President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump

80%

20%↓

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

90%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

90%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

(R) Ron Hanks

40%

30%

20%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(R) J. Sonnenberg

(R) Ted Harvey

20%↑

15%↑

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Dave Williams

(R) Jeff Crank

(R) Doug Bruce

20%

20%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

90%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) Brittany Pettersen

85%↑

 

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

(R) Janak Joshi

60%↑

40%↑

20%↑

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
November 22, 2017 12:54 PM UTC

Phil Anschutz Can Afford To Pay Off Comcast. We Can't.

  • 5 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

For the next few weeks, readers visiting for the first time each day will be greeted by a pop-up message requesting your help contacting Congress in support of preserving “net neutrality” for internet traffic–after new proposed rules from the Federal Communications Commission that could forever alter the way the internet operates, allowing internet service providers to prioritize “preferred” data from entities willing to pay more over everybody else. The Verge reports:

The FCC has released the final draft of its proposal to destroy net neutrality. The order removes nearly every net neutrality rule on the books — internet providers will be free to experiment with fast and slow lanes, prioritize their own traffic, and block apps and services. There’s really only one rule left here: that ISPs have to publicly disclose when they’re doing these things.

In the proposal, the commission calls its 2015 net neutrality ruling a “misguided and legally flawed approach.” It repeatedly states that the 2015 order “erred,” was “incorrect,” and came to “erroneous conclusions.” Removing these rules, the commission now argues, will “facilitate critical broadband investment and innovation by removing regulatory uncertainty and lowering compliance costs.”

…And in a fun twist, the commission also intends to prevent states from passing their own net neutrality laws. Allowing states to implement their own rules, the commission says, “could pose an obstacle to or place an undue burden” on the delivery of broadband service.

You can forget about Colorado’s more progressive state legislature shielding us from the effects–which could range from small annoyances in one’s daily surfing to restrictive “lite” network access plans that wall off whole sections of the internet unwilling to pay for the privilege of having their content delivered, most likely the beginning of a slippery slope from one toward the other. In any event, as a niche provider of our special brand of content to the wide world, we have always seen a very logical interest in everybody’s packets of data being routed to their destination without prejudice.

So yes, if you value the decidedly non-corporate elucidation of news content we do here, and would like to see the internet remain a place where content succeeds on its merits rather than its ability to pay for bandwidth, we encourage you to contact Congress right now and ask them to intercede on behalf of net neutrality before the FCC votes on the current proposal December 14th.

Comments

5 thoughts on “Phil Anschutz Can Afford To Pay Off Comcast. We Can’t.

  1. Pushback against net neutrality needs to be seen as not just a medium of social control – it is also a means for the cable and telecom industries to maintain their huge profits. More consumers are refusing to sit and watch TV. Instead, Americans are getting their news and entertainment on the internet, usually on a portable device.  (Pew Research, Key trends in social and digital news media)

    As more and more people are "cutting the cord", Big Cable is trying to preserve its high (41%) profit margins. There are only about 5 companies providing most of the internet service in the continental United States, and more of them are merging under the lax Clinton-era FCC rules. These companies were this profitable even with Obama-era net neutrality rules in place.

    Many of those cable internet providers that have merged, such as Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon, also provide wireless phone and data services, so they are following their unwired consumers.  But access to this wirelessly provided news is still controlled by about 10 companies.

    So when consumers cut the cord, where will profits come from? Data caps and "variable pricing" for faster speeds. There isn't any logistical need for data caps – it's pure profit-seeking. There are laws of physics that limit how much data can be pushed wirelessly on a device – but that could be and is changing with new technologies.

    The United States of America does not regulate internet service providers effectively. Compared to industrialized, and even less-developed countries worldwide, we pay 3X as much for crappier service. Per Statista (see chart). Russia and Russian satellite countries, especially, get cheap broadband. No wonder their hackers and bots can each generate a million fake facebook posts. Russia has apparently invested in telecommunications infrastructure – and they're kicking our ass with it.

    Rural customers are gouged in the US, because there are only 2-3 companies that provide rural internet service, and they can charge what they want. They can even kick their rural customers off their networks, for "using too much data", as Verizon did.  Centurylink was sucking up the taxpayer funds for "improving rural broadband", but it never passed along those lower rates to consumers. Alas, the FCC cares not whether rural rubes can access the internet.

    However, FCC Chairman Ajit Pai certainly does care about industry profits.  And his boss, Donald Trump, certainly does care about social control and about suppressing the "fake" (i.e. unflattering to Trump) news media. Hence,  Pai's push to get rid of net neutrality, and to push enforcement for unfair practices onto the FTC.

    So, yes, to keep net neutrality, do call the FCC , and call your Congressperson, too, like Pols says. But keep the big picture in mind – we need to see internet access as a right, like health care and clean air and water, and to regulate the industry accordingly. Prohibit giant mergers and monopolies. Put consumer access to information as a higher priority than industry profits. 

     

    1. Congress doesn't have to legislate neutrality. Only a Democratic Congress would do anything so reasonable.

      This unreasonable Congress merely has to continue its run of being unable to roll back an Obama accomplishment- in this case, the 2015 net neutrality rules. Some of the reps from red states will also be feeling the pressure to keep these rules; I’ve seen the same plea that Pols posted on conservative sites. They also want to keep their little niche markets.

      Otherwise, how could they sell MAGA hats, or conspiracy theories, or solicit thousands of dollars for nonexistent orphanages (like Gordon Klingenschmitt did), or sell cures for baldness or erectile dysfunction? How could they buy guns and gun parts or a duck call from Phil Robertson?

      So there will be mass confusion and shifting loyalties – par for this Congressional course. But bipartisan legislation preserving net neutrality could be more than a pipe dream – if Republicans get scared enough by the Alabama election of Doug Jones to the Senate, for example. They might start thinking that they need to at least appear moderate for now.

      Unfortunately, Pai’s FCC doesn’t need Congressional approval for these rules to take effect. He has 3/5 of the votes he needs on the Commission itself. Some of its rule provisions could be blocked in the courts; the ACLU, for example, is already preparing a legal challenge. But we could see sites being closed off on our ISPs as soon as January 2018, unless we are able to pressure Congress to intervene.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

72 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!