[opendtv] Re: Chairman Pai Blog: But Wait, There's More
- From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 10 May 2017 03:02:45 +0000
Craig Birkmaier wrote:
This paper explores in great detail the intent and the realities
of deregulation as defined in the 1996 Telecommunications Act.
http://www.jthtl.org/content/articles/V2I1/JTHTLv2i1_Chen.PDF
"The FCC has demanded technological neutrality when state commissions review
ETC designation petitions. The agency's unambiguous rule on this point bears
repeating: 'A state commission shall designate a common carrier that meets the
requirements of this section as an eligible telecommunications carrier
irrespective of the technology used by such carrier.'"
But that clearly has not happened in any areas, as State
regulators have used their power to advantage incumbents over
new competitors.
Which is a generally false statement. Incumbents have obvious advantages that
have nothing to do with state regulators giving them special deals. Take a look
at Google Fiber, as one obvious example. Perhaps Craig's problem is one of
"abductive inference," i.e. finding an outcome surprising, but only because
he's missing certain key fundamental concepts going in. Google Fiber, for
example, did not fail because regulators made it fail. Google Fiber failed
because installing FTTH is *the* most expensive way to deploy broadband
service. Once you get that concept, suddenly the fact that Google Fiber failed,
that FiOS deployment stopped dead in its tracks, and that Google, AT&T, and
Verizon are all looking at 5G fixed wireless, makes perfect sense. Has NOTHING
to do with those nefarious regulators or their "black helicopters."
And then there is this interesting little tidbit:
"In designing the federal universal service program, Congress showed
considerable solicitude toward rural residential customers. Long distance as
well as local service is an integral component of universal service. If
anything, rural parity with urban long distance customers won a lion's share of
congressional attention during the formulation of the 1996 Act. Congress
directed the FCC to 'adopt rules to require that the rates charged by providers
of interexchange telecommunications services to subscribers in rural and high
cost areas shall be no higher than the rates charged by each such provider to
its subscribers in urban areas.'"
So it looks like the Pai FCC is trying to come back into
compliance with the law by eliminating the rate floor,
First, that general mandate, on the FCC, is perfectly reasonable. So there's
nothing wrong with a USF, or a similar cost redistribution scheme, as that is
the only way to achieve any semblance of price parity. Secondly, wrong, Craig.
By eliminating the rate floor, Pai is taking away any form of guideline for the
telcos to use. So what's the result? Unless you believe in magic, only two
possible outcomes: (1) rural service will cost a lot more, or (2) the USF will
have to grow. It's too STUPID to believe that rural service can be equal cost
to urban service. So, those two possibilities are the outcomes. You would have
to have serious problems with basic logic to not understand something so clear.
The paper I linked to above notes that it is entirely feasible to
manage these issues with a few basic LAWS.
In truth, the paper only addresses the USF and rural service, Title II
underlies all such service, and the regs it mentions in this regard are the FCC
regs. Title II neutrality laws, or similar laws, have been with us for well
over 100 years. Read it again, Craig. Truth is, there's no credible reason to
pretend that Internet access is any less essential than telephone service has
been, with its USF. And, to keep the USF under some semblance of control, we
need pricing guidance such as a rate floor. All extremely obvious.
I could care less about the comments to the FCC Bert.
Well, as always, Craig, you do not have any justification for your
proclamations. I told you that people would send boat loads of hate mail to the
FCC, if the neutrality mandate were threatened. You made the claim that people
have WAAAAYYYY more important things to worry about. Ooops, looks like you were
wrong. Especially when you pay attention to that DOS attack, claimed by the
FCC. Oh well, huh?
The vast majority of applications have nothing to do with
Telecommunications.
Only for Internet illiterates, Craig. People do the very vast majority of what
they used to do on the telephone over the Internet, these days, and a whole lot
more. I spend days never touching the telephone. You simply need to learn these
new technologies, because otherwise, you end up spouting complete nonsense.
Bert
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at
FreeLists.org
- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
unsubscribe in the subject line.
Other related posts:
- » [opendtv] Chairman Pai Blog: But Wait, There's More- Manfredi, Albert E
- » [opendtv] Re: Chairman Pai Blog: But Wait, There's More- Craig Birkmaier
- » [opendtv] Re: Chairman Pai Blog: But Wait, There's More- Manfredi, Albert E
- » [opendtv] Re: Chairman Pai Blog: But Wait, There's More- Craig Birkmaier
- » [opendtv] Re: Chairman Pai Blog: But Wait, There's More- Manfredi, Albert E
- » [opendtv] Re: Chairman Pai Blog: But Wait, There's More- Craig Birkmaier
- » [opendtv] Re: Chairman Pai Blog: But Wait, There's More- Manfredi, Albert E
- » [opendtv] Re: Chairman Pai Blog: But Wait, There's More- Craig Birkmaier
- » [opendtv] Re: Chairman Pai Blog: But Wait, There's More - Manfredi, Albert E
- » [opendtv] Re: Chairman Pai Blog: But Wait, There's More- Craig Birkmaier
- » [opendtv] Re: Chairman Pai Blog: But Wait, There's More- Manfredi, Albert E
- » [opendtv] Re: Chairman Pai Blog: But Wait, There's More- Craig Birkmaier