[opendtv] Re: Commissioner Clyburn on FCC control over the Internet

  • From: dan.grimes@xxxxxxxx
  • To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2010 09:24:59 -0700

From
http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2010/db0820/DOC-301051A1.pdf
:

"An FCC study found that a greater percentage of African Americans and
Latinos access the internet only through their wireless handsets. So any
proposal that treats fixed and mobile Internet access to broadband
differently would be problematic for me to support.

"Americans who cannot afford wired Internet in addition to wireless
Internet should also be guaranteed access to an open Internet. This is
really a significant issue when so many businesses and government agencies
are moving their information strictly online in order to save money."

Bert Wrote:

"More like the other way around, in most locations. It's wireless broadband
that is the more difficult one to afford, where wired is actually
available. So even this new concept of creating an entitlement program of
wireless broadband, presumably everywhere, doesn't make a lot of sense."


Actually, here in Las Vegas, it is cheaper to get the internet through a 4G
carrier than through the wired providers.  One can get 4G for $40/month
here plus $99 for the modem while Cable based broadband is $50/month plus
$80 for the modem at their slowest speed.


I personally find this statement from the FCC document to be illogical:

"The American people deserve a decision that has had the benefit of a
healthy debate, and one that is grounded in the facts, law, and a sound
analysis. I know a healthy
debate on the merits is possible. We have had them on many other policy
issues. I have high hopes that, in the policy debate about preserving open
Internet principles, all sides will spend less time on the rhetoric and
spend more time on the facts and law and the results for consumers."

I'm not sure how Ms. Clyburn defines rhetoric, but isn't rhetoric necessary
for a healthy debate?  Isn't rhetoric the clear communication of the facts,
law, analysis, etc. and to communicate these in a way that provides value
to the decision?  And if it does not reach us to what we value (beliefs,
ideology), how is it going to move us to action?  In fact, can our form of
government even act in any direction without it?  It seems to me that our
whole system stands on a foundation of rhetoric.  Without it, one branch of
government would not exist.


On the same theme but changing the subject, is there a reason why satellite
is not considered a way to get to the internet to rural areas?  My sister
and family live outside of the wired service area so they used satellite
(at least, satellite for download and phone lines for up).  It isn't very
fast, especially upload speed, but it is reasonably priced and gets the job
done, especially for the type of use that the FCC document suggests as the
reason for nationwide access.  My sister recently switched to a connection
through a cellular provider which helped speed (but not reliability so
much).  Pricing stayed the same and is cheaper than Cox Broadband at 1.5
Mb/s here in Las Vegas.

Dan

Other related posts: