
Trump's FCC Votes to Allow Broadband Rate Hikes for Schools and Libraries - petemill
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/trumps-fcc-to-vote-to-allow-broadband-rate-hikes-for-schools-and-libraries
======
guelo
What's alarming is how silent the giant Silicon Valley companies have been as
the FCC proceeds to destroy the foundations of the open web. It was little
noted at the time that Google actually sent a letter in support of the new
policy giving ISPs the right to sell customer browsing data. Without Sillicon
Valley in our corner there's not much hope. It's all corporations in lock step
aligned with the government against consumers.

~~~
NotShockingDuh
SV is full of people like Pai. Their culture is one of haves vs have nots.
Hope you're in with the right caste, it's coming to a town near you.

------
Turing_Machine
Can someone explain to me why an FCC that is currently made up of three Obama
appointees is "Trump's" FCC?

Trump did name Pai as chair, but he was already on the commission (appointed
by Obama in 2012).

That's a terrible, click-baity headline, even by the low standards normally
set by vice.com.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Can someone explain to me why an FCC that is currently made up of three
> Obama appointees is "Trump's" FCC?

Because it has a Republican majority as a result of Trump's election, and
Trump selected the chair from among the two Republican members, so Trump's
election and Trump personally have set the direction of the current FCC.
Hence, Trump's FCC.

~~~
Turing_Machine
"Because it has a Republican majority as a result of Trump's election"

Sorry, its makeup has nothing to do with "Trump's election". All three current
members were appointed by Obama.

Now, Trump is likely to get to appoint at least three members. At that point,
it could, perhaps, justifiably be called "Trump's" FCC.

Until that happens, though, calling an independent agency in which all of the
members were appointed by Obama (and over which the executive branch has no
direct authority) "Trump's" is so disingenuous it crosses the borderline into
dishonesty.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Sorry, its makeup has nothing to do with "Trump's election".

Yes, it does. It's not a 3 seat commission, it's a five seat commission, and
the Senate blocked the renomination of a Democrat whose term ended in December
to keep the seat open for Trump to name a replacement, and Wheeler resigned at
the end of Obama's term, as is customary (but technically not required) for
FCC chairs at a Presidential transition unless asked to stay on.

Had Trump not been elected, the FCC would either be in a 2-2 deadlock (had the
Senate blocked Rosenworcel's renomination despite a new Democratic
administration waiting in the wings, which would be unusual but not
implausible), or still a 3-2 Democratic majority.

This is Trump's FCC, even if he hasn't appointed the two members (only one of
which can be a Republican) he can to fill vacancies.

~~~
Turing_Machine
"Yes, it does. It's not a 3 seat commission, it's a five seat commission"

And? All three of the members were still _appointed by Obama_. Not Trump.

------
gogopuppygogo
It's going to be fun cleaning all this up in 4 years.

~~~
averagewall
The previous 3 presidents all had 2 terms. Any reason to thinks Trump or at
least the republican party won't too? Just because you don't like him doesn't
mean everyone else doesn't either. Real humans who really wanted him voted him
in and they're probably happy with their choice.

~~~
burkaman
You don't have to guess, there are plenty of polls. He is historically
unpopular.

~~~
wtf_is_up
"Trump will never run for President"

"Trump will never make it past the first debate"

"Trump will never win the Republican primary"

"Trump will never win the general election"

(You are here)

~~~
wavefunction
"Trump will never fulfill his promises"

(I'm over here)

~~~
jplayer01
He doesn't need to.

------
averagewall
Maybe the reason the market is uncompetitive is because of the price caps?
Fighting monopolies with regulation constraining their prices seems like a
risky solution. Isn't there some action that would open up the market to more
competitors? Even if another company had to lay their own cables, that happens
and isn't impossible.

~~~
xenadu02
Are you serious? I'm not being flippant here, but your question doesn't seem
to be an honest one.

Laying cables is really expensive. It takes a lot of capital and the return on
investment is long-term. Two things that aren't very popular among Wall Street
or VCs. Even assuming you undertook such a venture, Comcast/ATT/Verizon have
really _really_ deep pockets. They can undercut any price you care to offer.

The idea that "regulation" is causing high prices is farcical on its face.
There aren't enough schools and libraries to make any difference to the bottom
line.

The market is uncompetitive because broadband is a natural monopoly. Just like
roads, water, sewer, and electricity. The capital costs are so high there is
usually no business justification for having more than 1-2 providers in a
given area. There are a few exceptions but they prove the rule.

A "free market" in broadband would look much like the "free market" in
electricity: Either the government or a regulated utility granted monopoly
power by the government should run the fiber. Any ISP that wants to compete
can hook up at the local CO. The equipment on both ends of that fiber can even
be owned by the ISP so if new technology allows faster speeds nothing blocks
the upgrade (the favorite excuse for pro-corporatist shills).

The big three have fought anything that smells like a free market tooth and
nail, outright purchasing legislation at the state level to squash municipal
attempts to do anything like this.

The funny thing is the big ISPs rely on government-granted taking of private
property in the form of right-of-way to run their cables... something for
which property owners receive no compensation. So much for "using our lines"
as the ATT CEO likes to claim.

~~~
WalterBright
If it's a natural monopoly, why are there all these laws only allowing one
provider?

BTW, before the law enshrined AT&T as a "natural" monopoly, there were lots of
phone companies who seemed to have no trouble at all running wires everywhere.

~~~
guelo
If you're referring to the Kingsbury Commitment[1] that was an agreement with
the government after AT&T was already a monopoly. After Alexander Graham
Bell's patent expired there was a brief period where competition sprouted but
then AT&T started consolidating and buying up the smaller competitors. By 1913
AT&T was already in a dominant monopoly position.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingsbury_Commitment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingsbury_Commitment)

~~~
WalterBright
It was not already a monopoly. Your link says there were other long distance
companies, just that AT&T's was more extensive.

Note that scores of companies were running railroads everywhere, it doesn't
make sense that running a telephone wire was infeasibly expensive.

~~~
overcooked
A couple things: 1) While AT&T was not the only provider left standing, it was
the largest and had scale advantages against its competitors. The Kingsbury
Commitment was designed to halt AT&T's expansion and ensure that those
competitors were able to compete. However, it failed: AT&T was able to
continue to improve its dominant position by selling subscribers in certain
areas while purchasing competitors in more strategically advantageous areas.
2) One of the reasons for "natural" monopoly regulation is that we do not want
telephone wires, railroads, and pipelines running everywhere. Building a
utility requires gaining access to rights of way. Society subsidizes all
private utilities by creating rights of way and infringing upon the rights of
property owners along the route. 3) The scores of companies running railroads
everywhere were subsidized even further. At least in the West, the federal
government gave land along the route to the railroad companies for
construction. [1] In some ways, building a railroad was more about land
speculation than private construction of transportation infrastructure.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Railroad_Acts](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Railroad_Acts)

