[opendtv] Re: Chairman Pai hears from some small providers
- From: Craig Birkmaier <brewmastercraig@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2017 07:57:25 -0500
On Dec 8, 2017, at 9:17 PM, Manfredi, Albert E <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2017/db1208/DOC-348151A1.pdf]
Sometimes we need to look at Bert’s posts from end to beginning to make sense
out of them.
The facts are not on your side, Chairman Pai.
Makes me chuckle!
The fact are OBVIOUSLY on the Chairman’s side Bert. There are many real costs
to dealing with the regulatory state.
The big guys have been playing “the game” in DC and with state regulators for
many years - almost a century for AT&T.
It is the little guys who are most impacted by Title II regulation, as the
Chairman’s statement clearly indicates.
I just saw this little story yesterday. It says volumes about how - and who -
plays the game in DC:
https://money.usnews.com/investing/investing-101/slideshows/which-companies-spend-the-most-on-lobbyists
Guess who’s number 1?
Why it’s Bert’s employer Boeing, with $17.02 million a year.
#2 - AT&T - $16.27 million
#3 - Alphabet (Google) - $15.43 million
#4 - Comcast - $14.33 million
#5 - Southern Company - $13.9 million
So #2 and #3 are on opposite sides of the Net Neutrality debate, although
Google is taking a far less aggressive approach to the reversal of the Title II
decision than they took pushing for it 2-3 years ago.
Bottom line - it’s pay to play in the Nation’s capital, and the little guys are
the ones who get hurt the most.
Next to last:
Not saying that retaining Title II will necessarily create all this new
competition FOR BROADBAND SERVICE, but it certainly will for companied doing
business on the Internet. Competition for broadband service is throttled by
ROI considerations, not by a clear neutrality mandate. That's plain silly.
For once you are absolutely correct Bert. ROI considerations are critical to
smaller operators.
That is why they are hurt having to hire lawyers and consultants to deal with
the regulatory morass.
That is why they are hurt when a bank increases interest rates due to
regulatory and competitive uncertainty.
Working our way up...
Fact is, lack of Title II regs "unleashed" absolutely nothing, in the
2000-2015 timeframe, in terms of new competition among fixed broadband
services.
What crap. The telcos did not invest in DSL or FTTH until they were freed from
Title II regulation and the unbundling mandate. And there are MANY small
providers, like those that Pia spoke with that did make significant investments
in broadband. And all of the cellular carriers invested heavily as they
transformed from Title II voice services into mobile broadband services. And
many municipalities and Google also invested in broadband.
Makes me chuckle...
Besides, rather than relkying entirely on the self-serving comments of the
few, find out what investment HAS BEEN doing, since Title II was imposed.
We've seen the answer from more than one article. It has not gone down, it
has gone up.
Sorry, FAKE NEWS.
Recently, multiple small providers write to the FCC, telling it exactly why
they want Title II to remain, so he finds it necessary to IGNORE what they
said, and instead seek out a few who say otherwise. The honorable thing to
have done, Mr. Chairman, would have been to provide a list of which small
providers favor a clear neutrality mandate, vs which ones who oppose it.
Rather than only listen to what you want to hear.
Yup. It’s not hard to find people who will support any position. That does not
mean they are correct. All one needs to do is watch what is called “news” today.
And finally:
Conversely, use of Title II telephone lines "unleashed" a tremendous amout of
ISP competition, prior to the broadband era, and was instrumental in
preventing the Internet from becoming a walled garden type of service, à la
AOL and Compuserve. I'd say, we have Title II to thank!
Not exactly.
As you note, the major players were all NON NEUTRAL in the early days of the
Internet. Yes there were many small ISP start-ups that were able to take
advantage of the Telco unbundling requirements and dial-up modems. Almost all
of these companies died when the investments in Title I broadband began provide
the real on-ramps to the Internet that caused it to explode.
Makes me chuckle.
Makes me sad...
Regards
Craig
Other related posts:
