Pai's FCC Crushes Rules That Brought More Broadband Competition To San Francisco

from the look-mom-I'm-helping dept

While many appointments of the Trump administration lack even marginal competence to complete the duties for which they’re assigned, the same can’t be said of FCC boss Ajit Pai. While Pai’s industry-cozy policies may be historically unpopular, the efficiency with which Pai has dismantled telecom consumer protections (and FCC authority in general) can’t be denied. Having been a vanilla commissioner for years before being appointed agency head, Pai knows precisely which rules to demolish–and how to obtain the maximum benefit for his core constituents: AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, T-Mobile, Sprint, and Charter Spectrum.

Gutting net neutrality, killing efforts to bring competition to the cable box, even weakening the definition of competition to aid industry incumbents are but a taste of what Pai has been up to the last few years. Many of these efforts are subtle enough to fall under the radar, even if the impact of the decisions are profoundly negative. Case in point: last week, the FCC announced that the agency would soon vote on whether to preempt a San Francisco city ordinance designed to promote broadband competition in apartments, condos, and other multi-unit buildings.

Article 52, first passed in December of 2016, allows ISPs to use existing building wiring to serve customers, even if it’s being used by another ISP. The ruling effectively created an “open access” model inside of San Francisco buildings to help drive a bit more broadband competition. Part of the provision prevents landlords from signing exclusivity deals with incumbent ISPs, something that’s been a problem (one the FCC refused to seriously address) for decades (there’s a great primer on this here by Susan Crawford).

Enter Ajit Pai, whose new proposal would pre-empt San Francisco’s ordinance as a favor to industry incumbents who don’t like the added competition. And, like so many things Pai does (the “restoring internet freedom” net neutrality repeal comes quickly to mind), his office tried to claim the proposal does the exact opposite of what it actually does:

“Despite its primary goal of eliminating a rule that gives ISPs access to multi-unit buildings, Pai’s proposal is titled, “Improving Competitive Broadband Access to Multi-Tenant Environments.” In addition to immediately preempting the San Francisco ordinance, the proposal seeks public comment on other “actions the Commission could take to accelerate the deployment of next-generation networks and services within” multi-tenant complexes. Any further rule changes coming from this proceeding likely wouldn’t involve sharing of infrastructure, as the Pai plan argues that ISPs “are less likely to invest in deployment” if they know they have to share network components with other providers.”

Of course after Pai loves to trot out claims that something will “boost sector investment,” even if we’ve already seen how those promises are just hot air designed to obfuscate the real agenda: protecting incumbent ISP revenues from absolutely any competitive challenge. This shtick where ISPs lobby for “pre-emptive” federal guidelines is also fairly common. The broader rules they lobby for almost always wind up having so many loopholes as to be useless, because the entire point was to pre-empt tougher local or state ordinances lobbyists didn’t want. It lets you kill policies off you don’t like–without making it obvious that’s what you’re doing.

Consumer groups, like the EFF, were unsurprisingly unimpressed:

While efforts like this see little to no press coverage (in part because Pai’s good at disguising policies as the opposite of what they actually are), the cumulative impact of Pai’s tenure will, ultimately, be profound and severe. But because it’s going to be felt most by lower income folks already struggling to get and pay for broadband, it will net a fraction of the attention reserved for numerous other tech policy conversations.

Filed Under: , , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Pai's FCC Crushes Rules That Brought More Broadband Competition To San Francisco”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Question. In the past how successful are states at overturni

No, it doesn’t. It also doesn’t have the authority to ignore consumers and change policy to suit the corporate hegemony that is now controlling Pai. If I were a person with access to all of his electronic dealings, I would release it in a heartbeat, then suffer whatever punishments the powers that be can come up with. Regulatory capture is bad for everyone.

James Burkhardt (profile) says:

Re: Re:

So, an hour before you posted this, another poster made the same comment, but actually linked to the content, rather than obfusicating it. I wonder what your goal was? perhaps to try to claim that you mentioning the article with more info was censored? because this kind of comment, that claims some sort of secret info is gonna get flagged. Or maybe you plan to claim that techdirt censored the website directly? whatever it is, it can’t be you acting in good faith.

Gerald Robinson (profile) says:

Blame the right guys

Yes the president has a lot of influence with the FCC, BUT it is a creature of Congress and they are largely to blame for the mess! If you don’t like the results then Congressional term limits are a partial answer. A more immediate answer is to track your Congress critters voted and let them know what you think. Activism by the voting public will help fix things. The problem is pervasive and bipartisan!

Thad (profile) says:

Re: Blame the right guys

If you don’t like the results then Congressional term limits are a partial answer.

While congressional term limits would mean we could get rid of guys like McConnell (and let’s be honest, you keep saying "Congress" but you’re talking about Mitch McConnell), the downside of removing experienced political operators is that you end up with an inexperienced Congress that relies even more on lobbyists to make decisions. Probably not the result you’re looking for.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...