Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Internet United States Your Rights Online

FCC's New Broadband Plan Prioritizes Competition 71

Posted by samzenpus
from the plan-of-the-man dept.
adeelarshad82 writes "The Federal Communications Commission has released an outline of what might be included in its upcoming national broadband plan, and encouraging competition was a top priority. The FCC statement said 'Competition drives innovation and provides consumer choice. Finding ways to better use existing assets, including Universal Service, rights-of-way, spectrum, and others, will be essential to the success of the plan. The limited government funding that is available for broadband would be best used when leveraged with the private sector.' The stimulus plan provided $7.2 billion in broadband grants and $350 million for a broadband mapping program, but also directed the FCC to deliver a national broadband plan to Congress by February 17, 2010."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

FCC's New Broadband Plan Prioritizes Competition

Comments Filter:
  • Re:no (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 16, 2009 @09:50PM (#30467836)
    Cause she might show you her tits?
  • Right. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by bmo (77928) on Wednesday December 16, 2009 @09:51PM (#30467850)

    Didn't we do this in the 90's, throw a lot of money at the providers and all they did was give it out to the shareholders?

    If we do this there had better be significant strings attached.

    --
    BMO

  • by BadAnalogyGuy (945258) <BadAnalogyGuy@gmail.com> on Wednesday December 16, 2009 @09:56PM (#30467896)

    When you have an industry with high entry costs due to infrastructure needs, you are going to end up with only a few companies after the shakeout occurs. Therefore, any policy that is designed to enable consumer choice and universal access is only useful to create an environment where competition will briefly flourish before degrading to the same old 2 or 3 dominant companies own the entire market.

    If the government truly wants to encourage competition, they would provide funding to under-performing companies and startups. This would lower the entry costs and provide a balance to the giants who would normally run roughshod over the smaller guys.

  • by Geoffrey.landis (926948) on Wednesday December 16, 2009 @09:59PM (#30467934) Homepage

    If the government truly wants to encourage competition, they would provide funding to under-performing companies and startups.

    Wow. Give money to the companies that perform worst. You know, I'm sure that there's a flaw in that idea somewhere.

  • Re:Right. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) on Wednesday December 16, 2009 @10:02PM (#30467944) Journal
    Ideally to the necks of those responsible...
  • Re:Right. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by AdmiralXyz (1378985) on Wednesday December 16, 2009 @10:07PM (#30468000)

    Didn't we do this in the 90's, throw a lot of money at the providers and all they did was give it out to the shareholders?

    If we do this there had better be significant strings attached.

    Whoa, whoa, that sounds like socialism. We'll have none of that.

  • Re:no (Score:4, Insightful)

    by dagamer34 (1012833) on Wednesday December 16, 2009 @10:08PM (#30468022)
    Wow, tax & spend? What is this 1992-2000 when the government was fiscally responsible?!?! In the new millenium, the government is all SPEND SPEND SPEND. You best check yo'self!
  • Re:Right. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by RobinEggs (1453925) on Wednesday December 16, 2009 @10:09PM (#30468032)

    Didn't we do this in the 90's? ... If we do this there had better be significant strings attached.

    Right...give them more money but this time put *strings* on it.

    How about the kind of strings where we send every board member and executive, of any of these companies at any time since we gave them the money *last time*, a notice that they can install what we've already paid for or face federal fraud charges?

    Seriously, I'm not usually a litigious, pseudo-populist dickwad, but a lawsuit or some criminal charges seem completely reasonable here.

    And for fuck sake don't give them *more* money, unless you're okay with literally *training them*, like suggestible little puppy dogs, to defraud taxpayers.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 16, 2009 @10:09PM (#30468040)

    If the government truly wants to encourage competition, they would provide funding to under-performing companies and startups.

    Wow. Give money to the companies that perform worst. You know, I'm sure that there's a flaw in that idea somewhere.

    There is. But that didn't stop the government from handing out free money to the banks did it?

  • by ceoyoyo (59147) on Wednesday December 16, 2009 @10:36PM (#30468240)

    Or just do what a government is supposed to do - build things like infrastructure, which are too big and expensive to be undertaken efficiently by multiple competing private interests.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 16, 2009 @11:05PM (#30468442)

    That's not exactly what happened. The government paid these companies debts on their behalf. Not because they felt like being nice to the company, but because their debt holders would have ended up in serious financial trouble. Cascading financial failure was a serious possibility. This is bad. The credit market is the biggest market in the world.

    Meanwhile, a year later, the companies are paying the debt back. While not all the debt has been paid back, does it really make sense to keep complaining about a move that saved the rest of the financial system?

  • by DJRumpy (1345787) on Wednesday December 16, 2009 @11:37PM (#30468654)

    IMO, If they want to truly encourage competition, they need to separate content providers from access providers. That will free up access providers to do what they should be doing best. Competing for business at the lowest rate possible. It would also remove some of the political bullshit and insane antics that new entry's in the market have to go through just to be able to drop a single line.

  • by LBt1st (709520) on Wednesday December 16, 2009 @11:55PM (#30468800)

    How long till your telco is bought out by one of the big ones and becomes the local monopoly with horrible rates and service?

  • by Shakrai (717556) on Thursday December 17, 2009 @12:35AM (#30469080) Journal

    Wow. Give money to the companies that perform worst.

    Replace 'companies' with 'schools' and you've just described our public education system.

  • by BronsCon (927697) <social@bronstrup.com> on Thursday December 17, 2009 @02:12AM (#30469804) Journal

    If they stuck to what they're supposed to be doing, and quit doing all this extra shit that's really not in anyone's interest, they'd be pretty fucking efficient.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 17, 2009 @05:12AM (#30470918)

    Have you ever had a major problem with your water supply? How fast was it fixed? I'm willing to bet the government provides this utility. As it should be with roads, power, and net access and all critical infrastructure. Let the government lay the tubes and have it managed by a nonprofit organisation. This should include the last mile. This organisation should put excess income into a pot for future maintainance and upgrades. Have ISP's lease the bandwith and sell it to end users. Users can freely switch provides based on price and service level withouth worrying if wether the ISP operates in the area.

  • Re:Right. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by testadicazzo (567430) on Thursday December 17, 2009 @05:57AM (#30471206) Homepage
    I'm annoyed by the mantra:

    Competition drives innovation and provides consumer choice. Finding ways to better use existing assets, including Universal Service, rights-of-way, spectrum, and others, will be essential to the success of the plan. The limited government funding that is available for broadband would be best used when leveraged with the private sector.'

    Blech. Sometimes free markets and competition are the best way to accomplish a social goal. Sometimes they aren't. In particular, rural and poor neighbourhoods, which would profit most from broadband and are most poorly served under the current system, and I don't see shovelling money at providers doing much for that goal. I'd rather see that money used to address the most poorly served areas of the country, and provide some public competition to private provider plans.

The world is moving so fast these days that the man who says it can't be done is generally interrupted by someone doing it. -- E. Hubbard

Working...