House Votes To Block Ajit Pai's Plan To Kill San Francisco Broadband Law (arstechnica.com) 57
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: The U.S. House of Representatives has voted to block Ajit Pai's attempt to kill a San Francisco ordinance designed to promote broadband competition in apartment buildings. As we reported last week, the Federal Communications Commission chair has scheduled a July 10 vote on a measure that would preempt the San Francisco city ordinance, which lets Internet service providers use the existing wiring inside multiunit residential and commercial properties even if the wiring is already used by another ISP that serves the building. The ordinance applies only when the inside wiring belongs to the property owner, but it makes it easier for ISPs to compete in many multiunit buildings already served by another provider.
Pai claimed that the city's rule "deters broadband deployment" and infringes on the FCC's regulation of cable wiring. But US Rep. Katie Porter (D-Calif.) proposed a budget amendment that would forbid the FCC from using any funding to implement or enforce Pai's preemption proposal. The House, which is controlled by Democrats, yesterday approved the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act for fiscal 2020 in a mostly party-line vote of 224-196. Earlier in the day, the House approved a block of amendments including Porter's proposal that "prohibits the Federal Communications Committee from finalizing a draft declaratory ruling that would overturn local ordinances that promote broadband competition." The amendment's passage by a vote of 227-220 was also noted in the Congressional Record.
Pai claimed that the city's rule "deters broadband deployment" and infringes on the FCC's regulation of cable wiring. But US Rep. Katie Porter (D-Calif.) proposed a budget amendment that would forbid the FCC from using any funding to implement or enforce Pai's preemption proposal. The House, which is controlled by Democrats, yesterday approved the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act for fiscal 2020 in a mostly party-line vote of 224-196. Earlier in the day, the House approved a block of amendments including Porter's proposal that "prohibits the Federal Communications Committee from finalizing a draft declaratory ruling that would overturn local ordinances that promote broadband competition." The amendment's passage by a vote of 227-220 was also noted in the Congressional Record.
Re: (Score:3)
Why don't you share your name if you're so pro-monopoly and anti net-neutrality.
Re: (Score:2)
*SOME* monopolies are created by government. Some are natural. Wiring, e.g., is a natural monopoly. Transmission over those same wires is not a natural monopoly, but standards are essential. Cucumbers don't even have a necessity for tight standards. (Truth in labeling and added ingredients listed should suffice.)
Re: (Score:2)
As a conservative, I'm calling you out. First for the BS "Stalinist" comment. And second for hiding behind the AC post. Finally, the right shouldn't be in favor of monopolistic activity any more than the left. It's anti-competitive and competition is what makes our system work.
Haw dare (Score:1)
Anyone get on the way of lame monopolies
Seems reasonable to me (to block) (Score:2)
In this case I totally disagree with the FCC and think the house is doing the right thing... cities need all the help they can get making broadband expansion happen and any kind of lock-in like preveneting companies use lines just means worse service and less competition (but then they are two sides of the same coin).
This is exactly why it's such a great idea to have multiple different groups powerful in government, no one group will always do the right thing.
Re: (Score:2)
The current broadband companies (read "cable" and "AT&T") would have you believe that those are _their_ cables and wires, and maybe that's true, but customers paid for them to be installed. That cost was passed on long ago. Not a good enough excuse to monopolize apartment building broadband.
I'm lucky to live in an area where the local broadband provider got permits to run fiber on the existing utility poles and into my house. They don't use any existing wires, and in fact I chopped some cable away to us
Re: (Score:1)
The current broadband companies (read "cable" and "AT&T") would have you believe that those are _their_ cables and wires, and maybe that's true, but customers paid for them to be installed. That cost was passed on long ago. Not a good enough excuse to monopolize apartment building broadband.
No, no they didn't. That's why the wires are exclusive to the cable companies. The deal was, we'll wire up your building for free, but then you can't let other ISPs use the wires. If you want to let others use the wires, pay to wire up the building yourself.
This is literally theft by the government's hand. The cost of wiring these buildings was supposed to be paid via the exclusivity agreement. Don't like it, don't make the agreement.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The ordinance applies only when the inside wiring belongs to the property owner
it's right in the summary idiot.
Re: (Score:1)
You know, when someone steals your car, but it is still completely unaltered in your parking lot or garage, for you to use at any time you wish.
Although I think you could argue that their monopoly was stolen, because they no longer have it, no longer can use it, and there is no intend to return it to them. But then we may also want to think a bit about whether monopolies are a good thing to have in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure you're correct about the history. I've definitely paid to have AT&T wire an extension. My father used to do it himself. That wasn't legal, of course, but he was an expert in the field, and the only way they could tell is if multiple phones had active bells.
Still, it's possible that the situation is different for commercial buildings. Perhaps. And certainly I only want one company maintaining those wires. But the same doesn't apply to signals transmitted over them.
FWIW, when a cable co
Re:Seems reasonable to me (to block) (Score:5, Insightful)
In this case I totally disagree with the FCC and think the house is doing the right thing...
Agreed, but I'm still a little fuzzy as to why the Federal Communications Commission, is complaining that this local ordinance "deters broadband deployment" and "infringes on the FCC's regulation of cable wiring" and why they assert they have jurisdiction over this when the ordinance "applies only when the inside wiring belongs to the property owner." Seems local/state control and property rights would be something Republicans would be in favor of, unless they only really care about the big corporations/ISPs, like Verizon -- who Ajit Pai used to work for ... oh wait.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Kind of odd you haven't worked out San Fransisco has been completely captured by the libertarian asshats in Silicon valley and while this broadband move is indeed good, lets not fool ourself to think the broader san francisco world is anything other than a full blown freemarket hell dimension
Re:Seems reasonable to me (to block) (Score:4, Insightful)
cities need all the help they can get making broadband expansion happen
More importantly, cities and counties should be left alone to run their own affairs.
Not every decision needs to be made in DC.
Re: (Score:2)
This is exactly why it's such a great idea to have multiple different groups powerful in government, no one group will always do the right thing.
While I completely agree with the sentiments of this statement, it really sucks that our maximum number of powerful groups in Washington is two. When both groups agree on something terrible, such as mass domestic surveillance or allowing themselves to profit from politics, then the American people are just screwed.
Treason Turtle to the Rescue (Score:2, Informative)
It doesn't make a lick of difference what the house does. [Treason Turtle](https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/06/mcconnell-blocking-plans-to-prevent-russian-election-attack.html) runs the senate and he won't let anything even come up for a vote that he doesn't like.
Face it D's - the GOP is going to block you at every juncture because there has been no downside for them in the 10 years they've been doing it. You better start figuring out how to play hard-ball or just go home already.
Re: (Score:2)
All funding bills must originate in the House of Representatives. If the House won't fund the FCC without this rider, then either the FCC is defunded, or the rider passes.
OTOH, this may just be a grandstand play. Or perhaps the coalition won't hold together. We'll see.
nah, Democrats LOVE McConnell (Score:2)
Without old Mitch to kick around, Democrats wouldn't have such a convenient excuse for never delivering on their election platforms or constantly stabbing their constituents in the back.
slow news day? (Score:2, Troll)
Re: slow news day? (Score:2)
And now it's off to die in the Senate (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You know that scene in Ready Player One where the big bad corporate douche pretends he's actually just a cool regular guy, and Parzival totally sees through it and calls him out on his bullshit?
Most people aren't that smart. Why, just last week, I saw an entire arena full of people who were absolutely thrilled to see a rich corporate douchebag pretend to be cool.
More of the same (Score:2)
What a moroon they said (Score:2)
Yet another disapointing headline . . . (Score:2, Funny)
"House Votes To Block Ajit Pai's Plan To Kill San Francisco Broadband Law"
I somehow managed to compress and wacky parse that headline into:
"House Votes To Kill Ajit Pai"
Given the current state of politics in the US . . . this would be quite plausible . . . and very amusing, indeed.
I used to have to put up with this crap. (Score:3)
No, I'm not from Poopfrancisco.
But I used to reside in a multi-unit apartment high-rise.
When broadband FINALLY came around, I went to my cable company and was the first in my building. Leaving behind absolute shit DSL service from AT&T.
It was great for about 3 years.
Then the landlord booted my cable provider out and turned over the infrastructure to some fly-by-night called "Suite Solutions" (yes this joke is still in business) who basically resold Satellite and DSL to the residents at a markup.
And boom. I was back on DSL. And stayed there until I moved out a couple years later.
Comcast wouldn't come into the building, even as a business services provider because of this.
AT&T wouldn't upgrade the area because of the way the landlord had dicked over Comcast, and basically just turned over all their oldest, crappiest copper to these yahoos, limiting us to 384K if we were lucky.
Re: I used to have to put up with this crap. (Score:1)
Yanks should be grateful for 64k ISDN, when Korean farmers expect 100gbits at least...
Re: (Score:1)
Besides of that ISDN was never particularily good for internet. It was very good for telephone, but apparently the wasn't much need for multiple telephone lines in most US households.
Re: (Score:2)
ISDN was great for just about a moment, when modems were king. If you had good hardware then you could use the full 128k and degrade to 64k while using the phone. Compared to a 56k modem which more often than not connected at 40k or less, it was speedy.
Kernel of truth in Ajit Pai's statement (Score:2)
The bit about "deterring broadband deployment" is actually true. Wired broadband companies are so entitled that they feel that ANY deployment where they don't have a complete and total monopoly is a waste of time. The industry is so backwards that now we have regulators trying to protect the monopoly of broadband companies in the hope that they'll bother giving broadband service to a community AT ALL. The alternative would be that, in the face of potential competition, they simply don't do business there at
Awefully twisted crap! (Score:1)
So, it it to kill an ordinance that forbids using the wiring?
Or, to block funds to block Ajit's attempt to kill an ordinance that kills shared wiring?
Is it at all possible to simplify this story to a reasonable understanding of the issue(s)?
Like: SF ordinance allows sharing of premises-owened ISP wiring. Ajit wants to to stop that.