[opendtv] Re: ISPs denied entry into apartment buildings could get help from FCC
- From: Craig Birkmaier <brewmastercraig@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2017 11:39:34 -0400
On Jun 9, 2017, at 9:18 PM, Manfredi, Albert E <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
The original ARPANET was designed as a research network, purely packet
switched, which was used to link up mainframe computers throughout the
country. It operated entirely over leased telephone lines for the long haul,
and mostly Ethernet LANs locally. People had access to it via accounts on
mainframes, either sitting at the computer's own operator interface, or
linked to the computer remotely, with a terminal device (like a VT 100) or
later, a PC emulating such a device.
Thank you for repeating what I said.
Back then, people could gain access to such mainframes over dialup telephone
lines and modems, without having to go into the computer room.
No doubt there were a few such early dial up modems in use. Here is a picture
of the first AT&T modem in 1958:
I worked briefly as a new car salesman in 1974, and used a Fax machine with a
cradle for the telephone handset...
The key point being that the ARPANET was the test bed for what became the
Internet, using what was available in that day, not to mention tons of money to
pay for the interconnection lines.
The key point being, when commercial interests were allowed into the
Internet, there was no guarantee that these commercial interests would keep
it neutral, like the research net that it originated from. Companies like AOL
weren't held to any neutrality mandate, and they tried to create a different
reality. It was only competition that forced that openness to happen. As
always Craig, you have a problem understanding cause and effect.
Nothing has changed Bert. There are still tons of walled garden services that
we can access via the Internet. AOL was forced to add Internet access early on
when it became obvious that the World Wide Web was being embraced BECAUSE it
was NEUTRAL, OPEN, and companies did not need to work with companies like Time
Warner and their closed proprietary systems.
Again, Craig talking out of both sides of his mouth. The original ARPANET
needed no Congress or no FCC to make it neutral. It was neutral because those
using it needed it to be that way. Commercial interests were not involved.
Of course they were Bert. The equipment was built by commercial firms. The
interconnections were provided by commercial firms. And the ARPANET operated as
a walled garden, just as most corporate Intranets do today.
But you just made a critical point:
"those using it needed it to be that way."
That's the Internet culture Bert - it has not changed.
What has changed is that the politicians and regulators waited two decades
before they attempted to regulate it.
I don't much care whether it's lawyers in Congress, or lawyers at the FCC,
that write the neutrality rules, Craig.
You should. There's a world of difference between laws and the oppressive
regulations, taxes and fees that are a huge handicap for commerce.
If Congress establishes Neutrality rules NOTHING CHANGES for those subject to
those rules relative to the light handed regulation of the Internet for two
decades. You simply respect net neutrality. If you don't, the FTC can enforce
those rules if you break them.
But when the FCC resorted to Title II regulation of the Internet everything
changed for ISPs.
- Suddenly they had to fill out mountains of paperwork;
- They had to hire lawyers to navigate the regulatory minefield and lobby the
regulators and politicians.
- They became subject to the whims of regulators who love to stick their nose
- And they were treated in a different manner than the services that ISPs
connect us to, limiting the way they can collect and use customer data.
The FCC should be the experts, where Congress has more of the politician
blowhards, so the two could work together. The fact that you think the
government needs to be involved is enough to demonstrate you have lost your
argument. And yet, you persist.
"Should be the experts" - that says volumes.
I worked with the EXPERTS at the FCC on the Digital Television Standard AND on
where being digital would lead us. The FCC hires experts, because the
Commissioners are political appointments, almost always lawyers who have
experience lobbying the FCC. Congress can hire experts too...
I found the Congressional hearings on the DTV standard rather interesting; more
important these hearings led to the legislation that AUTHORIZED the FCC to
allocate spectrum to broadcasters for the simulcast transition.
A funny thing happened on the way to DTV. Congress was adamantly against
multicasting; this is why the entire focus of the standards development process
was on one HDTV program in 6 MHz. AFTER Congress authorized the FCC to
implement the standard, the FCC "listened to the experts" at the broadcast
networks, spearheaded by Fox, and allowed the ATSC to add multicasting to the
The standards process was spearheaded by a former FCC Chairman turned K-Street
lawyer, who just happened to represent the companies that created the
There was nothing open or "neutral" about the DTV standards process. I spent
many hours talking to several FCC commissioners about the standard - they were
Then it is up to the FTC to enforce these rules.
That's still government involvement, and the FTC does not regulate operation
of the telecoms, nor does it want to. If you could be more parsimonious in
your prose, Craig, you might not get wrapped around the axle quite so much,
Yes, government involvement when someone breaks the law.
Bottom line: Craig agrees that the government has to become involved in
guaranteeing net neutrality. That's fine with me.
What is Chairman Pai trying to do Bert?
He is NOT advocating NO GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT.
He is trying to return to a more appropriate legal regimen to protect Net
Other related posts: