https://www.fcc.gov/document/comm-orielly-remarks-new-jersey-wireless-association
I have to say, the "ex-parte majority" of the FCC these days, as Commissioner
Clyburn likes to call them when they aren't around, has to become more sensible
and objective. The level of formula-think is becoming simply too egregious. Two
examples, related in this case to wireless broadband, given the audience:
1. "I'm sure that those that love to regulate will try to make the weak case
that the status of the wireless industry occurred because of - and not despite
- the FCC's regulations, particularly our Net Neutrality burdens. Beyond being
desperate to validate their myopic decision, this argument completely ignores
the counterfactual, or what would have occurred absent such burdens. The
reality is that had the Commission rejected the liberal mantra of Net
Neutrality, the entire wireless picture could have been even better."
If anything, he made the case that the opposition has always made. Neutrality
mandates do not stop investment. The simple FACTS are, given the lower
infrastructure costs and the relative ease of installing multiple operators in
every location (at least for 4G!), the wireless industry is quite competitive.
And yet, as of 2015, they have been classified under Title II. So the message
ought to be, quit bitching about it. It's not a problem. Any claim that without
a neutrality mandate, wireless would be even more competitive, is pure
speculation. The facts are already in evidence. I would agree that this
competition makes neutrality mandates much less essential, and so what? They
got lumped together with the wired broadband industry, i.e. local monopolies or
close to it. It makes no difference, so celebrate.
Then on the matter of siting 5G access points, which are going to be very
numerous as we know, since it's *primarily* the tiny cell size responsible for
the much higher network capacity:
2. "Permitting applications are being rejected for indefensible reasons, such
as aesthetics, radiofrequency concerns, or because localities don't agree with
the proposed type or placement of equipment."
"Indefensible reasons"?? This country belongs to the people, not exclusively to
the special interests! It is "bad form" for a government official to so
blatantly dismiss what the people in these communities want, to favor only the
very few. A much better approach would be for the industries involved, and
perhaps also the FCC, to SHOW people what these 5G cell towers will look like,
rather than a federal government agency trying to bulldoze over the wishes of
the local governments and communities. This is still a democracy, confound it.
What's with this extremist formula-think.
In business ethics, one key idea is that employees are supposed to avoid not
just unethical behavior, but importantly, also the APPEARANCE of unethical
behavior. Why is today's FCC majority so hell-bent to convince people that they
are on the take? This is totally baffling to me. A little more balanced
thinking, please.
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.
