ISPs say they can’t expand broadband unless gov’t gives them more money

[Swordsmyth]

ISPs say they can’t expand broadband unless gov’t gives them more money

Broadband providers have spent years lobbying against utility-style regulations that protect consumers from high prices and bad service.
But now, broadband lobby groups are arguing that Internet service is similar to utilities such as electricity, gas distribution, roads, and water and sewer networks. In the providers' view, the essential nature of broadband doesn't require more regulation to protect consumers. Instead, they argue that broadband's utility-like status is reason for the government to give ISPs more money.
That's the argument made by trade groups USTelecom and NTCA—The Rural Broadband Association. USTelecom represents telcos including AT&T, Verizon, and CenturyLink, while NTCA represents nearly 850 small ISPs.
"Like electricity, broadband is essential to every American," USTelecom CEO Jonathan Spalter and NTCA CEO Shirley Bloomfield wrote Monday in an op-ed for The Topeka Capital-Journal. "Yet US broadband infrastructure has been financed largely by the private sector without assurance that such costs can be recovered through increased consumer rates."
[h=2]ISPs want benefits but not responsibilities[/h] While ISPs want the benefits of being treated like utilities—such as pole attachment rights and access to public rights-of-way—they oppose traditional utility-style obligations such as regulated prices and deployment to all Americans.
The industry's main arguments against net neutrality and other common carrier regulations were that broadband shouldn't be treated as a utility and that the broadband market is too competitive to justify strict regulations. "Utility regulation over broadband can only inhibit incentives for network investment," AT&T warned in November 2017.


Industry groups have also tried to stop cities and towns from building their own networks, saying that the government shouldn't compete against private companies. Telecom-friendly legislatures have passed about 20 state laws restricting the growth of municipal broadband.
Despite the industry's fight against municipal networks, Spalter and Bloomfield wrote that the "private-led investment model" only works well in "reasonably populous areas." In rural parts of America, "the private sector can't go it alone," they wrote.
To close the rural broadband gap, the US needs "solutions that unite the public and private sectors to finish the job of building a truly connected nation," Spalter and Bloomfield wrote. This public/private model is "without question... the only acceptable path forward just as it was in wiring rural America with electricity and building our nation's highways."
"Broadband providers need a committed partner to finish the job of connecting unserved communities. That partner should be all of us as Americans—in the form of our government," they wrote.
The op-ed did not explain why the FCC's repeal of net neutrality rules wasn't enough to spur expanded broadband investment, though broadband industry lobby groups previously claimed that the rules were holding back network expansions and upgrades. ISPs also promised more investment in exchange for a major tax break that was passed by Congress late last year.

More at: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy...vernment/?comments=1&post=35844569&mode=quote

 

[phill4paul]

Break up the monopolies.

 

[Schifference]

Is having everyone connected really necessary? What has been the big net positive for having nearly every waking moment of peoples lives with their face in a screen.

 

[oyarde]

No tax money for that.

 

[Grandmastersexsay]

Is having everyone connected really necessary? What has been the big net positive for having nearly every waking moment of peoples lives with their face in a screen.

Having nearly the entirety of human knowledge at your fingertips is pretty nice.

 

[timosman]

Having nearly the entirety of human knowledge at your fingertips is pretty nice.

What an average person is doing with all that knowledge?

 

[charrob]

Break up the monopolies.

I agree. But how? ISPs own the physical lines and have had to work with local governments to install those lines. How can other companies compete with that?

I do believe that those who own the lines should not be allowed to also be content providers: why? because they have an unfair advantage to push their content that other content providers do not have. The monopoly is created by ownership of the physical lines.

 

[charrob]

Is having everyone connected really necessary? What has been the big net positive for having nearly every waking moment of peoples lives with their face in a screen.

Before being connected to the internet I subscribed to the local newspaper for my news. In hindsight I look back and see how that newspaper looked at the world with a particular lens that skews ones reality. Having the world at my fingertips has opened my eyes to a reality i would never have known if internet connection was not possible. The ability to read and hear all voices in a debate, rather than just one skewed view of a topic. The ability to connect with many reporters i would have never read or known about without an internet connection.

 

[kpitcher]

These telcos have already gotten over 500 billion in our money for utility broadband which any company could use. They took the money, they never delivered.

Hold the large companies accountable to contracts already signed and we'll all have better broadband to the home.

https://newnetworks.com/ShortSCANDALSummary.htm

 

[kpitcher]

I agree. But how? ISPs own the physical lines and have had to work with local governments to install those lines. How can other companies compete with that?

I do believe that those who own the lines should not be allowed to also be content providers: why? because they have an unfair advantage to push their content that other content providers do not have. The monopoly is created by ownership of the physical lines.

The US has a forced monopoly on our telecommunications infrastructure. When Ma bell was broken up distinct regions were given to the baby bells. The lines belong to a government mandated monopoly. It's not like they were private companies building phone companies to begin with - taxpayers paid for the lines to be put up. Like any good monopoly they stifled competition. Any company that was able to put new lines in were simply denied connection to the existing telco infrastructure. Not much use to have a new phone company that couldn't call the existing telephone numbers.

In 1996 the telco reform act forced the local telco companies to interconnect in exchange for local telco getting to also do the more profitable long distance. With competition allowed, nearly overnight hundreds of new telco companies started which offered new services all across the country. Thousands of startup ISPs started connecting all of America to the Internet. The commercial Internet really got started then and it was going great.

Bush Jr. got elected, Powel's son - with a past working for the large telcos - was put in charge of the FCC. The telcos did the exact same whine... why should they invest in better and faster internet lines if they have to share them? They outright said give us monopoly status again, and some money, and things will get better, trust them!

The 1996 telco reform act was killed. Wholesale rates were suddenly more expensive than retail rates, thousands of ISPs closed up, the major telcos once again owned the Internet. And of course the consumer was shafted once again.

 

[nikcers]

I predicted that the democrats were going to fear monger net neutrality for the midterm elections. My internet has only gotten faster after net neutrality was repealed, cable companies like Comcast are spending billions upgrading their infrastructure and companies like SpaceX are launching low earth orbit satellites in order to sell low latency broadband world wide. The deep state just wants to take control over the internet so they can control our speech.

 

[kpitcher]

I predicted that the democrats were going to fear monger net neutrality for the midterm elections. My internet has only gotten faster after net neutrality was repealed, cable companies like Comcast are spending billions upgrading their infrastructure and companies like SpaceX are launching low earth orbit satellites in order to sell low latency broadband world wide. The deep state just wants to take control over the internet so they can control our speech.

Yes Comcast announced they'll be spending 10 billion annually post the death of net neutrality. Good sales pitch considering Comcast was spending that amount already.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy...ts-soared-with-net-neutrality-rules-in-place/

I foresee more walled garden services like Prodigy or AOL used to be back in the day. You will have your connection and have enhanced speed to whichever websites pay your one or two choices of last mile to the home, everyone else will be slower so you won't bother using them. Small Internet startups will have a much harder time as they will be by default slower.

I don't agree with your viewpoint... we're already at risk of losing all online control. As it stands now companies can throttle speeds as they want which means only a few companies already have a handle on all of our Internet access. As most telco lines have been paid handsomely with broken contracts we should at least get the benefit of equal standing of all 'net traffic. If a company doesn't want net neutrality then they had better have not taken any taxpayer money that they didn't deliver on.

 

[nikcers]

I don't agree with your viewpoint... we're already at risk of losing all online control. As it stands now companies can throttle speeds as they want which means only a few companies already have a handle on all of our Internet access. As most telco lines have been paid handsomely with broken contracts we should at least get the benefit of equal standing of all 'net traffic. If a company doesn't want net neutrality then they had better have not taken any taxpayer money that they didn't deliver on.

I will have to agree to disagree if you think that government regulation will fix things. Regulation=government regulated monopolies every time. It might not happen at first, but lobbyist will slowly stick their fingers in the cracks and then the internet is now a government surveillance tool that we all use that they use to hypnotize us into doing their bidding I can't wait till its regulated like the TSA and has a democrat/republican or even better bipartisan solution applied to it.