[opendtv] Re: Tech Crunch: The FCC’s anti-net neutrality proposal is a giant question mark
- From: Craig Birkmaier <brewmastercraig@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 15 May 2017 11:14:40 -0400
On May 14, 2017, at 11:24 PM, Manfredi, Albert E
<albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
False. The Netflix fiasco, that got Title II passed, was a harbinger.
Yes it was FALSLY used as justification for the Open Internet Order.
However, if you feel the need to stridently oppose something as clearly
beneficial as neutrality of Internet access, then explain why Title II, as it
has been implemented with a light touch (e.g. no rate regulations), is bad.
Because it is not light touch regulation. There is NOTHING to prevent the FCC
from regulating ISP rates in the future.
The FCC has already started to regulate interconnection rates.
The FCC requires significant overhead for EVERY service it regulates as a
common carrier (see the municipal system comments).
The FCC was set to impose privacy restrictions on ISPs, while allowing the
services that rely on these ISPs to operate without similar regulations.
The FCC was trying to use the requirement to unbundle cable set top boxes to
regulate similar boxes connected to the Internet, and to create a new copyright
regime for these boxes.
In your previous revealing post, you argued that big profits, from cramming
content on people that they don't want, is a good thing. So that tells me
exactly why you don’t want net neutrality>
I never said that. I said just the opposite. It is regulation and crony
capitalism that created this situation and allows it to persist.
I just saw this:
http://thehill.com/policy/technology/332948-cable-industry-poll-majority-support-net-neutrality-rules
"Cable industry poll: Majority support net neutrality rules"
DUH!!
Your typical "intelligent" response.
"The NCTA poll also included questions about the role the government should
have in regulating the internet. A quarter said that the government should
not regulate the internet at all, and 51 percent said it should employ a
"light touch approach” to regulation — a phrase often used by FCC Chairman
Ajit Pai in arguing against the net neutrality rules."
So, there are the formula-spouting yahoos who have not yet figured out: A
neutrality mandate **is** government regulation. Craig has a tough time
understanding this too. So, the majority want "neutrality rules," Craig, and
a small minority do not. And the yahoos are confused about what that means,
while they keep an eye out for black helicopters in the night sky.
I have no problem if Congress passes a law that defines net neutrality and how
it is to be enforced. It would help shut up the endless droning of people like
you that there are industries out there just waiting to violate such rules.
The survey I linked to suggests that there are two sides to this debate. But
you choose to ignore this reality.
- Return to the light handed approach that was working under the FTC;
- Allow the FCC to define net neutrality based on the needs of the moment and
the K street lawyers who control the campaign cash.
And don’t forget, this is the NCTA. Do you understand where their interests
lie, Craig?
The NCTA should be the last to complain - the Open Internet Order helped to
entrench their competitive advantage...until the FCC started to place
restrictions on them, but not the services that depend on them.
Yet the majority support the light touch approach to enforcement
of these rules proposed by Chairman Pai
What rules??
Good question. They did not exist before the Open Internet Order, and they are
not guaranteeing net neutrality now. My comment was in support of the NPRM to
end the Open Internet Order.
Personally I have no problem with the situation that existed prior to 2015. It
was working just fine. But I also have no problem with Congress legislating
definitive rules for the FTC to enforce.
What happened is that Comcast enforced the peering agreements it
had with several of the CDNs flooding Comcast with Netflix bits.
This resulted in a reduction in the QOS for Comcast customers
accessing Netflix streams.
Only Craig can be naive enough to believe this fairy tale.
No fairy tale Bert. Just the facts.
All the problems ended instantly, when the ISP involved got his ransom
demand. An don’t forget that Netflix offered to deploy the necessary servers,
to save costs and load to the core of the ISP network.
Because they finally took responsibility for the costs associated with their
service that they were trying to get the ISPs to pay for. There was no ransom
demand. There was a QOS problem because Netflix and its CDNs were unwilling to
pay Comcast for the solutions that solved the problem. In the end the company
that was causing the problem took responsibility for the true cost to deliver
the service. They agreed to paid priority for their service.
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:
