[opendtv] Re: Congress, the FCC & Internet Privacy: A Path to Protecting Americans Online | National Review
- From: Craig Birkmaier <brewmastercraig@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2017 08:40:46 -0400
So yesterday Monty posted an advocacy article from Ars Technica:
“Unenforceable”: How voluntary net neutrality lets ISPs call the shots
The article attempts to make the case that the FTC does not want the FCC Open
Internet order overturned, building a case that ISPs will be given a major
competitive advantage if the Title II order is revoked. This was a classic
example of the kind of one-sided analysis offered by the technical media to
advocate for a particular outcome. Today I posted another article from the
Consumer Union telling us that a major trade group that represents "Internet
technology companies," wants the Open Internet order to stay in place.
Once again, Bert completely missed the real story here and now misrepresents
the reality of the situation.
I guess I need to explain...
On Apr 12, 2017, at 3:51 PM, Manfredi, Albert E
<albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Craig, educate yourself. Read the article Monty posted. It repeats many of
the points I already made. The hilarious part about all of this? EVEN THE FTC
believes that the FCC should regulate neutrality.
So now Bert believes that the FTC does not want the Internet back, based on the
statements of one FTC commissioner. Bert asks that I educate myself...
I did.
Bert, do you every wonder why I frequently cite multiple sources when you make
a fool of yourself and claim something that is completely false? Like you did
when you told us that Pai does not want to undo the Open Internet (Title II)
order?
You recently admitted that the media is now hopelessly polarized and spewing
all kind of false and misleading information. This is just as true for
technical analysts as it is for political analysts.
So once again it comes as no surprise that you fell for it again with this
story.
Your major takeaway: "EVEN THE FTC believes that the FCC should regulate
neutrality."
Did Bert try to determine who Commissioner Terrell McSweeney is, and why she is
taking the positions stated in the article?
Hell No. He just concluded that these statements represent the position of the
entire FTC.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrell_McSweeny
Terrell McSweeny
FTC Commissioner Terrell McSweeny
Terrell McSweeny is a Commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission. She was
sworn in as a Commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission on April 28, 2014,
to a term that expires on September 25, 2017.
Prior to joining the Commission, McSweeny served as Chief Counsel for
Competition Policy and Intergovernmental Relations for the United States
Department of Justice Antitrust Division. She joined the Antitrust Division
after serving as Deputy Assistant to the President and Domestic Policy
Advisor to the Vice President from January 2009 until February 2012, advising
President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden on policy in a variety of
areas, including health care, innovation, intellectual property, energy,
education, women’s rights, criminal justice and domestic violence.
Obviously an original thinker, McSweeny could not possibly be influenced by the
administration she worked for since 2009. We must now believe that she speaks
for the entire FTC...
Such is the nature of how this game is played. technical advocacy to protect
the interests of "your team..."
Another kick in the pants for clueless libertarians. The supposed "cop on the
beat" telling the FCC that nope, we aren't the cop on the beat at all. We
merely consult with the cops on the beat, about matters of privacy.
Nope. Just another kick in the pants for a clueless Bert, who will grasp onto
any statistic or advocacy position to make his case; never mind that there are
"alternative facts" and positions to consider.
Sorry Bert. This was widely covered at the time. It was a massive
campaign to overload the FCC with comments,
What crap, honestly Craig. Read the article Monty posted. There's hope yet,
though, as Pai has not fully divulged his ideas. But you'll note, no one
mentioned in the article think it's a good idea for the FCC to drop the
neutrality regulation, and hand the baton over to the FTC. The "voluntary"
option is plainly unworkable, since (as the article also points out) there
isn't enough competition for broadband service. And check out what the one
conservative economist says. Even he's against this, and he's the guy Pai
apparently used as an excuse to begin this noise.
Unworkable?
How did the Internet survive all these years and become the cultural and
economic force it is today WITHOUT strict government regulation?
And why is it OK for the Internet giants to use our personal data to make
billions, but those evil ISPs will abuse our privacy?
And what did the "conservative economist" actually say Bert?
Economist Hal Singer, who opposed the Title II reclassification of broadband
providers, offered a "conservative critique" of Pai’s net neutrality plan.
"Economists fought the ban on paid priority because we understood some
arrangements could be beneficial to all parties, including users," Singer
wrote on Twitter. "Pai's proposal asks ISPs to commit to never offering
priority handling of a packet for a fee, and I'm wondering, 'What were we
fighting for?' A better policy would permit payment for priority, but would
allow such plans to be challenged by edge companies if done in a
discriminatory way."
Where in this does Singer say that the FTC should not deal with voluntary Net
Neutrality?
I can't find it.
What IT DOES SAY is that Singer does not believe the Pai proposal goes far
enough. He supports paid priority when it is not used in a discriminatory way.
We did not need to classify ISPs as common carriers to GET THIS.
They *are* common carriers, every bit as much as telephone companies are.
There is no earthly excuse to deny the obvious.
So Google is now a common carrier. Cool!
Cable companies were cleasrly not common carriers, operating as MVPDs. But
when these cable companies became, essentially, monopolist ISPs, taking over
the two-way network role previously held by telephone companies, they very
OBVIOUSLY became common carriers.
You are hung up on a definition Bert. A definition that give politicians the
excuse to regulate "natural monopolies," as common carriers. That definition
belongs in the last century. Cable companies now compete with the telcos for
VOIP service that rides atop the Internet.
Have you noticed how much the cost of all telephone services have come down
thanks to the Internet and competition with the "common carriers" Bert?
And just for the record, the cable companies did not take over the two-way
network business from the telcos. They became competitors.
You have recently become excited about the potential of 5G to create even more
competition in the ISP space. You have reminded us about the 5G technology that
AT&T, Verizon and Google are currently testing, and the major competitive
implications of this technology.
Hmmmmm... guess the part of the article based on statements from a University
of Colorado lawyer may not be accurate:
Voluntary schemes backed by FTC enforcement can work in "a competitive
industry that’s got some kind of market pressure to actually do right by
consumers," Reid said. (The advertising industry's self-regulation provides
one such example.) But there is very little broadband competition in the US,
especially in the market for home Internet service.
Bert must have loved this comment, since he paraphrases it all the time. NO
COMPETITION!
But there is competition, and it may soon explode, as wireless data over the
last 1/4 mile provides the "missing link," that has prevented more capital
intensive technologies to compete with hybrid fiber coax.
And never mind that the real issue here is whether ISPs should be allowed to
compete with the Internet giants for billions in advertising revenues based on
"big data" analysis.
Keep murmuring that to yourself, Craig. And as I've repeated multiple times,
if nothing else, their timing was absurd. They began playing those games just
as the FCC was debating a neutrality mandate, creating a public outcry,
changing Wheeler's mind. At the time, I thought huh? What a dumb thing to do.
Well, turns out, it was. Only you haven't gotten this yet, Craig.
You can thank Netflix for that public outcry. All they were doing was trying to
force the ISPs to pay for the transport of their bits...
You, Craig. You become beholden to a monopoly pipe, and you haven't yet
figured out how this distorts your perceptions.
So the fact that I pay for TV and you DON'T makes me a sucker, but you are not?
Do you pay for telephone service Bert; obviously you do, since you choose to
support your "Internet addiction" with DSL from your telco. I guess its just
the TV monopoly pipe that causes this reality distortion field.
Actually, there may be a bit of truth in this...
;-)
You put the blame everywhere else, except where it belongs. If you subject
yourself to unregulated monopolies, you should understand the consequences,
and blame yourself for being so gullible.
What makes you think the cable industry is unregulated Bert?
Really?
Ever hear of The Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of
1992?
Furthermore, if the Wheeler FCC made it so the same problems YOU experienced,
with your monopoly pipe, don't occur with Internet broadband service, you
should be grateful, not complain about it. Bitching about the cost of your
"the bundles" is frivolous silliness, compared with middlemen who mess with
Internet neutrality, to help line their own pockets.
What problem did the Open Internet Order solve?
I have never suffered from a net neutrality violation. Not sure anyone has.
Instead, you appear to be arguing as best you can, to make sure the same
problems you whine about incessantly also occur for Internet service. And
then, you will attribute them to "oligopolies" and "politicians," instead of
the clueless libertarians that couldn't figure out how these situations
happen.
Who can argue with this logic...
Regards
Craig
Other related posts:
- » [opendtv] Congress, the FCC & Internet Privacy: A Path to Protecting Americans Online | National Review- Craig Birkmaier
- » [opendtv] Re: Congress, the FCC & Internet Privacy: A Path to Protecting Americans Online | National Review- Manfredi, Albert E
- » [opendtv] Re: Congress, the FCC & Internet Privacy: A Path to Protecting Americans Online | National Review- Craig Birkmaier
- » [opendtv] Re: Congress, the FCC & Internet Privacy: A Path to Protecting Americans Online | National Review- Manfredi, Albert E
- » [opendtv] Re: Congress, the FCC & Internet Privacy: A Path to Protecting Americans Online | National Review- Craig Birkmaier
- » [opendtv] Re: Congress, the FCC & Internet Privacy: A Path to Protecting Americans Online | National Review- Manfredi, Albert E
- » [opendtv] Re: Congress, the FCC & Internet Privacy: A Path to Protecting Americans Online | National Review- Craig Birkmaier
- » [opendtv] Re: Congress, the FCC & Internet Privacy: A Path to Protecting Americans Online | National Review- Manfredi, Albert E
- » [opendtv] Re: Congress, the FCC & Internet Privacy: A Path to Protecting Americans Online | National Review- Craig Birkmaier
- » [opendtv] Re: Congress, the FCC & Internet Privacy: A Path to Protecting Americans Online | National Review- Manfredi, Albert E
- » [opendtv] Re: Congress, the FCC & Internet Privacy: A Path to Protecting Americans Online | National Review - Craig Birkmaier
- » [opendtv] Re: Congress, the FCC & Internet Privacy: A Path to Protecting Americans Online | National Review- Manfredi, Albert E
- » [opendtv] Re: Congress, the FCC & Internet Privacy: A Path to Protecting Americans Online | National Review- Craig Birkmaier
- » [opendtv] Re: Congress, the FCC & Internet Privacy: A Path to Protecting Americans Online | National Review- Manfredi, Albert E
- » [opendtv] Re: Congress, the FCC & Internet Privacy: A Path to Protecting Americans Online | National Review- Craig Birkmaier
- » [opendtv] Re: Congress, the FCC & Internet Privacy: A Path to Protecting Americans Online | National Review- Manfredi, Albert E
- » [opendtv] Re: Congress, the FCC & Internet Privacy: A Path to Protecting Americans Online | National Review- Craig Birkmaier
- » [opendtv] Re: Congress, the FCC & Internet Privacy: A Path to Protecting Americans Online | National Review- Craig Birkmaier