Posted on 11/05/2017 8:13:50 AM PST by Kaslin
Donald J. Trump spoke to rural voters in a way that launched him into the presidency. His soaring rhetoric and no-nonsense promises to stand up against corruption were exactly what his constituents voted for.
Say it ain’t so, but now, his own Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is pushing a rule that will hurt the very voters who put him in the White House. The swamp has overtaken the FCC and President Trump’s Make America Great Again motto is in jeopardy.
Will the Trump Administration stand up to the big mobile carriers or will it cave just like every Administration before it?
Many Trump supporting rural voters are upset that they are going to get wronged by a new FCC rule that will make it harder for rural consumers and providers to receive broadband services. This idea is being pushed by lobbying interests with deep pockets for big corporate mobile carrier providers in a way that helps them buy up spectrum for the profitable urban areas to the detriment of rural areas. This is not what Trump supporting rural Americans voted for.
The FCC adopted a rule a few years ago that was intended to stimulate investment in rural broadband networks. These are now at risk after a 4 to 1 vote to redraft the rules at the behest of mobile carriers. It is a bit complicated, but the rules for 3.5 GHz “Citizens Broadband Radio Service (CBRS)” spectrum band has been changed at the urging and lobbying of the mobile industry that massive geographical areas known as PEA’s, add an undefined “renewal expectancy” and extending license terms from 3 to 10 years. These three new changes hurt the small rural providers. These new proposed rules would benefit the large mobile carriers because it would preclude independent Internet Service Providers (ISPs) from using this spectrum for rural areas.
The power lies in the current FCC Commissioners to do what’s right by rural America. The Commissioners are Ajit Pai (Chairman), Mignon Clyburn, Michael O’Reilly, Brendan Carr and Jessica Rosenworcel. They should come together and make this rule more balanced between the needs of rural consumers and the big mobile carrier industry.
This is a battle between rural America versus the big corporate interests in the mobile carrier industry. There are about 23 million rural Americans who lack basic fixed broadband service in their homes. They are angry at the FCC decision on delaying the deployment of broadband in their rural communities to prioritizes the needs of the well-heeled mobile industry.These are the same core Trump supporters who the president will need if he wants a second term in office.
Trump’s idea of draining the swamp was powerful imagery. The FCC is at the center of those croc-infested waters as the FCC has become a vehicle for special interests to get what they want. This valuable transfer of wealth from the little guys to the big mobile carriers is cronyism at its worst. The FCC should not be allowed to be used for competitive advantage.
The current rules don’t need to be changed. The status quo is fair and existing rules are flexible enough to enable many different business models. small rural ISP’s, National wire carriers, small mobile providers, industrial companies, universities, sports arenas, building managers and others are relying on the current rules. The FCC should not change them at all, and if they do the signal will be loud and clear...the Trump Administration has no intention of draining the swamp…they’re just becoming part of it.
Trump supporting voters in rural areas are hoping and watching to see what Trump's FCC will do. This a fantastic opportunity for the Administration to step in and make sure that the swamp does not win again.
Can someone here tell me what is going on without all the blame attached? This is a very poorly written article, sounding like a hit piece without much fact. I don’t want to dig through this pile to find the pony.
Rural voters voted for trump.... Now there is a policy which will (ever so slightly) hurt rural voter... Now all the rural voters hate trump.
‘There are about 23 million rural Americans who lack basic fixed broadband service in their homes. They are angry at the FCC decision on delaying the deployment of broadband in their rural communities to prioritizes the needs of the well-heeled mobile industry.’
The FCC has no responsibility to deploy broadband service.
If providing such service is profitable, a private interest will step in and provide service.
It’s all about spreading the spectrum around....
Putting cable in my area would cost a fortune for the number of customers, so i stopped worrying about that years ago. I use mobile wifi from att. Works like a charm
What will be much more damaging Ins the abolishing of the “home studio” rule, meaning that no longer will radio stations be mandated to have a local broadcast presence to maintain the license. You will see the Giants like IHeart and others to close up local programming and just go with their syndicated programming. Much cheaper than hiring local tale t. Any university which continues to offer an R & T degree is stealing money from the student. Period.
Some wireless broad band is availabe.
Line of sight, works ok, up to 5 MBS
Sounds like something written by a LOBBYIST.
Yeah, terrible article. Just a rant.
Seems like a reasonable article:
http://www.fiercewireless.com/wireless/google-wispa-continue-fight-to-retain-existing-3-5-ghz-rules
I’d say the ‘devil is in the details’ but the change could be good. (And I’m a rural Trump voter with poor internet access choices.)
I grew up in a small town in South Dakota and lived there for most of my adult life. My home town, population 800, has been provided broadband Internet for years by a company based in Wall, SD (home of the famous tourist spot Wall Drug) without any government meddling. There are places in South Dakota that are remote, have populations of less than 100 and do not have broadband service. However, neither do these places have Starbucks. Should the government tax the latte customers in New York City so that with massive subsidies the residents of Buffalo, SD can have a money losing Starbucks?
What I want to know is how many of the independents actually exist. There is all these theoretical impacted businesses that don’t actually exist because you have to have the capital to invest to develop these technologies that take 10 years to really pay off.
The charter of the FCC is not to deploy anything. From the FCC's own webpage:
The Federal Communications Commission regulates interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite and cable in all 50 states, the District of Columbia and U.S. territories. An independent U.S. government agency overseen by Congress, the commission is the United States' primary authority for communications law, regulation and technological innovation. In its work facing economic opportunities and challenges associated with rapidly evolving advances in global communications, the agency capitalizes on its competencies in:
As someone who's followed this issue pretty closely, the balancing act here is in line items #1 and #3 above and this is where the debate has been.
IMO, the Wireless Carriers have far too much power and influence into the use of broadband OTA (Over The Air) radio spectrum. The 3.5GHz band really needs to be opened up to competition. There's a shit-ton of innovation happening in this space that will dramatically improve access and speed to everyone across America, independent of where they live.
Legacy landlines, hard-wired cable (Comcast for example) services and others have a vested interest in stifling this innovation because they'll lose money. If you look at the wireless innovations that happen in Asia/Pacific for example, their wireless speeds, bandwidth and capabilities are light years ahead of ours in the U.S. and they pay FAR LESS than we do by comparison.
The FCC has an obligation here to pull back the curtain and expose these new innovations so that they get tried, validated and implemented (or not) to bolster competition and also, improve our country's communications infrastructure.
Just my humble opinion of course.
I trust nothing out of Townhall. They are Never Trumpets and hangers on. If there is a bad way to spin something they will
There is already a well-proven model....it is called the "Rural Electrification Association". Has and is working VERY well to provide electric service in rural areas.
Or not
YOU'RE FULL OF IT!!!
We have rural property. For a mere $10 a gig AT&T provides broadband through a hotspot. Could get it for $1 a gig through Metro PCS but their signal doesn’t reach.
These rule changes sound like AT&T will be locked in.
Gosh are you in fifth grade?
Tempest/teapot.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.