FCC Sides With Google Fiber Over Comcast With New Pro-Competition Rule (arstechnica.com) 134
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: The Federal Communications Commission today approved new rules that could let Google Fiber and other new [ISPs] gain faster access to utility poles. The FCC's One Touch Make Ready (OTMR) rules will let companies attach wires to utility poles without waiting for the other users of the pole to move their own wires. Google Fiber says its deployment has stalled in multiple cities because Comcast and AT&T take a long time to get poles ready for new attachers. One Touch Make Ready rules let new attachers make all of the necessary wire adjustments themselves. Comcast urged the FCC to "reject 'one-touch make-ready' proposals, which inure solely to the benefit of new entrants while unnecessarily risking harm to existing attachers and their customers." FCC Chairman Ajit Pai rejected this argument, saying that startups are unnecessarily delayed when they have to wait for incumbent ISPs before hanging wires. Here's what Pai had to say: "For a competitive entrant, especially a small company, breaking into the market can be hard, if not impossible, if your business plan relies on other entities to make room for you on those poles. Today, a broadband provider that wants to attach fiber or other equipment to a pole first must wait for, and pay for, each existing attacher to sequentially move existing equipment and wires. This can take months, and the bill for multiple truck rolls adds up. For companies of any size, pole-attachment problems represent one of the biggest barriers to broadband deployment."
Good for the FCC (Score:4, Insightful)
For once anyways.
Re: (Score:3)
My thoughts exactly. I don't know how it happened, but I'm glad it did, because this is the right decision.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
No favorites here (Score:2)
In Comcast vs. Google the GOP has no predetermined outcome. Both companies are not considered friendly to their interests.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Or it just fits a philosophy of less regulations and promoting an environment where market forces determine outcome.
Re: (Score:2)
Considering most of those poles sit on right of ways, I don't think there should be any question. Existing cable and telco companies have gained enormous advantage for decades of what is essentially a subsidy, so frankly, I think the question should be posed "If you want that much control, we're going to start renting those right of ways, at say, $1000 per foot per year adjusted annually for inflation, and then you can dictate who gets on those poles, otherwise, don't ever waste our time again."
Re:No favorites here (Score:4, Interesting)
The people in a position to pose the question are local bureaucrats. They have long-running "relationship" with the cable monopolies [wired.com] and would never do, what you wish them too. Earlier laws and regulations have kept them in power to do that, while ya'll rioted for nationalizing Internet service-providers.
Good to see Trump Administration addressing this problem too.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Competition is in everyone's interest
Re: (Score:3)
you mean like net neutrality?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Net Neutrality as mandated by the GOVERNMENT isn't "competition" of the free market. Quit pretending it is.
Re: (Score:1)
Stop pretending that the government cannot promote competition via regulation. It can; it just did. With net neutrality it did not. Net neutrality need not limit competition, but it does forbid certain abuses of monopoly position. (And many people have few choices of ISP.) Even the anti-net-neutrality crowd acknowledged this; they just claimed anti-trust law offered an effective remedy. This was quite wrong, as many economists explained.
Re: (Score:2)
Can you kindly point out why net neutrality and "pole neutrality" are somehow of a different nature?
Re: No favorites here (Score:2)
Besides the obvious fact that the utility poles are public property?
Re: (Score:2)
And so every last bit that travels through the net is traveling through cables that are graciously allowed to traverse public property.
Re: (Score:2)
yes but, Obama.
Re: (Score:2)
In the vast majority of the US, the utility poles are owned by a private electric company.
Re: (Score:2)
And the poles are in *public* ground. Without taxpayers, there would be no Internet and cable. Period.
Which doesn't change that the poles are not public property. They're private property.
Also, the vast majority of the time it isn't "public" ground. Utilities are usually run through an easement on private property. You buy your house, and the deed will say "the government can allow utilities to run though this strip without asking you". That strip is usually on the edge of the property. And it's existence is part of why there are building setbacks on single-family houses. But legally, it's your land.
Re: (Score:2)
Net neutrality is the government putting rules on how an Internet provider must operate (more restrictions). Pole neutrality is the government allowing Internet providers easier access to a public resource (less restrictions).
However, maybe you are thinking that the Internet is like the pole in that it is a public resource and net neutrality allows less restricted access to this public resource. The problem with this line of thinking is
Re: (Score:2)
Pole neutrality is restricting the incumbant's on the pole by not allowing them to block the newcomer. Net neutrality is restricting the ISPs from blocking 3rd parties in support of their own services.
The internet is a DARPA project that made good and the ISPs are using that as well as access to the public domain ( through right-of-way). If not for those two things, there would BE no ISPs.
The only reason non-neutrality can work out for an ISP is the sweetheart deals they got from government that allowed the
Re: (Score:2)
Net Neutrality as mandated by the GOVERNMENT isn't "competition" of the free market.
In the absence of [meaningful] competition among ISPs, it certainly is. It remains to be seen if this latest move actually fosters significant competition.
Re: No favorites here (Score:1)
If ISP had equal access to poles (they do not) then we would not need net neutrality. I could in that fantasy world choose a better provider.
Net neutrality is a broken band aid for the monopoly pole system now in place. Fix the root cause and we get better prices and service through competition and choice. Net neutrality is socialism, a known failed system.
Re: (Score:2)
Net neutrality is socialism, a known failed system.
All government which does things for the people is socialism. The only question is how much socialism you've got in your government.
Re: (Score:3)
You are conflating the monopoly-style abuses of individual companies managing their sites with the arbitrage abuses of ISPs.
The first are (at least somewhat) addressable via market mechanisms, as consumers can redirect their traffic to other sites more in line with their views.
The second are not addressable via market mechanisms because the arbitrage happens out of the sight of the consumers. This means that the ISPs get to choose winners among content providers. This is why Netflix sued Comcast. Net neu
Re: No favorites here (Score:3)
Google and facebook can't violate net neutrality because they are not ISPs. No one is letting them off the hook. Net neutrality is about having free and open access to the internet pipe. It says that an ISP can't give preferential treatment to Netflix or penalize bittorrent. It's a work in progress as plenty of ISPs violate it with zero rating and other nonsense but facebook and google aren't the offenders
Re: (Score:1)
If it was the people vs a corporation we know what way it would have gone. Fortunately it was two companies with lobbyists vs one company with lobbyists, and the FCC came down firmly on the side of nepotism, greed, and graft, as usual. Only this time it was congruent with increased choice and market diversity, oddly enough.
All the American people need to do to get favorable decisions is to find a way to appeal to the shameless self interest of our government. It is their better nature.
Re: (Score:2)
But... Pai was evil incarnate... net neutrality *twitch* Trump *twitch* Comcast kicked out of NY... WHAT'S HAPPENING!!
Re: (Score:2)
Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
Re: (Score:2)
Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
I use Military Time [militarytimechart.com], you Insensitive Clod!
Re: (Score:2)
Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
Yeah, but that's correct through inaction. This was surprisingly correct and due to unexpected action taken.
Re: (Score:1)
Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
Yeah, but that's correct through inaction. This was surprisingly correct and due to unexpected action taken.
I think the correct phrase should have been "broken clock". The broken FCC was shockingly correct in this one decision. I'm suspicious as to why, as this is so uncharacteristic of Pai's FCC. The answer likely lies in whose pockets stand to gain lots of cash. Pai is assumed to be in front, of course.
This one activist action by Pai also displays the Pai's hypocrisy. You can't claim overreaching activism from the previous FCC when you engage in it yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
Corruption or merely tending to favor the same positions that you held while working in the industry, which are skewed by the types of companies you worked for. Either way.
Unlikely. As someone else pointed out elsewhere in the thread, the very telecom company that Pai used to work for, Verizon, will benefit greatly from this decision during their 5G rollout, because it will
Re: (Score:2)
You're mistaking NN as a Left v. Right issue. It's not, and I'm saying so from the right.
Re: (Score:2)
google is/will be a major ISP.
I....agree with Ajit Pai? (Score:5, Insightful)
I feel dirty. Good for him though; I guess they're really trying to make good on that whole expand competition thing.
Re:I....agree with Ajit Pai? (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course, Google Fiber basically stopped expanding more than a year ago. It may be that Pai's FCC stopped resisting this change only because his major-telecom overlords concluded that the threat has passed.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:For all those who were hopeless... (Score:5, Insightful)
Solution to Net Neutrality (Score:1, Troll)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:3)
except that they don't want to eat you (a one-time benefit) they want to milk you month after month, so the analogy breaks down pretty quickly.
Let's try a car analogy. You gotta buy gas, but you get to choose which station to use of the ones near by. The more stations are in the area, the more they have to avoid pissing you off to get your business.
Re:Solution to Net Neutrality (Score:4, Insightful)
No, that's Old and Busted. Let's try a vampire analogy instead:
You're in a room full of vampires, and they're goddamned thirsty. They could fight each other over who gets to drain you. Or they could decide to tie you up, put a feeding tube down your throat, and install a valve on a handy vein, so the can drain you regularly. Which do you think they're going to do? Oh and don't forget that thye're not giving you a choice in any of this.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
In you analogy, the victim dies pretty quickly and the feeding stops completely. Thus, the analogy is bullshit, like everything else you've posted. Remember to logout.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Now here is your real problem...
Re: (Score:2)
so you're saying hes right?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeah, sure. You're an antelope and you're in a room full of lions, and tigers, and cheetahs, who are arguing over who gets to eat you. Do you really think they're going to unanimously agree to not eat you? At worst, they kill each other off until one is left, who then proceeds to eat you. At best, they agree to split the kill; then they all eat you, they just get a little less. In the latter scenario, they further agree to split all future antelope. Welcome to CAPITALISM.
I think you just described democracy:
“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!” Benjamin Franklin
Re: (Score:2)
"don't believe every quote you read on the internet because its attributed to a famous person" - President Barack Obama
Re: (Score:3)
No, capitalism is you have the freedom to simply say "no" and walk out of the room full of predators.
Or you can negotiate with each predator one at a time to determine who wish to sit with (and define what their limits are as well).
Fascism (or a dictatorship) is when the Government locks the door and FORCES YOU to make a choice of which predator will eat you, because it's in the best interest of the common good (meaning - the folks who locked the doors and the predators).
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
And the representative from Comcast appears...
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Probably because the incumbents have been treating a public right-of-way that they have been graciously permitted to use as if it was their own private property. If you leave your bike in the common hallway, eventually someone will move it out back against the wall.
Okay... (Score:4, Insightful)
Dammit, Pai (Score:4, Funny)
What are you doing? First you vote against the Sinclair-Tribune merger [slashdot.org] and now you side with Google.
Stop trying to make me like you.
How much did Google pay Ajit Pai? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
The question remains: how much?
Well, he'll need a job after his time on the FCC board is done and I'd guess Google can always use someone good in telecom lobbying...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
FTFY
Re: (Score:2)
Hmmm........
See how it goes... (Score:1)
While I applaud that the little guys, or anyone for that matter, don't have to wait for the existing tenants on the pole to do something, there is a fairly large risk to have someone move someone else's equipment and/or wires. Sure, maybe 99% of the work that the new guy does is AOK, and no issue, but what about that 1%? People are trained specifically I would guess to work on/in the environment for their company and its particular resources. If someone comes along, that doesn't have the same training, o
Re: (Score:2)
Then the dingaling for New Guy Cable is gonna get sued, and almost certainly lose, and New Guy Cable is going to pay (unless the dingaling was really stupid with his contract) and fire the dingaling, thus eliminating one incompetent contractor.
Re: (Score:3)
What if the dingaling for New Guy Cable causes an outage for my whole neighborhood
How about holding the new Guy responsible to repair or pay for repairing the damage when they do that ?
In most cases the people running lines for New Guy Cable will have former employees of the Incumbent cable provider, or may even be the same contractors that the incumbent provider uses; so the only question then is about shady contractors who screw something up ----- which can happen even if they don't use the poles
Re: (Score:2)
What if the dingaling for New Guy Cable causes an outage for my whole neighborhood
How about holding the new Guy responsible to repair or pay for repairing the damage when they do that ?
So New Guy Cable installer causes an outage. This forces Incumbent to spend money fixing it, maybe lost revenue when pay-per-view users cannot view what they want to pay for. Then Incumbent has to not only prove that New Cable installer moved their stuff, but that he broke it when he did. It goes to court, it takes years to resolve. In the meantime, New Cable goes bankrupt because they didn't get enough subs and they have to pay a bunch of lawyers to defend them.
You WANT to create a system where the only
Re: (Score:2)
You think the incumbents don't have standing contracts with the contractors that do the work? Do you think they don't have "on call" technicians? Do you think they have no outage emergency plans? Because they do. They have all of those. And some like COX even has their OWN installers and techs, they ALSO have standing contracts with multiple companies. Same with Century Link.
Re: (Score:2)
You think the incumbents don't have standing contracts with the contractors that do the work?
I didn't say that.
Do you think they don't have "on call" technicians?
I didn't say that, either.
Do you think they have no outage emergency plans? Because they do.
I didn't say they don't. Sheesh, three for three. What's next?
Now, what you don't seem to understand is that those "emergency outage" protocols COST MONEY and TAKE TIME. I spoke about money and time.
And some like COX even has their OWN installers and techs,
"They may have. Probably do. They have daily operations staff. Fixing a broken main feed is not an "installer and tech" job.
Do you have something to argue with me about something I actually said?
Re: (Score:2)
"They may have. Probably do. They have daily operations staff. Fixing a broken main feed is not an "installer and tech" job.
Its a damn coaxial cable. i know children that can fix them.. and as far as fiber goes, you would be surprised how easy that is now a days and who you can teach to do it. as for my original comment, i was being snide about the fact that you seemed to think that they dont have any emergency procedures in place, i can be an asshole sometimes even when i dont try.
Re:See how it goes... (Score:5, Informative)
there is a fairly large risk to have someone move someone else's equipment and/or wires .... doesn't have the same training, or cuts corners, and messes something up
Either you haven't investigated this or you're spreading FUD. The OTMR rules require the utility pole owners to designate qualified contractors to do the work. Only these contractors are eligible to move or add anything. The poles won't be swarmed by unaccountable bozos wrecking everything.
With change comes risk. Try not to be a sackless coward, prattling on about the parade of horribles inside your head. They're just wires on poles. We can cope with them as we have for 150+ years now. The only actual problem with any of this is that it's at least twenty years overdue.
Re: (Score:2)
Gee, thanks for your completely reasonable response. hahahahaha. You could have made the same point without being a total ass.
Have a great weekend!
Wait - Ajit Pai is not the devil's spawn?? (Score:2)
Maybe he might be wrong about one thing, but not other things? How is this possible???
In case you're wondering why Pai would do this.. (Score:5, Insightful)
This vote isn't pro-internet or pro-freedom or anti-monopoly - it's entirely about ensuring that Verizon isn't at a competitive disadvantage in rolling out their 5g network.
Re:In case you're wondering why Pai would do this. (Score:5, Informative)
...and if you don't own the poles (like Verizon)...
Verizon, the telephone company, does not own telephone poles? That seems...wrong [fiercetelecom.com].
To be fair, they own a lot less than they used to.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Low-frequency 5G (which Verizon and T-Mobile have heavily invested in the past for UHF spectrums) has much larger bandwidth and equal range to 3G and 4G. No way will Verizon set up hundreds of million mini-cells on telephone poles just because. Sure they purchased millimeter wave companies, but that is an entirely different market. 26GHz transmitters in cell phones are going to be bulky and prone to dropouts.
Re: (Score:2)
Cities should own the poles (Score:1)
There is absolutely no reason why telecom companies should own poles within cities/states/country limits. These should be owned and maintained by the city, in order to let any who wish to make use of the poles, actually use them without having to pay extra fees to a company that would be their main competitor.
Re: (Score:2)
Poles are usually installed* by the power company (when power is one of the utilities sharing the poles). Power goes above all other utilities and is usually put up first. Then everyone builds down from there.
*Ownership of the pole is often transferred to a privately owned real estate holding company and then leased back to investor-owned utilities. This is to circumvent regulations on utility ROI limits in some states.
Re: (Score:1)
Out here, the power comes in on one row of poles, and the cable, telecom, etc. all comes along on a separate row of poles. I'm not in a congested city, though.
What the... (Score:2)
Why am I in hell, and why is it so damned cold?
Won't be useful (Score:3)
Comcast will just cut their competitors' cables anyway [arstechnica.com].
What they deserve (Score:2)
Makes sense (Score:2)
Pai's overlord Verizon needs this for 5G cell rollouts so this makes sense. I'm sure he'll find a way to prevent Google and newcomers from benefitting.