[opendtv] Re: Tim Wu's paper
- From: Craig Birkmaier <brewmastercraig@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2017 09:07:17 -0400
On Oct 5, 2017, at 4:26 PM, Manfredi, Albert E <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Craig Birkmaier wrote:
Correct. A role that they wrongly assumed by misinterpreting the law.
Nope. As I showed you again, the "information service" is subject to Title
II. Just read my preceding post.
The one you got completely wrong. I told you this yesterday and you doubled
down on stupid.
No Bert. They are likely to return to the rules and enforcement regimes
in place before the Title II decision.
The Hepburn Act of 1906? The Mann-Elkins Act of 1910? Title II? All of these
mandate net neutrality, and all of them applied to providing ISP service
during the dialup era.
All completely irrelevant given the fact that the telecommunications act has
been updated many times and in 1996 clearly defined the Internet (and ISPs) as
an information service.
Which includes, most importantly, 1996!
Why is it youy keep trying to take us back a century? The 1996 update to the
Communications Act is very clear. The fact that you are unable to understand
this says volumes.
Were it not for these acts, the telephone companies could easily have blocked
ISP service, or forced only their own ISP service on people, and/or filtered
out any sites they don't want people to do business with. EASILY. Because the
local phone company, back then too, tended to be a local monopoly. Same exact
problem as today, with broadband service.
The telecoms were properly regulated under Title II; the FCC clearly had the
authority to deal with these issues, and DID for several decades before the
commercial Internet appeared. That being said, the FCC tried to get the telcos
to open their networks to third party information service providers - they
failed and gave up when it became apparent that the PTSN would soon be replaced
with this thing we call the Internet, including the cable/telco wires/fibers
you now rely on for Internet access.
The problem with your argument is that there IS major competition for ISP
services today; the supposed cable monopoly is already challenged by the fact
that we now use mobile devices EXTENSIVELY to access Internet services. Kinda
blows a hole in Qualcomm’s arguments that the cellular modem enables everything
we do on these devices.
The communications world is changing rapidly Bert; we would be better served if
the political establishment paid attention to the growing abuses of power by
other parts of the Internet infrastructure; we need anti-trust enforcement, not
more regulation that encourages monopoly behavior.
They are A spectrum manager Bert.
Yup. Whether it's the FCC, some other government agency, or even some public
corporation, makes no difference. It still can't be your libertarian
free-for-all.
Worked for the cellular industry...
Your argument falls flat when we look at the massive growth and
success of the cellular industry AFTER Congress forced the FCC to
auction spectrum and let the industries using this spectrum establish
the rules and evolve the technology.
More ignorance. The users of the spectrum can only use what the manager
allows. Otherwise, there would be a hopeless level of interference. You're
circling back to square one again, wasting time. We've been over this. The
spectrum manager is a MANAGER. Not the guy who designs the systems. The
cellcos do not police the usage of channels of their competition. The FCC
does that.
The FCC is not managing anything here Bert, other than the auctions.
Any spectrum user can and does manage interference; sometimes these disputes
wind up in court. But the reality is that the industry is dealing with
interference, spectrum sharing and infrastructure sharing WITHOUT any FCC
management.
Really? You never argued that, say, that a search engine, was an integral
part of "the Internet infrastructure"? Do you need me to waste time and
ferret out that quote? I do not believe you understand the neutrality
subject, Craig.
That’s absurd. Obviously there is a difference between applications and
transport; both are required to offer a meaningful user experience. It is
absurd to regulate ISPs because they might behave badly someday in the future,
while we have large unregulated Internet service providers who are behaving
badly today.
What we don’t need is five appointed regulators “managing” something that was
not broken, and extending “in the public interest” to any behavior that will
keep the lawyers on K-Street busy and the campaign contributions flowing...
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:
