Comcast/Charter Lobby Asks FTC To Preempt State Broadband Regulations (arstechnica.com) 80
Lobby groups on behalf of Comcast and Charter are asking the FTC to preempt state and local broadband regulations. "In comments filed this week, cable industry lobby group NCTA told the FTC that 'there is plainly no reasonable basis in today's marketplace for singling out ISPs for unique regulatory burdens,'" reports Ars Technica. "The FTC should let 'market forces' prevent bad behavior and avoid specific net neutrality or privacy regulation for the broadband industry, the lobby group said." From the report: The comments were filed in an FTC proceeding titled "Competition and Consumer Protection in the 21st Century." The FTC is planning to hold hearings on the communications industry, the FTC's enforcement processes, and other competition and consumer protection topics. "The FTC should ensure that the Internet is subject to uniform, consistent federal regulations, including by issuing guidance explicitly setting forth that inconsistent state and local requirements are preempted," the NCTA wrote.
The FTC should endorse and reinforce the FCC's ruling by issuing guidance to state attorneys general and consumer protection authorities reaffirming that they are bound by FCC and FTC precedent in this arena," NCTA argued. NCTA's filing focused mostly on potential privacy regulation, saying that the FCC should continue its "technology-neutral approach to privacy and data security." Net neutrality concerns are best addressed by existing antitrust laws, the filing said.
The FTC should endorse and reinforce the FCC's ruling by issuing guidance to state attorneys general and consumer protection authorities reaffirming that they are bound by FCC and FTC precedent in this arena," NCTA argued. NCTA's filing focused mostly on potential privacy regulation, saying that the FCC should continue its "technology-neutral approach to privacy and data security." Net neutrality concerns are best addressed by existing antitrust laws, the filing said.
Whine Whine .. (Score:5, Insightful)
But But we paid all that money to get our way with the federal.
Whine ... Whine ... Whine....
Please don't let the states take away our cash cow. All these regulation we will now have to keep up with.. its not fair....*stomping feet*
Whine ,,, Whine ... Whine..
Re: (Score:2)
But But we paid all that money to get our way with the federal.
Hey. State and local politicians have gotta eat too.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I like the way you're thinking. I think they should get a blanket exemption for any kind of government interference. Let the market force take care of people who want to murder them for bad service, of people who want to sell their infrastructure for scrape metal, of people who want to hold their techs for ransom.
Re: (Score:1)
Oh yes, market forces. So no more stopping "community broadband" when it outcompetes entrenched players? That kind of free market?
Re: (Score:2)
The base rule is that state law is only preempted only if there is a conflict, but there is a long standing / widely accepted exception conflict can be assumed in highly regulated industries. That is, if it's not forbidden, it's required (or at least fine).
Factually speaking, cable companies have a decent case that their industry is heavily regulated; they can point to several very large books of federal regs. Whether or not you'd prefer different regulations count as "common carrier" is irrelevant.
Re: Whine Whine .. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
I can't blame them. They have a sympathetic government regulator, so it is logical for them to try to get as much as they can while the kitchen is open. I don't blame them, I just want them to die in a fire.
They have a paid crony, so it is logical for them to steal as much as possible from The People while the door is unlocked. I do blame them, so I want them to die of ass cancer... in a fire.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We can always hope that some telco bigwig in California gets caught up in a wildfire that could have been prevented if they hadn't throttled EMS wireless connections.
Probably won't happen. Besides, it's more about what happens as a result of PG&E not doing the obviously necessary tree work they've been putting off because they get bigger executive bonuses if they don't spend the money meeting their basic obligations. They got a monopoly on the right-of-way for power lines, and they were supposed to maintain that right-of-way to prevent fires, but that's not what happened [pressdemocrat.com]. (Cal Fire has not yet released a statement on whether the current fires were started by PG&
One can dream... (Score:5, Interesting)
Dear NCTA,
We agree with you 100% that market forces are the best way to prevent bad behavior. Accordingly, we will instruct each city and state that grants one of your member companies a cable franchise to open up those franchises to any company desiring to provide internet service. Once every household in the country has a minimum of 4 different ISPs to choose from, we can discuss the state-level regulations mentioned in your letter.
Sincerely,
The FTC
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Once every household in the country has a minimum of 4 different ISPs to choose from, we can discuss the state-level regulations mentioned in your letter.
Sincerely,
The FTC
Internet is a bit like roads and well electricity and all the rest. It isn't practical for everyone to run wires/fiber/etc. I'd like to see a bit of government management or at least regulation on that part, then yes, bring it back to a central office and let people choose. It would be a Win, well except for the people that have been abusing their monopolies, but government is supposed to be for the people, not for the already rich corporations.
Captcha: Insane
Market forces (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, but market forces only work when there's competition. They've all lobbied to prevent any real competition. I only have one choice when it comes to any real broadband. Satellite just doesn't count.
Re: (Score:2)
Except every municipal broadband attempt has been challenged and in most places they've been declared illegal. Only a few have ever been successfully deployed, and they had to fight hard to get them.
Re: (Score:2)
Except every municipal broadband attempt has been challenged and in most places they've been declared illegal.
This isn't exactly accurate. While there have been challenges, they have been through the political system, not through the courts. When they have failed, it's either been because a city council decided not to go forward in the face of political pressure, or because the state has passed laws preemting local governments. But it is not true to say municipal broadband has been declared illegal in most places.
Re: (Score:2)
This is somewhat, but not altogether true. For one, the cable companies already had infrastructure in place for video, they just needed upgrades to backend equipment and to distribute modems. People were relatively familiar with the internet through AOL and dialup (which only became popular because the government broke up AT&T, another private corporation holding back progress for their own enrichment.) Plus they fought tooth and nail to not be labeled as utilities so the states can't control their p
Re: (Score:2)
This is somewhat, but not altogether true.
It is altogether true in many markets, where one entrenched provider has a monopoly on the right-of-way.
Re: (Score:2)
Not entirely true. Companies only wanted to lay cable in profitable neighborhoods (cities and rich suburbs).
The dotcom bubble laid much fiber cross-country too.
The FTC and FCC had to force the hand and many states provided funds and customers got levied many taxes and fees to make this buildout happen between cities and to rural spaces (which they collected the money but still haven't done).
Net neutrality has nothing to do with it, the concept that was legalised was another handout to the providers from the
Re: Market forces (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I certainly wasn't given a choice or paid for the right of way forced on me when the cable company came through and ran an underground trough in my backyard a couple of years ago. In fact they took out a section of my fence and I had to fix it at my own expense. I despise Spectrum, they outright lie in their ads, provide a poor service and charge though the a$$ for it. If you complain that it fails to live up to their promise they will reply you can always do without. I really miss the SF bay area where I h
Re: (Score:1)
They didn't lay cables at their own expense. A lot of those lines were paid for by state and federal grants or loan guarantees of one form or another.
In some cases, the telcos (who are no better) took money from the Feds to improve their backbone and just pocketed the money without improving anything.
Re: (Score:3)
One way to at least ensure that customers aren't completely tied into one supplier is to use a layered approach so that the cabling is separated from the service provider which in turn is separated from the content provider.
Right now the goal is to control the customers by making sure that cables, content and connection service is through one single provider and you as a customer have no choice.
I wish... (Score:5, Insightful)
I could convince all the pro NN folks to drop that pursuit and instead pursue taking the monopolies themselves away from the ISP's entirely. The poles, wires, and buried cable all become publicly funded just like roads and managed by contract bid out to whoever wants to run and maintain them so long as it is never one of the carriers, where the businesses now pay for the % of bandwidth their customers use with the price set by a commission, where anyone willing to start a new ISP can easily move into the marketspace and offer broadband to their neighbors without Comcast, Verizon, Cox, or whoever from blocking them in court or BS laws!
AND also removing all local municipalities from being able to sign exclusive deals with ISP's entirely!
Prices would drop like dying flies and every carrier would be advertising how they don't track you, keep your data private, and would never throttle your connection to netflix over comcast!
I wish I had mod points to mod this up! (Score:3)
You've absolutely hit the nail on the head. Get rid of the monopolies.. give them the same deregulation we gave to the telecom world with CLECs. Suddenly, prices will drop like hail from a thunderstorm.. just like long distance did in the 90s.
Re: I wish I had mod points to mod this up! (Score:2)
It wouldn't do much good (Score:4, Insightful)
If you want things to improve you're going to need more regulation, not less. The current market is too far gone. To be honest it was always going to be. The problem with telecom is it's really expensive to build all that wire. That's why they were granted monopolies in the first place. Though if you ask me we should have just built a national public network like we did the the roads. As it stands we paid for it in the form of tax breaks and subsidies and just let a private company profit from it. Not very smart.
Re: (Score:2)
Screw the poles - bury the cables instead. A lot less maintenance even though it's more expensive.
Re: (Score:2)
It's more expensive. Do you have any idea HOW expensive? In some cases, burying costs 10x the cost of hanging on poles. Plus, you can't imagine the headaches involved when you have to cross a highway.
---
Disclaimer: feedle works for one of the aformentioned bastards
Forget crossing a highway (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"If you want things to improve you're going to need more regulation, not less."
I'd say it's the exact opposite. For example, my local cable provider loves to claim it's not a monopoly b/c anyone can enter the market, and they are technically correct. The city, however, requires that those new entrants provide service to everyone. That is, you can't start with a few neighborhood and build out. It's all or nothing. And that makes it practically impossible to enter.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No Comcast and Charter! (Score:1)
States Rights!!!... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
So, more like Democrats then.
States ARE market forces (Score:2)
And that's all there is to it.
The county government to which I pay my property taxes is a market force, too, and that's why I've got Gigabit fiber on our municipal broadband network for $75/month.
Fuck you, Comcast. (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Same with Charter! Argh!
Re: (Score:3)
The states should amend the constitution (Score:3)
But they could take the opportunity to fix a few other overreaches of federal power as well, reign in the commerce clause, clarify the right to bear arms, the right to privacy, force the federal government to shrink and limit strongarming states with strings attached funding by diverting income tax to the states, put limits on time in position for top brass military and congress, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
put limits on time in position for top brass military and congress, etc.
That would be ideal..... Lifetime term limit for running for either house of congress: 6 Terms maximum. No more than 2 terms can be consecutive terms, the 2nd or later cumulative term can only be followed by a 2-year or longer period not working as an appointee or federal or state employee, lobbyist, contractor, consultant, or person working in Washington DC or other state or federal buildings, and no more than 3 terms
Re: (Score:2)
There are already 22 states coming together and passing thin
Sit, u ate I on ethics (Score:2)
"We value the inteterstate commerce clause and the value of enforced uniformity to help companies not have to deal with 50 different regulatory burdens and stop them from getting away wi..."
"We're on the other side now."
"Oh. We value giving the states the freedom to be 50 different experiments to see what works best."
And opposite with the other party.
Outside FCC Authority (Score:2)
Comcast and Charter are asking the FTC to preempt state and local broadband regulations. "In comments filed this week
Sorry.... The FTC is not congress nor the judiciary and doesn't have the authority to get to decide when state laws and regulations more-restrictive than the federal rules may be pre-empted and negated by the federal authority.
In general states can pass more restrictive rules on any things built and commerce conducted inside their state.
Requiring Network Neutrality regarding
Re: (Score:2)
Actually they do....there is a long standing / widely accepted rule that federal regulators of highly regulated industries "occupy the field." That is, we don't require them to explicitly preempt state laws.
Your "In general" statement is also too broad see e.g., dormant commerce clause.