Karl Bode

The Federal Communications Commission released a new, 182-page Communications Marketplace Report it claims proves the US broadband industry is awash with vibrant competition. In reality, consumer groups, third-party data and the report itself paint a starkly different picture; one where consumers increasingly only have access to just one Internet service provider: Comcast.

In a speech Oct 24, Federal Communications Commissioner Michael O’Rielly insinuated, without evidence, that community owned and operated broadband networks would naturally result in local governments aggressively limiting American free speech rights.

CA just passed the toughest state-level network neutrality law in the nation, and within hours, the Department of Justice sued the state to block the law from going into effect. It’s the start of a new chapter in the fight for net neutrality, as the federal government works hand in hand with the telecom industry to stop a wave of state-level net neutrality protections. But legal experts said that the effort to remove states from the consumer protection equation rests on shaky legal ground and may only buy the telecom sector time rather than rolling back the law completely.

US customers pay some of the highest prices for broadband in the developed world, and broadband availability is sketchy at best for millions of Americans. But instead of tackling that problem head on, the Federal Communications Commission is increasingly looking the other way, relying on Internet service provider (ISP) data that paints an inaccurately rosy picture of Americans’ internet access. And as long as regulators are relying on a false picture of US broadband access, actually solving the problem may be impossible. 

Mill Valley (CA), a city just outside of San Francisco, has unanimously voted to ban fifth-generation (5G) cellular towers, claiming that they pose a significant threat to public health. In an urgency ordinance, Mill Valley city council voted earlier in Sept to block deployments of 5G towers and small cells (smaller, lower powered cellular radios used to expand cellular coverage) in residential areas.

With the Federal Communications Commission preparing its latest report of the state of broadband in the States, the focus has shifted once again to whether the current definition of broadband is currently fast enough. Especially on the upstream side of the aisle, where 3 Mbps is starting to look notably last-generation in the face of symmetrical, gigabit connections. And once again, FCC Chairman Ajit Pai is hoping to keep the broadband definition bar set at ankle height.

Back in 2011 the Obama Federal Communications Commission announced the creation of a $300 million broadband map using the Form 477 data Internet service providers provide the agency. At the time the map was heralded as a novel way to highlight the coverage gaps and competitive shortcomings of what is pretty clearly a broken US telecom market.  But users quickly discovered that despite the project’s steep price tag and good intentions, the map itself was almost useless.

[Commentary] A large reason for the nation’s lack of competition at faster broadband speeds is the country’s phone companies, for whom residential broadband isn’t profitable enough, quickly enough for investors’ liking. Verizon, for example, has all but given up on expanding its FiOS fiber footprint to focus on making inroads in the wireless video and advertising markets. Smaller telcos, like Windstream, CenturyLink, and Frontier, have similarly shifted their focus toward enterprise services, and tend to only upgrade aging DSL lines in the most profitable areas.

[Commentary] Even among folks that support network neutrality, there's pretty clearly a contingent that still believes the damage caused by the repeal of the rules will somehow be subtle. Because the net neutrality debate in recent years wandered into more nuanced and quirky areas like interconnection and zero rating, they believe the ultimate impact of the repeal will likely be modest. 

Internet users have been justly outraged by the Federal Communications Commission’s decision to ignore the public and repeal net neutrality rules. But few media outlets or internet users seem to understand that the net neutrality repeal is just one small part of a massive, larger plan to eliminate nearly all meaningful federal and state oversight of some of the least-liked and least-competitive companies in America. To be clear: the net neutrality repeal itself is awful policy that ignores both the will of the public and the people who built the damn internet.