[opendtv] Re: F.C.C. Leader Seeks Tech Companies' Views on Net Neutrality
- From: Craig Birkmaier <brewmastercraig@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 08:58:10 -0400
On Apr 26, 2017, at 10:03 PM, Manfredi, Albert E
<albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Craig Birkmaier wrote:
No Bert. Under Title II, however, ISPs were restricted from competing
with Google and Amazon.
That's a load of crap. There is no such restriction.
Bull. Read the regulation that Congress just revoked.
It requires ISPs to allow customers to opt out of data collection if they want
to use that ISP service. There is no such OPT OUT of data collection if a
consumer "chooses" to use the Google search engine or buy products from Amazon.
All these services need to do is publish their privacy rules - many Internet
services require customers to opt into their privacy rules in order to use the
services.
The ISP/MVPDs are perfectly capable of building their own web sites, and
making them available for anyone of access, on any ISP including their own.
Yes, if the content is not their own, these MVPD/ISPs have to make agreements
with the content owners, but we have seen time and again that this is doable.
What the hell are you talking about? This has NOTHING to do with net
neutrality. Obviously any company can create streaming media web services, IF
they have the rights to the content they stream. And it has NOTHING to do with
the revoked privacy regulations that treated ISPs different from Internet
services with respect to personal privacy and data collection.
You simply are not well versed in web browsing, Craig, or these things would
have been obvious to you. Multiple web sites, for pay or ad-supported, are
available to anyone, as long as the local ISP remains neutral. I can't
believe you only use Amazon and Google.
I can't believe you wrote this crap. I was simply pointing out the fact that
Google and Amazon received favored treatment relative to ISPs. For some reason
you cannot understand this, OR the fact that under Title II the FCC has the
ability to add many other regulations for ISPs, including rate regulation, but
NO ABILITY to regulate Internet services.
It should have raised all kinds of red flags, that the FCC was planning to use
its Title II powers to create major regulations of Internet streaming services
via the Set Top Box proceeding. Even without TItle II, the FCC could still try
to extend the compulsory copyright regulations to Virtual MVPD services...
It was not my choice to regulate ISPs under Title II.
It *was* your choice to subject yourself loyally to a walled garden
monopolistic service for decades.
Correct. That is because I was buying TV content that I could not get via an
antenna. Content that I was WILLING to pay for, as it provided programming that
I value.
And then you whine about the fact that monopolies behave like monopolies. In
all these years, no one had ever explained this to you?
I am not wining about monopolies behaving like monopolies Bert. I expect
monopolies to maximize their profits at my expense. I am wining about the fact
that anti-trust laws are NOT ENFORCED on the TV industry, and the industry
enjoys major financial benefits from legislation created to allow a handful of
content owners to control almost everything we watch.
Well, hallelujah, Craig! You did finally get that AOL was attempting to keep
things walled up, and that the people demanded neutrality instead. For some
reason, even this was a subject to arguments from you, in the past.
Nope. Would you like me to dig up some of the articles I wrote in the mid '90s
explaining why the approach being taken by the Time Warner Full service
Network, and AOL would not succeed?
I was among the first analysts in the video industry to predict what has
actually happened thanks to the Internet Bert. Get over it.
Now, this is your next exercise: How is it that people managed to bypass AOL,
and make them see the light?
THE INTERNET.
Do you really think this happened by accident? Do you really think that had
the telephone service been non-neutral, i.e. a telephone service operating
like an MVPD, that people would have had a choice?
AOL relied on dial up modems Bert.
Remember this?
You've got mail...
I signed up with Earthlink to get Internet access.
Do you really think that Internet neutrality was something mandated by a
supernatural power, instilled upon us at birth? Or did the Internet
neutrality concept **DEPEND ON** the existence of Title II telephone service?
Sorry, but dial up modems did not create the neutral internet mentality. They
pissed everyone off due to slow speeds and the need to use long distance toll
lines if an access point was not available locally.
If you want to single out the most influential technology to create Internet
culture, focus your attention on Netscape Navigator and HTML. These tools
allowed everyone to create a website accessible via any ISP.
The fact that AOL did not initially provide Internet access was the beginning
of the end for their walled garden approach. Give Steve Case a little credit
for unloading his creation on Time Warner at its peak value. ANd give the execs
at TIme Warner credit for killing AOL.
Who complained?
Those nasty telcos, protected by Title II common carrier regulation.
Exactly! But we, the people, HAD that neutrality, on telephone lines. So we,
the people, BYPASSED those ISPs who wanted to wall up the Internet. At the
time, this was possible, for **any** household to do.
Correct. But it was the telcos who opposed the FCC decision to force them to
provide access to their higher speed lines. It was the telcos who complained
that modems were causing the congestion of networks designed for mostly short
voice sessions. It was the telcos who dragged their feet with respect to
allowing competitors to connect to their high speed lines.
And now, Craig, you are trying to tell us that these same special interests
will play all nice and "promise" to be neutral, after the mandate is revoked?
Of course they will. If they do not the FTC will go after them, and competitors
will take their customers.
You can't be that naïve/obtuse. It seems Pai wants to shirk this FCC
responsibility, and load it onto the FTC, even though the FTC says hell no.
We'll see how that goes.
Only one FTC commissioner to is saying hell no. The Chairman is saying yes. And
Trump gets to choose the new commissioners two of which will be Republican
seats.
It is this kind of absurd manipulation of the facts that causes so many of
these "discussions" to go on forever.
Why should one have to belabor these points ad infinitum?
Because you refuse to accept reality Bert.
Instead you love to create alternative facts...
Another thread worn out.
Finis
Regards
Craig
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Other related posts:
