50 US cities pen letter to FCC demanding net neutrality, democracy

[heironymouspasparagus]

Former FCC head dismantles case for abandoning net neutrality.

https://www.fastcompany.com/40445949/ex-chair-tom-wheeler-dismantles-fccs-argument-to-abandon-net-neutrality

Internet access and speed and cost is another one of those places where we are way down past the "middle of the pack" in terms of developed nations - we are right in there with developing nations like Romania!  Uh, oh...sorry Romania - they are actually way ahead of us!!

All because we sit back on our fat backsides letting the so called "regulators" collude with and strike 'sweetheart' deals with the remaining 3 cable companies.  (Out of the more than 40 or so that existed just a few short years ago).  We let them be one of the most obvious and heinous examples of capitalistic monopolism that everyone can see, everyone complains about, but won't hold the representatives responsible for letting us get to this sorry state!   'Murica...!!

[TeeDub]

Romania is also smaller than the state of Michigan with more than double the population.   When you have a population density of 251 people per square mile, it is easier to serve and make money.   Try making money in rural Oklahoma or Kansas when the population density is hovering around 3 people per square mile.


Cite for you:
https://www.infoplease.com/world/population-statistics/population-density-square-mile-countries
http://www.indexmundi.com/facts/united-states/quick-facts/kansas/population-density#map

[swake]

Romania is also smaller than the state of Michigan with more than double the population.   When you have a population density of 251 people per square mile, it is easier to serve and make money.   Try making money in rural Oklahoma or Kansas when the population density is hovering around 3 people per square mile.


Cite for you:
https://www.infoplease.com/world/population-statistics/population-density-square-mile-countries
http://www.indexmundi.com/facts/united-states/quick-facts/kansas/population-density#map

Rural access, while important, has zero to do with Net Neutrality. The big ISPs that are fighting against Net Neutrality don't even provide service to rural areas except in the case of LECs (AT&T/Verizon) offering DSL service in rural areas that are close enough to the local central office. The big cable companies have been dumping rural area systems for decades. That's why in Tulsa we have Cox and in Okmulgee and Muskogee they have Suddenlink. Companies like Suddenlink and CableOne have been buying up rural systems that the big operators don't want. AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, Charter, Cox and the like don't even exist in rural areas. Even the big LECs lately have been dumping rural phone systems.

Your population density argument is invalid as to price/quality.

The problem is, and this is a big reason for Net Neutrality, is consumers don't have enough options. Even in large cities most people just two options for broadband. The have whichever LEC is the local phone provider and they have the franchised cable provider. No one else exists and those two operators are very good at keeping out any more competition. Companies that build new networks to compete with the local phone or cable company, known as Overbuilders, have a very tough time and are not common. Even Google tried and failed at becoming an Overbuilder.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Romania is also smaller than the state of Michigan with more than double the population.   When you have a population density of 251 people per square mile, it is easier to serve and make money.   Try making money in rural Oklahoma or Kansas when the population density is hovering around 3 people per square mile.


Cite for you:
https://www.infoplease.com/world/population-statistics/population-density-square-mile-countries
http://www.indexmundi.com/facts/united-states/quick-facts/kansas/population-density#map

Japan.  Korea.  Belgium.  UK.  Germany.  France.  Canada.  Plus others of widely varying population sizes and densities.

We pay twice as much and on average theirs is 8 times faster.  Solely due to lack of competition.

In addition, if we as a society are going to play the game where we claim to be interested in STEM topics and education, and use the internet as much as we do for learning aids as an integral part of the nations school curriculum, then internet is NOT a "luxury" - it is a required utility.  And should be provided by cities/towns or at the very least allow more operators to participate.  We do it with telephones - no excuse not to do it with internet.


http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/internet-u-s-compare-globally-hint-slower-expensive/

[TeeDub]

It is a valid argument when you consider NECA and the rates that are mandated to rural ILECs.   It makes it difficult to offer service at an affordable rate and there is no competition as there is not enough population to make it worthwhile. 

[swake]

It is a valid argument when you consider NECA and the rates that are mandated to rural ILECs.   It makes it difficult to offer service at an affordable rate and there is no competition as there is not enough population to make it worthwhile.  

Rural regulations have zero impact on the price or service for the vast majority of Americans that are serviced by just two major player ISPs, one LEC with FTTH/FTTN and one cable company using DOCSIS via HFC. And since there are just two options for most Americans there's very little price or service pressure on the ISPs, which means regulation is needed to protect consumers.

The public thinks the AT&T and Verizon compete, and their wireless subsidiaries do, but the parent companies on wired side do not. The same for cable, Cox does not compete with Comcast or Charter.

It may sound like there are lots of ISP options because lots of names get tossed about, but in real world, most people have a total of two options which isn't real competition.

[heironymouspasparagus]

It is a valid argument when you consider NECA and the rates that are mandated to rural ILECs.   It makes it difficult to offer service at an affordable rate and there is no competition as there is not enough population to make it worthwhile.  

That is the plaintive bleat of the "Harvard School of Business" MBA-world view - difficult to offer "service" !!  Same crock-o-carp used in the 30's by corporate America to resist universal electrification of the nation.  And universal telephonification of the country, too!   (Like my new word??)   Rural water took much longer, sadly, but especially in NE Oklahoma, it is mandatory since the oil companies were allowed to trash the water table throughout this quarter of the state with no recourse or consequences - you can't get a water well anywhere here that's fit to drink!

That's why there were co-ops and vital, necessary utilities like that ended up getting done by municipalities, counties, states, and Federal govt.  As it should be today with internet !!

[TeeDub]

That's why there were co-ops and vital, necessary utilities like that ended up getting done by municipalities, counties, states, and Federal govt.  As it should be today with internet !!

The lack of population densities is why most rural telephone companies receive high cost support (That USF surcharge on the bottom of your phone bill)   I guess I look at it skewed as the industry I am in supports these little telephone companies.  I also realize that they can't charge the customers what it truly costs for service. 

It just seems that more and more of the costs keep getting shifted over to the consumer and that the Netflix, Amazon video, and Youtubes of the world keep finding ways to line their own pockets. 

[heironymouspasparagus]

The lack of population densities is why most rural telephone companies receive high cost support (That USF surcharge on the bottom of your phone bill)   I guess I look at it skewed as the industry I am in supports these little telephone companies.  I also realize that they can't charge the customers what it truly costs for service. 

It just seems that more and more of the costs keep getting shifted over to the consumer and that the Netflix, Amazon video, and Youtubes of the world keep finding ways to line their own pockets. 

It has always been the consumer that pays for goods and services and ALL taxes and fees...ALL costs!!  Corporations NEVER pay taxes!!   Let me repeat that - Corporations NEVER pay taxes!   It IS the ultimate consumer of whatever goods or services are sold that pay taxes!   ALL of them!!  Corporations act as the pass-thru agent.   Simple 5th grade economics that most just don't seem able to grasp.  Because they are not as smart as a 5th grader!


Related to this is the corollary RWRE Big Lie that poor people don't pay taxes - like income tax and property tax.   They do pay - at a vastly disproportionately higher rate than richer people.  Because it is embedded in every rent check and every retail purchase from gas to groceries to cigarettes or whatever, it is easy for the RWRE to divert attention from the truth by spewing the falsehood with continuous repetition.

[heironymouspasparagus]

The lack of population densities is why most rural telephone companies receive high cost support (That USF surcharge on the bottom of your phone bill)   I guess I look at it skewed as the industry I am in supports these little telephone companies.  I also realize that they can't charge the customers what it truly costs for service.  
 

Support??  Supply equipment??

That pretty much, in a kind of back-handed way, makes the case for public utility status of these functions.  Co-ops, city systems, county systems.  Would much rather add this to the 'water bill' than to be stuck with something inadequate - and really, truly a joke in today's world - such as Totah Communications!   There really is no excuse for that kind of operation to exist without changing to a modern functionality.  IF they cannot or will not fix their system, they deserve to be out of business.  Replaced by a public utility system.  Like a rural water district....

Universal fiber should be the minimum standard wherever copper exists today.  And should be installed within MONTHS from now - NOT YEARS!!    And the lame RWRE BS about how much it would cost - well, the copper lines cost proportionately much more than fiber at the time they were installed.  You can buy 6 fiber direct burial for under a buck a foot or so....   1,000 fiber direct burial is available in the $15 to $20 per foot - in fairly small quantities!  And different varieties/prices between...  It is a one time installation on the order of copper, so will last just as long with much better quality.    ( 40km single fiber single mode - $3,800.   About 5 miles. )   Don't know what the long haul, trunk fiber costs, but it isn't much at all compared to copper!

No excuse except for capitalistic monopolism.  Which is the direct antithesis of Capitalism!

[swake]

The lack of population densities is why most rural telephone companies receive high cost support (That USF surcharge on the bottom of your phone bill)   I guess I look at it skewed as the industry I am in supports these little telephone companies.  I also realize that they can't charge the customers what it truly costs for service.  

It just seems that more and more of the costs keep getting shifted over to the consumer and that the Netflix, Amazon video, and Youtubes of the world keep finding ways to line their own pockets.  

Small rural providers serve so few people they are a statistical blip.

In Q1 2017 there were about 92 million broadband subscriptions in the US.

60 million from cable providers. 57 million of them are served by Comcast, Charter, Cox and Altice. These companies never compete with each other.

32 million subscriptions from phone companies, 27 million of those are from the big three LECs: AT&T, Verizon and Centurylink. These companies never compete with each other.

91% of the broadband market is controlled by seven very large companies that rarely serve rural customers and no one household ever has access to more than two of them.

Net Neutrality protects the consumer from a lack of competition due to an effective duopoly on broadband service.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Net Neutrality protects the consumer from a lack of competition due to an effective duopoly on broadband service.

It could protect them. 

What we really need is less monopolism.

[Hoss]

It could protect them. 

What we really need is less monopolism.

I'd love to see municipal broadband like many municipalities have done.  Not large (I think the largest is likely Chattanooga TN) but still.

Problem is that the big telco lobbying arms get involved in getting states to pass laws restricting or outright banning munis.

[swake]

I'd love to see municipal broadband like many municipalities have done.  Not large (I think the largest is likely Chattanooga TN) but still.

Problem is that the big telco lobbying arms get involved in getting states to pass laws restricting or outright banning munis.

Electric companies can provide broadband too, on their existing electrical lines.

Wireless is probably the future, but we have allowed our wired telcos to control nearly all the wireless spectrum. A Sprint/Charter merger would make that only more true.

http://bgr.com/2017/08/01/sprint-charter-merger-2017-sources/

What's next Cox and T-Mobile?

[heironymouspasparagus]

Electric companies can provide broadband too, on their existing electrical lines.

Wireless is probably the future, but we have allowed our wired telcos to control nearly all the wireless spectrum. A Sprint/Charter merger would make that only more true.

http://bgr.com/2017/08/01/sprint-charter-merger-2017-sources/

What's next Cox and T-Mobile?

How about AT&T merger with Time Warner??   Even more monopolism.  Bad for us.  Bad for US.

And how about that CEO of AT&T - President of the Boy Scouts...  yeah, I know - "fulfilling a tradition" in inviting Trump to talk.  But mostly sucking up so this merger will go through better/faster.