[opendtv] Re: Techdirt: Absent Facts To Support Repealing Net Neutrality, Ajit Pai Wildly Attacking Hollywood Tweeters
- From: Craig Birkmaier <brewmastercraig@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2017 08:38:18 -0500
Interesting read!!!
A classic case of “The pot calling the kettle black.”
If there are two groups in the entire Net Neutrality debate that are
“threatened” by the FCC decision to return to the slight handed regulatory
regime that was used - AND UPHELD BY THE SUPREME COURT - it is the media
oligopoly in Hollywood, and the big Internet service monopolies that have been
caught red handed blocking content from those they disagree with.
I guess I can’t blame them for trying to protect a sweet deal, which places the
“federal thumb” on the scale in their favor.
This author gets so many facts wrong that the entire article is discredited,
but that’s just a nit. It is the fact that the article so blatantly ignores
reality that makes it so amusing.
Here is the BIG LIE:
The courts have already upheld the 2015 Open Internet Order by Tom Wheeler
as legitimate, where that FCC showed that reclassifying broadband as a Title
II service was perfectly reasonable based on the changes to the market
conditions since broadband was declared a Title I information service a
decade or so earlier.
This is laughable.
1. Only a subset of the District Court heard the case. The request to have the
entire court hear the case en banc was denied BECAUSE of the pending FCC order.
2. The District Court decision can still be appealed to the Supreme Court,
where it would be overturned in a heartbeat, as the decision is based on a
finding that the Supreme Court erred in the 2005 decision classifying broadband
as an information service.
3. If the “market conditions” test is valid - I do believe it is even relevant
- the finding would be the exact opposite of what the District Court decided.
There had been significant growth in competition in both the fixed broadband
and wireless broadband markets. And there had been NO meaningful Net neutrality
violations, as thoroughly discussed in the Order to be voted on later this
month.
Now for Bert’s flawed analysis of a flawed analysis:
On Dec 3, 2017, at 8:19 PM, Manfredi, Albert E <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
I've opined before that a neutrality MANDATE, unambiguous, by the FCC, the
agency entrusted with telecom regulations, is what we need and what almost
everyone wants.
ANd you have been WRONG every time you offered this opinion. There is a huge
difference between supporting the basic concepts of Net Neutrality, and
supporting telecom style Title II regulation. I have repeatedly shown you
surveys that less than half of those surveyed support the Title II approach.
If not Title II, then some credible alternative.
Exactly. Like what worked in the past and is now being restored, along with
some simple transparency rules that give the FTC more leverage in going after
any entity that breaks the law.
What infuriates everyone, at least everyone who isn't being bribed to shut
up, hopelessly clueless, or who isn't one of the very few who stand to
benefit from non-neutral service, is the way this FCC wants to wash its hands
of the whole thing. Like it's someone else's job.
Because IT IS someone else’s job Bert. That was made crystal clear in the 1996
Telecom Act, and by three decades of DEREGULATION of the telecommunications
industries.
"Except, again, there is nothing in the rules that are onerous. Well, unless
you're trying to screw over subscribers. As successful smaller ISP Sonic has
noted, the only regulatory burden from Title II is if you're behaving badly
towards customers.
Nobody has tried to screw over subscribers. ANd Sonic was being disingenuous at
best in its response. They did not take into consideration the costs associated
with Title II, both in terms of real costs at both the state and federal level
for attorneys, lobbyists, and filings, and in terms of the delays associated
with this type of regulation.
That's why over 40 small ISPs told Pai that they supported keeping the rules,
and that removing the 2015 order gives the giant broadband companies --
Verizon, Comcast and AT&T -- too much power to cut them out of the market.
For Pai to argue that this order will magically restore competition and
broadband deployment is laughable."
Yes laughable Bert. NOthing related to the Title II decision gives the big
Telcos any ability to cut competitors out of the market. The only aspect of
Title II regulation that cuts anyone out of the market is the uncertainty about
the investment and the regulatory regime that it would operate under. The
General Behavior Rule alone is enough of a hammer over potential competitor’s
heads to make them think twice about investing in Broadband.
What the small ISPs are really saying is that they expected a windfall of
Federal money from the Universal Service Fund. The bad news is that as a Title
I service broadband operators will not need to contribute to the USF.
The good news is that the legacy regulated Title II services like POTS still
have to pay into the USF and this money will be available to small ISPs to
deploy services in rural markets.
This article too makes one wonder, if the FCC were truly corrupt, would it
behave any differently? And implied in the very last sentence of the article,
the evident inability of this Chairman to grasp the difference between a web
site and a broadband service provider, and why they should be regulated
differently, should make everyone wonder.
Wonder WHAT Bert?
Why it is that neutrality only applies to those who provide access to the
Internet, while massive global monopolies are not subject to being neutral with
respect to who they allow to use their services, and what they are allowed to
say?
Back to the pot calling the kettle black!
That level of ignorance, from the FCC, should not be acceptable, no? And
never mind dismissing out of hand the millions of public comments. Talk about
"tyrants."
This level of ignorance of the facts should not continue to be the basis for
you monotonous posts.
Ultimately, what Hollywood actors may or may not have to say is a huge "who
cares." Another one of this Chairman's distractions.
The Chairman was making valid points about the cluelessness of the Hollywood
comments. THe comments of this blogger are the big “Who Cares.”
Regards
Craig
Other related posts:
