[opendtv] Re: Tim Wu's paper
- From: Craig Birkmaier <brewmastercraig@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2017 09:08:10 -0400
On Oct 6, 2017, at 3:56 PM, Manfredi, Albert E <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Craig Birkmaier wrote:
The one you got completely wrong.
Try again, Craig, or people will wonder if you ever learned to read:
----------------------------
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-277.ZS.html
"Information service" providers-those "offering . a capability for
[processing]
information via telecommunications," 47 U.S.C. § 153(20)-are subject to
mandatory regulation by the Federal Communications Commission as common
carriers under Title II of the Act.
----------------------------
Which words do you not understand? Information service ... subject to Title
II.
AND PLAINLY WRONG IF YOU READ THE ENTIRE DECISION.
Please read the detailed analysis I just posted which clearly shows that this
sentence and the one that follows are being reversed by this decision.
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.
And how did you reach an ISP in 1996, Craig?
VIA a telephone modem that was correctly regulated under Title II as a
telecommunications service.
More to the point, what did the Supremes actually SAY about Information
Service? Hey, to make it easy for you, because I know how you like to invent
things instead of looking them up, it's quoted at the top of this post.
NOPE. That sentence is entirely inconsistent with the rest of the opinion and
with the definition of information service that follows.
The telecoms were properly regulated under Title II;
Which is how people reached their ISP. Over "properly regulated" phone lines.
Today? Over "properly regulated" repurposed MVPD lines. Thanks only to Tom
Wheeler.
For now.
The 2005 decision upheld the FCC declaratory ruling that Cable Modem service is
an information service, NOT subject to Title II regulation.
The 2015 Title II Order attempts to bypass the 2005 Supreme Court ruling, by
reclassifying cable modem service as a telecommunications service. This is why
there is a desire for the 2015/16 Appeals Court decision to be reviewed by the
Supreme Court, which would likely overturn it in the face of the 2005 decision.
The FCC is not managing anything here Bert, other than the auctions.
And what do you think the auctions do, Craig? Do they assign specific
channels to specific wireless companies? Yes!
Yup. But the FCC does not regulate what the action winners can do with this
spectrum, designate technology standards, or limit the sharing of this spectrum
with competitors.
Does the FCC ensure that the proper companies use their properly assigned
spectrum? Yes!
Maybe. The companies do this themselves, so I’m not sure what the FCC actually
does. The Enforcement Bureau does not have trucks running around looking for
cellular interference issues. But they can investigate complaints filed by the
public on a range of issues:
https://www.fcc.gov/eb-iaa
It is absurd to regulate ISPs because they might behave badly someday
in the future,
You can be sure that just about any regulation that has ever been written,
was written AFTER THE FACT, following evidence of abuse.
Not in this case. You are talking about a PROPOSAL by Tim Wu. The reality is
that there are no rules other than the Bright Line Rules in the 2015 decision.
These may be replaced by the next FCC decision, or by legislations...time will
tell.
What we can say with certainty is that there have been no violations of these
rules. The closest thing to a violation was the Comcast Bit Torrent case, which
was adjudicated in the Courts, not at the FCC.
What we don't need is five appointed regulators "managing" something
What we don't need is wild-eyed paranoid yahoos breaking something that has
worked just fine, for more than 110 years, only to suit their well-rehearsed
slogans (or worse, as compensation for being on the take).
The Telecommunications industry DID NOT work just fine for 110 years Bert. It
was over-regulated, over-priced, over-taxed, and subject to numerous court
challenges, which ultimately led to deregulation. TV was worse.
What did work just fine was the revolving door of regulators and the regulated,
protecting their special interests.
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:
