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.
Making a big monopoly bigger. Yeah, always works out well for the little guy.
The article is awful. I tried ignoring the manipulative premise smuggling and emotional slanting to no avail. The core argument is so obtuse I wonder if there is any baby in all that bath water. It certainly isn’t convincing.
WTH is a “rural” voter?
Ignore Townhall- another rat hole infested with NeverTrumpers.
Looks like Town Hall AND MSM is coming out with a ‘hit piece’ every day, explaining why people who voted for PDT are a bunch of idiots and instead of broadbrushing they are isolating small groups so they can make it seem ‘worse’ than it is.
Starting with PDT and his (unhealthy) two scoops of ice cream - which managed to alienate the PRO & CON ice cream people, further driving the class wedge in place.
‘’NOT so quotable’’
PRESIDENT Trump was seen coming out of a stall in a rest room and praising the ‘toilet paper’ as being soft and the smartness of the use of air blowers to dry ones hands.
REBUT::: Toilet paper users are up in arms that PRESIDENT Trump endorsed brand X toilet paper, the manufacturers of other brands of toilet paper are saying that PRESIDENT Trump is unfairly targeting them, while the opponents of air dryers are claiming PRESIDENT Trump is costing jobs in the paper industry as the use of paper towels is down because of the air dryers AND the Republicans are demanding a fast track for some sort of air dryer to replace toilet paper.....
And the beat goes on....
(As to the paper towels, one of the ‘best’ things to do in a public rest area while driving through and using the facility, is to splash cold water on your face which now FORCES one to go out in public with a wet face.)
Come ON, HOP ABOARD, the band wagon is just loading up. <: <:
I’m rural and don’t hate Trump. I had a land line (POTS) that was so bad I couldn’t even use dial-up internet. Even cellular coverage is unreliable out here. Exede satellite broadband was the answer for me and it covers the entire continental USA.
A local company put up a WiFi tower in my vicinity and my internet got a lot faster and cheaper. But I refuse to listen to a bunch of whiners when satellite broadband is available to them.
With broadband & cell phone service becoming, via regulation, a mere public utility, telecoms seek profits by other means as well as reducing “costs” by reducing competition. One of the ways of cutting off opposition has not been the traditional way of providing a service at less cost to consumers, but cutting off competitors access to spectrum with which to compete.
And, many of the most recent of the telecoms purchase of spectrum has NOT been to “build-out” but merely to stock up on their exclusive right to additional spectrum, that they then just sit on.
Now they want the rules to expand how long they can get away with just sitting on it. You can imagine, just like patents, they will be back to lobby that the law extend those squatters rights even more in the future.
For me, a Conservative position on the public sale of spectrum would require (a) plans for using that spectrum that would start to get implemented as soon as the spectrum was acquired, and (b) a three year time limit for those plans to commence. If the plans for using that spectrum didn’t commence within 36 months, the spectrum would go back into the lots available at the next auction and they’d get no more than that auction offered.
I do not think hoarding spectrum is in the public interest and is certainly counter-productive to true competition.
Um...a voter who lives in a rural area?
Define rural by the Government this decade. Somebody who doesn’t live on 4th and Broadway? Lives outside of L.A? I live in a borough 85 miles from Philly and have been called ‘rural’ on many polls, questionnaires etc. Be careful. What YOU think is NOT what they are angling at.
As I understand the local office rule, too many small niche stations were being put out of business because they couldn’t afford a local office for the revenue they could generate. With a rule change, if someone can find a way to broadcast German polka, Vietnamese music and a current news show about African politics, under the umbrella of one office, maybe these small listener stations can succeed.
They had that rule saying use it or lose it with the spectrum and it resulted in a bubble of telecom equipment manufacturers that charged too much that the service operators nearly all went bankrupt. There has to be a financial plan to make deploying new technology and services to ensure that these companies will be on going concerns.
>>>Exede satellite broadband was the answer for me and it covers the entire continental USA... A local company put up a WiFi tower in my vicinity and my internet got a lot faster and cheaper. But I refuse to listen to a bunch of whiners when satellite broadband is available to them.<<<
I’m writing this using Exede from the center of Alaska, about 280 miles from the road, and listening to music on one of those Dish satellite channels. A private company, GCI, has been threatening to connect us with 4G and WiFi by actually building a tower, but it has never operated since it was built two years ago. Of course our Exede bill is very high compared to Lower 48 costs, just like everything else (except moose and salmon).
I also noticed the difference in attitude between the traditional “Let’s invent something that solves this problem” to a more passive “We need more money and help from the government bureaucrats.”
The attitude is reversed from the government side. I was thinking about the Cumberland Road, the Erie Canal, the Homestead Act, the Interstate Highway System, and how sometimes the state can create infrastructure for the purposes of economic growth and prosperity. But the gist of the article focuses on the amount of money and influence in urban area, and I sensed redistribution of wealth as a theme. Not the same as the building a dam.
The other thing that’s missing in the article is an understanding of what it’s like to live in rural America. It’s not all privation. But I know from the get-go that some things will be missing from my life (traffic, Starbucks), and some things will be much more expensive. Maybe you can do without, or make the uncomfortable choice to move, as I had to when I was broke and younger. Shoulder the burden while slowly building your life.
Yeah, I agree. A whining diatribe.
It’s not a monopoly in terms of ISP’s.
No, but obviously you are.
I liked that show. It was much funnier that that crap they are showing now
Satellite serves my TV {Direct} and internet use well. I had been stuck using dial up modem service ISP's since 1998 until Exede. My Verizon cell service at 3G was very hit and miss as far as internet use went. I live pretty high up a ridge BTW.
“They had that rule saying use it or lose it with the spectrum and it resulted in a bubble of telecom equipment manufacturers that charged too much that the service operators nearly all went bankrupt.”
I am not saying “use it or lose it”. That would put all the past errors that permitting hoarding that is already taking place to land back in the market. There should be additional rules relative to that spectrum.
What should result, without ready and able plans to use spectrum, is fewer bidders and lower prices paid at the auctions. I doubt it will result in a “bubble” market for equipment. With the slow level of present build-out we have a slump in the domestic equipment market - down -4.8% 2012-2016.
Just as Standard Oil wasn’t really a monopoly before they started buying up gas stations. ;-)
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.