[opendtv] Re: FCC cherry-picked quotes from Congress on Title II for Internet broadband
- From: Craig Birkmaier <brewmastercraig@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 05 May 2017 10:50:04 -0400
On May 4, 2017, at 11:12 PM, Manfredi, Albert E
<albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The main point was that those quotes from Congress were nonsensical.
Something that ensures privacy does not reduce privacy. Something that
ensures neutrality does not diminish it. Those contradictory notions were
voiced just for the high drama effect, and that's all.
Nothing about the Open Internet Order assures personal privacy Bert. Worse yet,
regulation as a common carrier assures the loss of neutrality.
Did you read the National Review analysis I posted this morning?
Did you read the last part about the experience of the person who introduced
Chairman Pai at the Newsuem? Let me refresh your memory:
At the Newseum press conference in April, one of these imperiled innovators
told his story before introducing Chairman Pai to the microphone. Garrett
Johnson and two friends created an enterprise-communications app in Florida
and managed to gain funding for it from Ycombinator. His former company was
compelled to register as a common carrier with the FCC, complete some 50
hours of paperwork annually, and pay fees and respond to inquiries from state
public-utility commissions. Internet services and apps offer an open frontier
where anyone with a good idea and persistence can find success. No startup or
broadband provider should spend precious time and capital navigating the
Title II labyrinth. Hopefully, the FCC will ignore the noise and restore the
Internet, free of federal regulation and special interests.
Do you call that neutrality Bert?
Bert continues:
Chairman Pai simply believes that by reducing Title II regs, the telcos will
invest more. And let's ignore any problems that will occur with respect to
privacy and neutrality. The special interests will simply "promise" to
behave, and that absolves the FCC of its responsibilities.
Only in your simple mind. That is one small, but important, part of why Pai
wants to return enforcement of Net Neutrality to the FTC. And it is one small,
but important, part of what the members of Congress you quoted are saying.
That was abundantly obvious if you read the FCC release.
And Bert completely missed this announcement:
https://www.engadget.com/2017/05/02/republican-senators-outline-anti-net-neutrality-legislation/
Republican Senators outline anti-net neutrality legislation
Utah Senator Mike Lee introduced a bill Monday aimed at nullifying the
Federal Communications Commission's net neutrality rules. "Few areas of our
economy have been as dynamic and innovative as the internet," said the
statement. "But now this engine of growth is threatened by the Federal
Communications Commission's 2015 Open Internet Order, which would put federal
bureaucrats in charge of engineering the Internet's infrastructure."
Apparently Bert is still struggling with the reality that elections have
consequence. But that's OK.
Half the country is struggling with that reality, especially those who live and
work in the DC area.
And yet, there's no evidence to suggest that Title II regs were overused, that
strict price controls were ever established, or that anything done by Title II
slowed down broadband investment. I'd say, that has been the historical fact
with Title II. Implementation has been light touch, by any measure.
Your opinion. The reality is that the Wheeler FCC was already starting to
regulate, starting to set tariffs, and starting proceedings related to
regulating internet devices and content.
The yahoos are indulging in FUD.
You mean like Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schuster and the mainstream media?
Now you can add the tech industry media to the list.
This column is an outstanding example of Tech Industry FUD which Bert will LOVE!
http://www.infoworld.com/article/3194588/net-neutrality/congress-joins-the-fcc-to-kill-net-neutrality.html?idg_eid=593b93817ad0a9726f889c7044a6e9d3&email_SHA1_lc=e7374cde0e4a2aa6c9f1b1e003c6596bded02f0c&cid=ifw_nlt_infoworld_daily_2017-05-05&utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=InfoWorld%20Daily:%20Morning%20Edition%202017-05-05&utm_term=infoworld_daily
And The risks to consumers, on privacy and neutrality, are evident on a
daily basis (neutrality in the past, privacy for sure even now), but hardly
from the FCC. To pretend that the risks of abuse, of neutrality and privacy,
come from FCC more than from the special interests, is simply ludicrous. FUD
from overly dogmatic drama queens.
Not pretending. The history of the FCC is littered with anti-competitive,
anti-neutrality, anti-consumer regulations as pointed out in the National
Review analysis I posted earlier:
To prevent history from repeating itself, in 1996 a Republican Congress and
President Bill Clinton amended the Communications Act of 1934 and announced a
new U.S. policy, loud enough for the FCC and state public-utility
commissioners to hear: The Internet — including “specifically a service or
system that provides access to the Internet” — should be “unfettered from
Federal or State regulation.”
That declaration hasn’t stopped FCC officials and pro-regulation advocates in
the years since. The agency’s areas of regulation — telegraph, telephone,
broadcast-TV, and cable-TV providers — are dead, dying, or using Internet
technology to reinvent themselves. With the AT&T monopoly broken up, the
Clinton administration welcomed the prospect of a diminished future role for
the FCC, and even progressive scholars such as Professor Lawrence Lessig
called on Congress to “demolish” the agency and replace its antiquated laws
with something more modern.
Bert is entitled to his opinions. But he is not entitled to his own "facts," to
the exclusion of other opinions.
Regards
Craig
Other related posts:
