
Cable lobby tries to stop state investigations into slow broadband speeds - frgtpsswrdlame
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/06/cable-lobby-tries-to-stop-state-investigations-into-slow-broadband-speeds/
======
shawnee_
_State-level speed tests aren 't necessary, the cable and telecom lobby groups
argued, because the FCC runs the Measuring Broadband America program to verify
whether the largest ISPs' in-home broadband speeds match the providers' speed
claims._

This is where it is astoundingly obvious that lobbyists have no technical
sense whatsoever. It's analogous to saying "States shouldn't be allowed to
determine their own optimal speed limits based on the terrain of their
counties' geography ... or the conditions of the roads themselves. Potholes
don't matter. Mountains, ice, etc., ... those local things are all irrelevant.
Just tell us if it's a highway or rural road or freeway, and we'll let you
know if it's allowing the best speed."

I understand why the telecoms are doing this. The ISPs don't want to have to
upgrade infrastructure to deliver on their (often nationally)"advertised"
promises. And behemoths like Comcast/Xfinity, Verizon, AT&T really don't want
to invest in infrastructure that benefits only "the last mile" when they have
impatient investors focused on the short-term stock price.

It's harder for a local company to lie to its customers... it will go out of
business (or get sued into the ground) pretty quickly when it does. But for
these entrenched behemoths, they just don't care. And that is really bad for
almost everybody.

------
prirun
The cable companies disgust me. First they want to neuter the FCC when they
don't like a rule (net neutrality), now they want the FCC to step in when they
don't like a state rule.

Companies dislike regulation, yet their constant stream of lies and half-
truths make regulation necessary.

Spectrum is the latest champion: I get ads every week to upgrade to HS
Internet + TV + Voice for only $29.95/month. Then the small print: that's
$29.95/mo for each service, not total. You'd never know it from looking at the
ads, and I didn't realize it for months. They should be forced to advertise
this as $89.85/month in huge print, not $29.95.

------
Spivak
This title is horribly misleading. The actual point of contention is whether
the FCC's rules on speed disclosure preempt rules enacted by the state. This
isn't Big Cable paying off lawmakers to stop some 'investigation', this is
companies trying to avoid having deal with 50 different speed disclosure laws,
and it could go either way.

I don't necessarily like it, but as a matter of law my opinion is that Big
Cable should win this one. Setting a uniform national standard is one of the
situations where federal laws commonly preempt state laws and the lack of a
uniform standard would be confusing to consumers.

~~~
jhall1468
I absolutely disagree for a number of reasons.

First, let's stop pretending that 50 state disclosure laws create some massive
undue burden for a company that's big enough to be an ISP in all 50 states.

That would be a similar argument to saying that states shouldn't have minimum
wages because it's "too hard" for Walmart to have 50 different state minimum
wage laws. The only difference is disclosure laws are _vastly_ more simple
than labor laws.

Second, even if you assume the cable industry should have a single uniform
standard, that's up to Congress, not the FCC to determine, so not only should
Big Cable lose this on the grounds that state-level consumer protections are a
good thing, they should on the grounds that the FCC has absolutely no
authority to do this.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _let 's stop pretending that 50 state disclosure laws create some massive
> undue burden for a company that's big enough to be an ISP in all 50 states_

It's survivable, if inconvenient, for Comcast. It nukes the potential for
upstarts. This "only big companies are in this industry so it's fine if we add
a bunch of onerous regulation" attitude is self-defeating.

> _the cable industry [having] a single uniform standard...[is] up to
> Congress, not the FCC_

Congress delegated rule-making authority to the FCC with the Communications
Act of 1934 [1]. This is how agencies work [2].

[1]
[http://www.legisworks.org/congress/73/publaw-416.pdf](http://www.legisworks.org/congress/73/publaw-416.pdf)

[2]
[http://www.theintelligencer.com/local/article/Congressional-...](http://www.theintelligencer.com/local/article/Congressional-
authority-to-delegate-power-10440570.php)

~~~
idbehold
Wouldn't it make sense for a startup to begin in a single state and only
expand once they have enough money/time to comply with laws and regulations in
other states?

~~~
JumpCrisscross
Depends on your technology. I used to finance satellites. State-by-state rules
were a driving reason (for being-launched and yet-to-be launched
constellations) behind most operators settling on selling bandwidth to ISPs,
who have compliance and regulation figured out, versus trying to compete with
them.

------
throwawaymanbot
Ah, Yes. American capitalism. Where the "Captains of Industry" wax lyrical
about how "competition" and unbridled capitalism, are THE greatest and finest
of things. But in reality, in American style capitalism, they pay people off,
to kill/crush/stomp competition, while pleading that "regulation" is impeding
their ability to do just that.

~~~
josteink
You have to at least admire how openly this occurs.

You'd think in a democracy everyone involved in what's the textbook-definition
of corruption would try to somewhat obscure what's going on, but nope: it's
all in the open.

~~~
throwawaymanbot
True. But I would say its mostly in the open. We can guess from contributions
and declared lobbyist visits.

Weasel worded bills and regulations in documents pushed through to old men who
have mostly no idea or concept of what they are changing, but who only know
the value of $$$ campaign or personal contributions isn't something I would
call open.

------
0xcde4c3db
It seems like this argument could backfire spectacularly. Isn't the cable
lobby also relying on state authority to ban (or at least put gratuitous
hurdles in the way of) municipal ISPs in several states?

------
redm
It's amazing how quickly technology is changing. I remember paying $350 a
month for dual ISDN lines and getting a whopping 128Kbps. People were
literally moving to certain apartments that had "high speed" 100Mbps
connection shared to the entire complex.

I realize this article is about cable providers promising one thing, and
delivering another, I think it's interesting how quickly we and technology
adapt to high-speed links and immediately demands MORE MORE MORE! It's a great
time to be alive.

~~~
Retric
10 years ago people where getting 1Gbps bandwidth for <100$ a month in some
areas. Talking about how fast things are moving when you reference stuff from
20+ years ago is hardly convincing.

PS: 10Gbps is being rolled out in some area yet many places are still at under
1/1,000th those speeds. The gap has nothing to do with back-haul capacity it's
all about monopolies squeezing there customers as much as possible. Consider,
South Korea has 1Gbit/s connections for $20 per month. Yet people in the US
are paying ~10x as much for 1/10th the bandwidth.

------
nwmcsween
It's sad to see the the us becoming a corporatocracy, maybe the idea of more
controlling government is less of an evil than the status quo.

------
Businessmen
For those who are not savvy, I'll do my best to explain why. I am not an
expert but have a history in this industry at the technician level.

The worst possible thing that could happen to the telecom industry is for the
government to expose how overcapacity most local networks are. We aren't
talking Tier 1 Internet backbone networks. We are talking about local ISPs
that usually fall into the category of Tier 2 or 3. That means they purchase
"transit agreements" from Tier 1 networks to connect their users to the
backbone. Most areas I have seen are way over capacity in need of upgraded
equipment, too many splices on the cable, or limited bandwidth to their
backbone connection to save money on overhead. Nobody wants to spend the money
upgrading infrastructure for a market they are already making the maximum
profit on. They do not want to send you a letter telling you that their
network is miraculously upgrading to fiber and your speed will increase
tenfold for no extra cost because copper is going away.

They will maintain the status quo for as long as possible. It is their only
option to keep squeezing out every last cent they can on their current
equipment and bandwidth agreements. Upgrading gets them very little in ROI.
New shit is reserved for new markets like new roads going to high-end
subdivisions.

------
Ascetik
I think there is certainly some throttling going on for certain sites,
although not everyone is technically savvy and doesn't realize that certain
webservers et al., are only going to upload at a certain rate, which looks
like capping, but is actually just a bandwidth limitation of the server you're
connecting to. So even if you're paying for Gig Fiber service for instance,
you're still limited by the bandwidth of the server you're connecting to.

Steam is great in this regard though, always maxes out my connection, even
though I hardly game anymore.

~~~
ceejayoz
That'd be a good explanation for small sites, but it doesn't hold up with the
Netflix, Youtube, etc. of the world.

~~~
BenjiWiebe
And maybe not even a good explanation for small sites. For $5/month your site
has a 1Gbps connection out. (Linode)

