Very predictable.
The sky is falling and we will now see ISPs start blocking Internet content. I
am seeing similar analysis all over the tech sites.
Kinda like the outrage at a temporary ban on immigration from 7 countries - how
many high tech employees are coming from these countries?
I guess this is the way the game will be played moving forward. The tech
industry is bracing for an end to the mass importation of low cost workers
displacing American workers.
I have no problem with legal immigration; even inviting the best and brightest
college students to become citizens and work here. But firing hundreds of IT
workers and forcing them to train their low cost H1B visa replacements?
Ridiculous!
Regards
Craig
On Feb 5, 2017, at 8:59 PM, Manfredi, Albert E <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Monte posted this, but it's too good to miss, for those who might not bother
clicking on it.
IMO, Tom Wheeler turned out to be as good a Chairman as Michael Powell was,
doing the job he was assigned to do. In spite of skepticism among many
people, at the outset. I hope Ajit Pai will equally step up to this
responsibility. (Or the more drastic counter-scenario might be for the FCC to
lose so much of its power that it would be unable to undo Wheeler's
decisions. Not a good scenario in the long run.)
Bert
-----------------------------------------------------
https://backchannel.com/obamas-fcc-head-is-worried-about-our-online-future-628b8f63efc5#.u2988y72u
Here’s Exactly How the Internet Is Now Under Threat
Obama’s FCC head Tom Wheeler talks candidly about the open
internet — and why, in Trumpworld, four companies could lock it up.
Outgoing FCC chairman Tom Wheeler speaks with Susan Crawford at Harvard Law
School on January 26th, 2017. (Photo by Daniel Dennis Jones)
When President Obama nominated Tom Wheeler as the 31st chairman of the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC), some activists were wary because of
his background as an advocate for cable and wireless interests. But as a
friend of his, I was confident that he would be a strong leader, and he did
not disappoint me. In fact, I consider Tom Wheeler the most consequential FCC
chairman since the early 1960s, when a 35-year-old Newton Minow went to the
Sheraton Park Hotel — to the lion’s den, the National Association of
Broadcasters — and told those all-powerful broadcasters that they were
supposed to be serving the public interest. For all the diversity of content
that we have today, one can argue that in terms of concentrated power over
communications, we’re not much different — four companies strive to
dominate what we see and hear. As commissioner, Tom Wheeler told those four
companies that they should be serving the public interest as well.
On January 26th, I interviewed Wheeler at Harvard Law School, where I teach.
It was the day the new administration announced his successor, who will have
very different priorities. We talked about net neutrality, telecom mergers,
high-speed access, and the dangers that lie ahead under the next
administration. Below is an edited transcript of that conversation. You can
see the entire interview here.
Susan Crawford: What’s it like to be the FCC chairman, then to walk out and
no longer be the chairman? What does that feel like?
Tom Wheeler: First of all, you get a long time. You get 77 days to work up to
it. So it’s not a big surprise. You walk away with just an incredible
gratitude that at a time of such incredible change in how Americans
communicate, you got to be the guy who sat there and dealt with how Americans
relate to those changes.
Because the people who say the problem is government are so wrong — the
government is the people. It’s where we come together to solve our common
problems. It is a messy process, and it’s a painful process, but if we
can’t work things out there, we’re in a whole hell of a lot of trouble.
You said recently, “Those who build and operate networks have both the
incentive and the ability to use the power of the network to benefit
themselves, even if doing so harms their own customers and the greater public
interest.†We’re hearing from the Trump administration that they’re
looking forward to getting rid of 75 percent of regulations. Their idea is
that regulations inevitably dampen innovation and investment.
I made the same argument when I was an advocate. Let me tell you a story. I
was CEO of the Wireless Industry Association and I was proud of the job that
I did. But the least proud moment of my public policy life was when I opposed
the commission’s efforts to allow people to take their phone numbers with
them when they switched from, say, AT&T to T-Mobile. [When arguing against
this policy,] I couldn’t go out and say, “We think it’s a really bad
idea because in the current situation consumers are trapped with their
carrier and can’t leave us without giving up their phone numbers.â€
That’s not a real winner. So the argument I made was, “This is going to
take money that should be spent on infrastructure and expanding
connectivity.â€
I regret that argument. Saying, “It is going to slow down our incentive to
invest,†is everybody’s first line of defense. It’s balderdash. The
reason you invest is to get a return. Companies don’t say, “Well, I’m
not going to invest because I might trigger some regulations.†Their
question is: “Am I going to make a return off of this?†Broadband is a
high-margin operation. You can make a return off of it.
The facts speak for themselves. Since the Open Internet rule was put in
place, broadband investment is up, fiber connections are up, usage of
broadband is up, investment in companies that use broadband is up, and
revenues in the broadband providers are up, because people are using it more.
As a student of the Civil War, you remember that one of the big prizes of
1863 was Chattanooga: railroad hub, three railroad lines, two big rivers, two
mountain ranges. What role did Chattanooga play in your tenure?
My good friend, Susan Crawford, said to me when I took this job that I should
bear three things in mind. I kept these three things in a list on my desk.
The first was to return to the regulatory ideal — that there is a
legitimate role for regulation to benefit the broad scope of the population.
The second was that we should have a legitimate credible definition of what
broadband is, because broadband used to be defined as four megabits a second.
That’s hardly broadband. The third was to tackle an outrageous practice
that the internet service providers, the telephone companies, the cable
companies, were doing — they were getting state legislatures to pass
laws that prohibited cities in that state from building their own broadband
network to compete with. I thought, “Hey, if the people through their local
government decide they don’t like the quality of service that they’re
getting, they ought to be able to organize through their government and say,
‘I want something better including the government building it.’â€
[That’s where Chattanooga comes in.] It was the [classic] case study, a
Tennessee law [that stopped that city, and every other one in the state, from
expanding its municipal network]. So we sued Tennessee and North Carolina,
making the argument that this was an overreach of the states’ authority.
Unfortunately, the Sixth Circuit disagreed with us.
The great thing is all the hubbub about this woke up an awful lot of cities,
and there is more activity to build competitive broadband at municipal levels
than there ever has been. You know what happens when cities build? What
happens is when they decide to build, the cable company decides to go faster
and expand their service. I love this thing called competition.
The legislatures of Missouri and Virginia just introduced new snarling bills
along these lines. What would you tell a earnest state legislator today about
those bills?
That the people do have a right to come together and say, “I want something
better for my city.â€
The second political point that I would make is it’s not really the
Chattanoogas where this is a big challenge. It’s the [more rural] areas
where the people who voted for Donald Trump do not have access to the
internet and are not getting access from the existing companies. They’re
the ones who are fed up with the system.
I think that one of the messages that people were voting for in this campaign
is, “I want power back to me.†The whole thing about draining the swamp
is get the power back. If the government closest to the people is saying
“Our people would like to have better broadband,†who’s to say no?
In the Trump administration, people are talking about stripping regulatory
power from the FCC, and essentially taking the agency apart (including moving
jurisdiction over internet access to the Federal Trade Commission [FTC]).
“Modernizing†the FCC is the lingo being used. What’s your thought
about that?
It’s a fraud. The FTC doesn’t have rule-making authority. They’ve got
enforcement authority and their enforcement authority is whether or not
something is unfair or deceptive. And the FTC has to worry about everything
from computer chips to bleach labeling. Of course, carriers want [telecom
issues] to get lost in that morass. This was the strategy all along.
So it doesn’t surprise me that the Trump transition team — who were
with the American Enterprise Institute and basically longtime supporters of
this concept — comes in and says, “Oh, we oughta do away with
this.†It makes no sense to get rid of an expert agency and to throw these
issues to an agency with no rule-making power that has to compete with
everything else that’s going on in the economy, and can only deal with
unfair or deceptive practices.
Because we’re talking about one sixth of the economy. More importantly,
we’re dealing with the network that connects six sixths of the economy.
You may not have heard, but there’s a new chairman of the FCC — Ajit
Pai, who was one of the commissioners. According to Free Press, he’s
“been on the wrong side of just about every major issue that has come
before the FCC during his tenure. He’s never met a mega-merger he didn’t
like or a public safeguard he didn’t try to undermine. He’s been an
inveterate opponent of Net Neutrality, expanded broadband access for
low-income families, broadband privacy,†all kinds of issues. I listened to
a radio interview of you just a couple of days ago, when you said that
Commissioner Pai canceled all the meetings that you set with him.
True. The FCC is a five-person commission and the chairman sets the agenda,
but there’s four other commissioners and it takes three votes to do
anything. When I came in, I set up with each commissioner a date every other
week — an hour for the two of us just to sit without staff and talk.
For the last 18, 24 months he canceled every meeting. It’s hard to work for
consensus when you won’t sit down with each other.
Let’s talk about the AT&T-Time Warner merger. There are two Donald Trumps
on this. In October he said, “Deals like this destroy democracy.†Then
last week, after meeting with AT&T, he said, “I haven’t seen the facts.
We’ll see.†What’s likely to happen with that merger?
AT&T has now designed the merger to avoid the FCC. I think the commission
probably still has some jurisdiction but I don’t make those decisions
anymore. As somebody said to me the other day, “I have lost the Windex to
my crystal ball.â€
What are you most worried about? What should people be worried about? And if
they’re worried about things like concentrated markets, high prices, and
inadequate service, what should people be doing?
Networks have always been crucial and broadband networks will define the 21st
century. How we connect defines who we are both commercially and culturally.
Whether or not those networks are going to be controlled on a gateway basis
by essentially four companies is an existential question for American
commerce and culture. I am worried about what that future looks like.
What is amazing to me is how the Commission and seemingly Congress want to do
things on behalf of these four companies, things that will have an impact on
tens of thousands of other companies and millions of consumers. I just
don’t think the debate has gotten to the point where people recognize this.
We’re talking about fewer than half a dozen companies here.
[Audience question] What do we need to do to protect net neutrality?
Two things. One, we need to be heard but, two, we need to be heard in
different ways than before. We had 3.7 million emails and comments to the
Commission [when it successfully pushed through the Open Internet order].
They were pushing on a door that was already open. The door is locked,
latched, bolted, and welded right now.
So what is the battering ram? Madison had this great line in Federalist 10
where he said that ambition must be made to counteract ambition. This was the
whole concept of how the government was set up. Economic ambition is what is
driving these handful of companies. There must be economic ambition that
counters them. We need to hear the voices of those that’ll be affected.
Yes, the small startups, but also the big companies. GE, GM.
Let’s go through a few things [that regulatory authority over internet
service providers will affect]. Artificial intelligence and machine learning
involve the connectivity of all kinds of database resources. If that
connectivity has to worry about gatekeepers, what happens to AI? What happens
to the Internet of Things? Who will be deciding which things get connected
and on which terms? What if one of the network providers says, “Wait a
minute. I like my things better and I’m going price them differently
because I am this competitive provider of this service.†We see they
already do that, with video. This is not a hypothetical. We need to be making
sure that the companies that are affected are delivering the message, because
I think that’s what Congress would be most responsive to.
These are ultimately extraordinarily personal issues. People’s phones are
very close to their hearts. They would give up food before they give up a
cell phone. Yet people aren’t engaged in the policy behind this technology
they need and love. How can we focus on these issues in a more dramatic way,
so we get the resistance going?
I’ve just sat here and given you a wonk’s eye view of telecommunications
policy. I love my wife dearly and she loves me but I can’t hold her
interest across the dinner table on these topics. How in the world do we get
ahold the interests of the vast majority? We need to get out of our
technocrat mode and into making the point that it’s the Trump voter who has
the worst internet experience, and that broadband is the key to getting an
education to be able to do your homework, the key to being able to get a job,
the key to be able to interact with the world around you. And these people
have been denied it.
Why? Because we built things around four companies. We need to be getting the
story out. Let’s talk not about the networks. Let’s talk about the
network effects.
Let me tell you two great stories and then I’ll shut up. I was in McKee,
Kentucky, one stop light, 900 people. As a result of the Obama stimulus it
has fiber to every home. There are more people employed today in McKee than
there were three years ago. From there, you go down the road to
Pikesville — another town with fiber — where I met with a bunch
of ex-coalminers who are now coding for Apple and others. These guys who had
the gumption to go way underground and work on the coal face now have the
gumption to say, “I’m going to take charge of my life in the new economy
because there is a fiber connection allowing me to do it.†Those are the
kinds of stories that we have to be telling. Because how we connect defines
who we are.
¢çCRP‚D€D~º&¶Ž¥éÃMYb²Ø§·
0k+²)ඔ5%H$HG(šf§v)ò¢êî±êÜ¢wâ‚êÚ¶*'±ëmŠx,jÑkyââ²Û(®r±éÝŠx™ë,j¢Š^Ûoê®zË_祊Ël¢¸0ŠØm…ì(Û§²æìr¸›z)í…ë.n7œ¶X§
