https://www.fcc.gov/document/commissioner-orielly-remarks-hudson-institute
"Not surprisingly, it has been hard to discern any strategy from those who have
disagreed with recent Commission actions. On one hand, these individuals have
begged for support for their particular positions; on the other hand, these
same people willingly said, and continue to say, the vilest things about my
colleagues and me."
Oh please, let's not be disingenuous. When you go against public sentiment and
public expectations, as aggressively as this corrupt FCC has been doing, you
pretty much get what you deserve. Get real, Commissioner. Consider what would
happen if this activist FCC were to push to ban free speech, or were to push to
establish one acceptable religion, for dissemination on the nation's telecoms.
You would also generate public furor and outrage. Eliminating the guarantee of
neutrality, from the locally monopolistic telecom providers, verges on that
level of outrageous act. Especially because, you have openly encouraged
non-neutrality, including blocking and throttling. It is unconscionable, and
the public is letting you know, in no uncertain terms.
"In any event, today I would like to discuss how my approach to select
communications policies is informed by certain conservative principles, with a
fair hint of libertarianism. Some may try to argue that conservatism and
libertarianism are contradictory perspectives."
??? Contradictory? Since when? Libertarianism is merely conservatism taken to
the extreme, usually bordering on whack-job extreme. Why raise this red herring?
"The most vocal proponents have urged the Commission to expand the contribution
base by requiring broadband companies - and ultimately their consumers - to pay
new fees to support USF."
Yes, a natural progression, as essential telecoms migrate from mere voice
telephony to Internet. One way or another, some people will be depending on
assistance. Again, though, let's not be disingenuous. Whether the USF, or
whether your CAF, or other sources of taxpayer contributions, you're just
shuffling papers. The extra costs would bother anyone, but it's hardly a news
flash, and we are paying regardless. I do agree with the FCC's position that
for these taxpayer-funded deployments, no one technology should be mandated, by
the FCC.
"Since 2015, the FCC has specifically preempted states from imposing state USF
contributions on broadband."
Exactly, and even under Title II classification. Ain't that amazing? So, why
fabricate a problem, when it doesn't exist? Why all the "sky is falling"
drama-queen rhetoric about Title II, from this FCC? Use of Title II has been
very limited, and how it's been applied has met with wide approval. From all
except whack jobs or those on the take.
"Additionally, at my urging, the FCC has declared that broadband is an
interstate information service."
Which is a lie, that only digital illiterates would accept, and goes contrary
to all the definitions of current and past telecom acts. And more importantly,
a lie that doesn't need to be disseminated, as you pointed out already in the
previous quote. You don't need to lie to get results people agree with. The FCC
should be more educated on these matters. You're supposed to be the experts.
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.
