Big Telecom Finally Ends Quest To Stop States From Protecting Broadband Consumers
from the it's-the-corruption,-stupid dept
The Trump FCC spent four years being a giant rubber stamp for giant U.S. telecom monopolies. That included rubber stamping mergers before even reading the details, gutting FCC consumer protection authority, and demolishing decades-old media consolidation rules crafted with broad bipartisan consensus, and stripping away your town and city’s ability to stand up to giant carriers.
The Trump GOP and Congress killed efforts to impose basic and helpful broadband privacy rules (kind of important given the repeated location data scandals since). They scuttled net neutrality. And they convinced the Ajit Pai FCC to lobotomize its authority to police bad behavior by unpopular companies like AT&T, Comcast, and Verizon. If you recall, this unpopular policy paradigm was all propped up by the illusion of public support via the use of dead and fake people.
There was only really one telecom industry gambit that didn’t work out during the Trump era, and not because they didn’t try.
The telecom lobby convinced the Trump/Ajit Pai FCC to include language in the “restoring Internet freedom” net neutrality repeal that tried to effectively ban states from being able to protect broadband consumers from fraudulent behavior. The goal was fairly obvious: weaken federal consumer protection authority, then proclaim that states couldn’t step in and fill the void. Basically: no oversight at all.
That… hasn’t gone well with the courts. A series of federal rulings in California kept making it clear that the FCC can’t abdicate its consumer protection authority, then turn around and tell states what they can or can’t do. And after a court recently ruled this direction for a third time, big ISPs have finally given up on this particular fight:
While states being allowed to protect broadband consumers is a good thing, it’s hard to spend too much time drinking bubbly. For every California, Maine, or Washington (states with AGs that are fairly competent on the subject of broadband consumer protection) there’s a laundry list of states that are quite literally little more than rubber stamps to the interests of AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, and Charter.
The Trump FCC gambit to effectively lobotomize federal telecom consumer protection was massively effective, leaving the FCC without the authority or staff to meaningfully police bad telecom actors during a pandemic. Little of it has been fixed, and even among Democrats any incentive to do much about it feels muted and pathetic (it took the Biden team nine months to nominate a third FCC Commissioner).
With the entirety of DC policy fixated on the problems with “big tech,” there’s little real incentive to do much of anything about it. Folks are bored of net neutrality, largely because they didn’t understand what the fight was actually about: telecom monopolization, media consolidation, and whether you want federal regulators on these fronts that are anything more than marionettes for Comcast and AT&T.
“Net neutrality must not have mattered because the internet didn’t explode after repeal” is an incorrect but common and effective right wing trope. The resulting apathy has allowed the GOP and telecom sector to work hand in hand to potentially scuttle the nomination of popular and qualified FCC nominee Gigi Sohn using manufactured smears — all to keep the FCC stuck in feckless partisan gridlock.
Again, having competent and functional media and telecom regulators matters. Affordable internet in the climate change and COVID era matters. Competent broadband privacy policies matter (especially in the facing of surging authoritarianism). Cutting the head off of the FCC and shoveling the entire onus of consumer protection off to the states won’t work well in a country where a long line of states are little more than sniveling servants of giants like AT&T.
But we seem intent on pandering to telecom monopolies all the same. Which is particularly “entertaining” given all of the lip service being paid to “bipartisan antitrust reform” over the last few years. This interest in antitrust reform very clearly does not apply to some of the most obvious examples of natural monopolies the U.S. has on offer.
Filed Under: antitrust reform, broadband, california, competition, consumers, fcc, internet access, media consolidation, monopolies, net neutrality, privacy
Comments on “Big Telecom Finally Ends Quest To Stop States From Protecting Broadband Consumers”
Nobody's given up on anything
The headline reads:
That might lead the reader into thinking any part of that is true. Fortunately this paragraph completes the picture:
Telcos have been playing the long game since the fallout from 1984’s Greene decision was clear. They get taxpayer dollars through more avenues now than ever before, so their incentive to prevent competition — something that they’ve always had — is only growing larger.
Make that one state, and only for now: California.
The bubbly is safe to put away undrunk. If one must cheer a victory then “Yay, 1/47 CONUS states gave the telcos a loss in court.” /s
Re:
To quote from the article:
For every California, Maine, or Washington (states with AGs that are fairly competent on the subject of broadband consumer protection)…
California, Maine, and Washington are collectively more than one state. Or, to put it another way, California, Maine, and Washington are states. Therefore, the headline may be inaccurate as regards Big Telecom’s actions regarding all states, but it’s not inaccurate in saying that there’s more than one state that AT&T et al. have stopped fighting against.
Re: Re:
Right. But there is a conflation there between “states with laws” like CA and “states that have sympathetic AGs” like Maine and Washington.
One state has laws. That’s CA. But, hey, 2% of states, 2.08% of CONUS states. Still a ways to go…
Re: Re: Re:
Where in the article is the conflation? Nothing is said about all three states having or not having pro-competition laws, only that they have pro-competition AGs.
Re: Re: Re:2
I’m sure the ext will pop out at you if you read the article:
“For every California, Maine, or Washington (states with AGs that are fairly competent on the subject of broadband consumer protection) “…
California has a law on the books, passed by its legislature, signed into law by its governor. The other states have AGs that said they won’t pursue this today.
One state stands up to this debacle: California.
Re: Re: Re:3
Little to no reading comprehension, I see. Autie already explained it, so stop doubling down.
Full headline.
Big Telecom Finally Ends Quest To Stop States From Protecting Broadband Consumers For Now
CTFY. Who else is waiting for the other shoe to drop?
Big telecom will still donate to politicians to get them to pass laws to limit competition and stop local broadband non profit services even in states where services are slow and expensive and broadband is only avaidable city’s large towns . There are still no laws to give users basic rights to privacy to stop isps or apps selling browsing data to ad networks
as soon as this Democrat government is ousted, regardless of knowing the damage that it’ll do to reverse decisions made in the 4 years of government (including the ones that gutless Biden should have made ages ago but still hasn’t, they will be reversed, be demolished, just because it’s more important to fuck up the Democrates than to protect, look after and do what all governments are supposed to do, look after the nation and everyone in it, not just the giant companies that are putting contributions into politicians bank accounts!!
Re:
I’m not saying you’re wrong, but I’m not sure how that’s relevant here. This isn’t about anything set by the Biden administration; this is about court decisions about what states can do and whether the FCC can stop them if the FCC abdicates their own authority to do such things (something done under the Trump administration and supported by Republican lawmakers).
No policy by the Biden administration is even relevant here; the closest would be the current attempt to appoint Gigi Sohn to the FCC that is currently being debated in the Senate on whether or not to confirm her and the complete lack of any efforts aside from that to safeguard net neutrality by the executive branch. There is nothing for a future administration to reverse here.
Migration in progress...
Yes, all that. The emailed copies sometimes includes the text of the new post/reply… and sometimes not.
I don’t want to be that Old Man Yelling At Clouds guy, but reading the text of the reply in email was REALLY useful. Having to click through, then read all the posts… and figure out which is new (and unthreaded)… not as much.
Icons: Rate insightful; rate funny; first word; last word; report as trolling or spam.
Using lynx I get:
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
Lightbulb icon
Laughing icon
Flag icon
Lightbulb icon
Laughing icon
Try lynx https://www.techdirt.com/2022/05/09/big-telecom-finally-ends-quest-to-ban-states-from-protecting-broadband-consumers/#comments and see if you get the report option…
Re:
You do know that browsers aren’t universally installable, right? Unless I build it myself, which is impossible since I’m not a software engineer, I can’t install Lynx on Android. To grow some actual empathy for my problem rather than posting non-solutions, why don’t you try installing Opera Mini on a Windows 11 desktop PC?
Re: Re:
Um, lynx can be installed on Android either through the precompiled app or via build. Fetch lynx build lynx.
Or if you use PuTTerm port lynx -c -f -b
Android is a Linux variation!
As for opera mini. Two options on windows!
https://operaminiwin.com/
Or use a package manager to compile and install it from source code tz at the opera site.
You can also try winports.
Runs on win11 just fine.
Re: Re: Re:
You got an APK running on Windows without alterations? Post your evidence because I’d like to see it. And there is no precompiled Lynx APK. I know after having been looking for the past several months. Don’t lie, it doesn’t suit you.
Re:
I see bulb, laughing, start-quote, end-quote, flag.
Re: Re:
Well, of course that’s what you see on desktop. Your point?
Re: Re: Re:
I’m on an iPhone. Not a desktop.
Life sucks, then you die
This article combines multiple aspects as a single issue. They are not. A. Single. Issue.
Net neutrality is the ability to send one’s data over someone else’s lines without fees, or disruption.
I’ll skip this because I haven’t yet made up my mind on the idea. I probably never really will.
————————
Billing is a problem we all agree on. But as much as I support cost at advertisement, and tax included for that matter, there’s more to this.
Many of those bonus fees are actually created by the state and federal governments.
Mandatory broadcast fee. Because you can’t get cable with out broadcast stations by law.
Region sports fees. Which are part of the mandatory broadcast nonsense.
State taxes. Because
Federal taxes. Because
Equipment fees. Well, you are renting and can use your own if you want.
The car dealer doesn’t teach you how to change your oil or swap your tires. They don’t reduce the price if you buy the car without the tires. Or seat belt. Or etc.
Including this in the advertising price would be misleading to users of their own equipment, who don’t pay these fees.
Franchise fee. Another state level government fee. This is what local and state governments charge The company each month (divided by users) to have the right to fix their (company’s) own equipment and lines.
Public/gov etc. because the cable company is required to carry these stations ANd pay to carry them.
E911. This is a joke. It’s a pure pudding. E911 doesn’t cost the company any money because, digital phone uses the same lines as analog phone outside the company’s lines. The equipment is the same as used for every other phone call. And there is zero difference in transmission of 976-fine or 911. It’s a bullshite charge the states make on the company. Who passes it on to you.
988 fee. Charged by states with 988 access fees. Again, passed on to you.
FUSF. Because congress can’t figure out how to pay for it’s laws properly. This is the cost the company pays into the fund per user. As required by law.
So break that down. 9 fees the government charges.
The government can greatly help reduce cable bills by removing these fees. Themselves.
————————
Access. Well, the federal government has the ability to do this themselves. If they actually wanted to.
Here’s reality. The government wants to pretend it cares. So they throw grants at telcos that are a tiny fraction of what’s needed for an every door rollout.
Then they demand that every company be allowed to use the lines (net neutrality) the company mostly, or completely, paid for!
And then they go on lat night talking head shows and complain about how nothing is getting done.
National access requires federal building! Not minions in offices.
(Here’s a great idea to find this. Reduce congressional pay by 10%!)
But if anyone actually wants this they’ll introduce a bill with no pig parts. Which will overwhelmingly pass just find it realistically: like the discretionary budget. Or here’s an idea! An actual good one! Commemorative Coin! A lost art of raising money, popular before the 1940s and 1950s when it got out of control and every plan had a coin. Or tried for one.
Watch how fast people buy out a computer obverse coin. Seriously!
————————
Monopoly
This is a problem, and not for the reasons you believe.
Democrats cry apocalypse every time a company tries to buy another one.
Republicans tend to rubber stamp almost all of them.
Monopolies are not bad for their own existence.
Apple and Samsung supply the vast majority of the world’s mobile communications. Quite well.
They are also by default absolutely not monopolies nor a duopoly.
Even if one bought the other right now, little would change because there’s actually outside competition.
The only thing T-Mobile did by buying Sprint was tarnish it’s name with such a crap company. Generally rates maintained parity with the past. Network coverage was expanded, and combined with minor changes to equipment more people have better access to 5G than would have had they stayed separate.
The Bell breakup gave us some of the biggest scandals in history with MCI and today we are right back where we were with a small pocket of mega-corps. The market combined with tech advances, not the breakup, gave us quality and access.
Comcast owning NBC and Disney owning Fox and ABC hasn’t actually changed anything. Except give respective customers a previous pay channels for free.
And let’s be honest. Most of these companies are easy to reach. It’s user error that causes most of the “problems” in tech/com.
You don’t read what you agree to. You forget promo expiration dates. You don’t listen to the menu when you call. You scream at the CSR because you’re an idiot.
Phone, email, online, text, chat, twitface. Dedicated Apps! We have more contact options than ever.
And while it takes time to fix things I’ve never had trouble getting ahold of someone at a telco. Be it Comcast, AT&T, T-Mobile, etc.
You can’t get a voice, but you can get 1:1 text help with a real person after hours for most big tech and com companies.
And, keep in mind, a capitalist marketplace will quickly set limits on companies of the government decided to connect the population itself! That’s not political hyperbole. It’s consistent fact.
————————
But let’s start with forcing the government to knock off the bills it forces us to pay for cable. Mandatory carry adds between $30-$60 to the majority of bills. And other government charged fees, direct or indirect, can add $15 or more still.
Next time you look at your $200 cable bill, line item the number of things you actually ordered and the number of things you didn’t ask for.
Your service is half your bill or less.
The rest is mandated government spoon feeding or government take-take-taking.
Talk about violations of free speech, forcing NBC to carry ABC and Fox and CBS is forced speech.
Think on that a bit.
Re:
Net neutrality is the ability to send one’s data over someone else’s lines without fees or disruption.
ORLY? Educate yourself. Go on, I dare you, Republican.
Re: Re:
😂 😆 🤣
Here’s the opening from Wikipedia.
Emphasising added: Is that not just an expanded veraion of what I just said?
The flag icon.
(> _ <) =3
These comments on spam comments don’t much help. Please report them and move on.
I would report them if I could, but this site is incomplete on mobile view and broken on full site, so I don’t have the same luxuries as those using PCs.
https://xkcd.com/386/
How does that cartoon relate to what was said? Spam much?
My reply got detached it seems.
It was a reply to Mike asking people to stop feeding the trolls.
Sorry you couldn’t work that out on your own.
Sorry you didn’t preview your comment, you mean.
Huh? I’m on mobile, and I have no problems reporting spam comments. Or is that separate from flagging a comment? If so, I have never seen a separate report button.
I’m on an iPhone. No issues. May be your phone or browser choice.
Though… replies on this specific thread seem to be broken; they aren’t displayed as threaded, don’t have the Re: prepended to the subject by default, and although the “Collapse Replies” option correctly notes that (as of me typing this) there are 6 replies to Mike’s comment, it doesn’t actually appear to work. This is particularly odd given that other threads on this article don’t have that problem. How bizarre.
And I seem to be one of many who’ve never seen a report button at all. First Word and Last Word? Check. Preview comment? Check. Report button? Not from where I’m looking.
Why should anyone have to use brand new, up-to-the-minute, overpriced devices just to access the internet?
Why we can have nice things...
No law, statute, or edict says anyone must “have to use” anything in particular. YET.
The reason your US public roads homologated vehicle is required to have seat belts is because the US automakers whined that putting airbags in would be too expensive, and they got Congress to agree that if the majority of states required seat belts… no airbags need be installed. Years later, not only do we have airbags –with a legal requirement– but seat belt laws are now an excuse of “primary enforcement”, a great pretext for any traffic stop and search.
In some states leaf-blowers that use gasoline are not allowed.
…and your AMPS phone generates enough power to inconvenience your neighbors, despite the lack of cell-service. Your 2G phone doesn’t quite do that… but it won’t work well without service. Your 3G phone is only good in minor outlying areas where (mostly) TMO hasn’t decided to upgrade. If you want to be a good neighbor, you’ll go to 4G, LTE, or 5G.
Similarly, software on the Internet was originally meant to be liberal in what it accepts, and not so in what it sends. This is known as “The Robustness Principle” … and while TODAY you don’t “have” to upgrade, it is likely that one day you will.
I think the point here was that you can run old hardware and old software. Yes, you certainly can… until you interfere with someone else.
The Fifth District just proved how out of touch the law is with technology. This happens daily, but it takes something as big as “Twitter is not a website, it’s a common carrier” to jump that shark.
You can’t legally drive your post-1973 vehicle on public roadways in the CONUS. You can’t legally enter the sterile area in a public airport without a Real-ID or equivalent. Your mail will not be delivered to your house if your mailbox is not between 41″-45″ above the ground level.
In a repressive society, rules get added, and rarely removed. Expect regulations affecting the Internet, devices, software, standards, etc.