet access is publicly-owned and run utilities, otherwise you end up with the current situation of geographically isolated corporations slowly absorbing each other and earning massive unearned profits by hiking up charges on a captive market. and even the more progressive democrats shy away from non market-based solutions like that.

 

[JP_]

the only good solution to universal, affordable internet access is publicly-owned and run utilities, otherwise you end up with the current situation of geographically isolated corporations slowly absorbing each other and earning massive unearned profits by hiking up charges on a captive market. and even the more progressive democrats shy away from non market-based solutions like that.

One option would be to do what we did for phone lines (dial up) and what other countries do for broadband -- require that incumbents lease out their lines to competitors.

That's how AOL, Net Zero, EarthLink, etc became available everywhere without building their own phone lines -- we had smart regulations for phone lines already and those applied to early dialup ISPs. Under Bush's FCC, that regulation didn't continue as we moved from phone lines to cable and fiber lines, which is why we have such little competition dominated by cable companies.

 

[Maximus.]

Pai and the republicans don't care about competition or consumers. This is fact.

 

[JP_]

He's also from rural Kansas and has indicated that he thinks getting broadband to as many people as possible should be a priority. From that perspective, this move makes sense.
People without an option for broadband internet are probably worse off than those of us who have it but could probably be paying less if there were more competition.

It's also a nice gift to the telecoms because their obligated buildout is now 100% monopolistic.

 

[innervision961]

Trump administration = carte blanch for corporations to fleece and rape the American consumer... you know, because "we need us a business man durr".

Fuckwits, we have politicians to keep the "businessmen" (slave owners) from doing this kind of shit.

 

[aeolist]

One option would be to do what we did for phone lines (dial up) and what other countries do for broadband -- require that incumbents lease out their lines to competitors.

That's how AOL, Net Zero, EarthLink, etc became available everywhere without building their own phone lines -- we had smart regulations for phone lines already and those applied to early dialup ISPs. Under Bush's FCC, that regulation didn't continue as we moved from phone lines to cable and fiber lines, which is why we have such little competition dominated by cable companies.

if you're going to have a company that owns the physical infrastructure and just leases out the lines to anyone then there's no real reason for that entity to not be a public utility, otherwise you're giving a monopoly to a private company which will result in bad outcomes even given heavy regulation.

 

[Septimus Prime]

if you're going to have a company that owns the physical infrastructure and just leases out the lines to anyone then there's no real reason for that entity to not be a public utility, otherwise you're giving a monopoly to a private company which will result in bad outcomes even given heavy regulation.

The big problem is that infrastructure is bad for short term gains, so any company that invests in it is going to see a huge expenditure without revenue, which is going to piss off shareholders.

 

[jwhit28]

They are going to remove the part that prevents Spectrum from adding data caps aren't they?