I thought, this should be revealing. The Chairman speaking to the only people
he is doing favors to.
https://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2018/db0321/DOC-349825A1.pdf
"I think it's worth looking back to 1993 to appreciate how remarkable it is
that ACA has, in fact, stood the test of time. Back then, you were in the video
delivery business. The technology that looked like the biggest disrupter from
your perspective was the introduction of new satellite TV services. But we now
know that the public introduction of the World Wide Web in 1993 would prove to
be the biggest game-changer. The key for ACA was (and is) that your members
have embraced this change."
And he misses the main point: An entertainment medium became also a telecom
service. Say it, Chairman Pai, to show that you have understood the sea change.
As bit rates needed for good Internet service began to exceed the very narrow
bandwidth of the previous two-way telecom medium, this one-way broadcast cable
medium proved to be adaptable to two-way service. A telecom service. The FCC
calls it, "advanced telecom service."
"Currently, over 700 small providers deliver Internet service to more than 7
million subscribers. These businesses-many of them ACA members-have invested $2
billion per year to upgrade networks and expand service areas. This investment,
in turn, helps create many well-paying jobs in communities that often are
struggling. And much of this expansion comes in areas with an incumbent. This
competition creates incentives for better service and lower prices for
consumers."
Is this disingenuous? He is describing small rural providers, doing business
where the incumbent telecoms don't want to invest? I wouldn't call that
competing. They are closing the digital divide, in cases where the incumbents
are not. Competition means, multiple providers available to consumers. Let's
not twist words around to pretend to be saying something that is plainly false.
As he acknowledges immediately afterwards:
"So we need small broadband operators to help close the digital divide and
offer consumers more competitive choice. What's the FCC doing to help?"
So, if you leave out that "... and offer consumers more competitive choice,"
the sentence would make more sense. And to make that even more plain, he goes
on to explain about the Connect America Fund and not funding overbuilds.
"The FCC should not subsidize overbuilding in areas already covered by private
investment."
Exactly. So please, remove that stuff about "competition." These small rural
providers are filling a gap in service, not adding to local competition for
broadband service.
"Contrary to what some Beltway politicians and special interests assert,
consumers' top complaint about the Internet is not and has never been that
their ISP is doing things like blocking content. It's that they don't have
sufficient access and competition."
Frankly, what a stupid argument. Obviously, one's first concern is access AT
ALL. But once you have access, everyone expects a telecom service to be
neutral. Unless one is in the pockets of a tiny number of special interests.
"Who are these insidious, all-powerful monopolists, and what effect did Title
II have on them? I've met several of them. While traveling through rural Iowa
last year, for example, I visited ACA members Spencer Municipal Utilities and
Laurens Municipal Utilities. These small, government-owned ISPs told me
first-hand how the FCC's mandates were harming their businesses."
More disingenuous BS. The monopolists exist because overbuilds most frequently
do not. So that's one point. Second, the small providers ARE NOT the ones
complaining about neutrality mandates. Mainly the giant cable TV companies are.
For these giants, neutrality has never been in their DNA. Focus on the regs the
small rural providers find too burdensome, and avoid vague, sweeping
phony-baloney generalities.
"The Title II Order may have been the largest deterrent to network investment,
but it wasn't the only one."
And let's not resort to bald-faced lies. These small providers already told
you, directly, that neutrality, and even Title II, was not their chief concern.
"To me, it's pretty simple: With rules that make it easier to deploy broadband,
we will see more broadband deployed."
More like, simple-minded. Remove neutrality mandates, and the monopolies that
wish to do so will immediately revert to their entertainment service
non-neutral shenanigans. He seems to understand why these are monopolies, but
he finds it impossible to take that next step, or to see what has already
occurred.
One good thing. At least he's not dumb enough to pretend that there's plenty of
competition for broadband service, or that such abundant competition is just
around the corner! Hey, that's something right there. Now, he's stuck in the
untenable position of explaining how today's situation is remotely similar to
what we had in the dialup era, specifically wrt the ISP service. A demagogue,
who makes no sense.
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.
