Tom Wheeler Responds To Congressional Letters On Reclassification And Muni-Broadband; Doesn't Say Much
from the repeating-himself dept
It seems unlikely to expect FCC boss Tom Wheeler to say much that really matters concerning the key issues the FCC is facing until the final decisions are made (and, if history is any indication, even when those decisions are made, the statements will be bland nothingness), but it's still worth noting that he recently responded to two very different letters from members of Congress. The first was a letter from a number of Senators coming out strongly in support of reclassifying internet access under Title II, basically defining it as a common carrier service, and creating real rules that prevent broadband providers from picking winners and losers. Wheeler's response could be summed up as "Yeah, we're considering it." But that's about it.As I stated in the June 30. 2014, letter to you, our Notice proposes that the Section 706 framework set forth by the court provides us with the tools we need to adopt and implement robust and enforceable Open Internet rules. However. the Commission is also seriously considering moving forward to adopt rules using Title II of the Communications Act as the foundation for our legal authority. The Notice asks specific questions about Title II. including whether the Commission should 1) revisit its classification of Broadband Internet Access as an information service; or 2) separately identify and classify as a telecommunications service a service that "broadband providers . . . furnish to edge providers," as proposed by Mozilla in a May 5. 2014, Petition filed with the agency. The Notice seeks comment on the benefits of both Section 706 and Title II, including the benefits of one approach over the other, to ensure the Internet remains an open platform for innovation and expression.In other words, nothing new at all. In fact, the response is frustratingly circular. Wheeler asked for feedback on whether the FCC should reclassify, and these Senators said, "Hell yes, you should reclassify," even explaining why reclassifying is the only way for the FCC to "put truly effective open Internet rules on the books," and Wheeler's response was, "Yes, we've asked people to tell us what they think of Title II." It's a complete brush off in someways. Imagine asking your significant other what you should have for dinner, and they explain why it makes sense to have fish for dinner, and you respond with "Yes, I am asking people for options, and fish is one of them," rather than actually responding to the direct explanation as to why fish is the answer. It would be pretty obvious that you're not really paying attention and don't want fish.
The second letter comes from a bunch of Representatives in the House who idiotically flipped out over Wheeler's announced plans to preempt questionable state laws that block municipal broadband. These laws are almost always driven entirely by the big broadband companies, and local politicians have even admitted that they're just doing the bidding of folks from the big broadband providers. The letter comes from the same folks in Congress, led by Marsha Blackburn, who has already helped pass an appropriations amendment that would block Wheeler's plans.
Wheeler's response here is a bit stronger and more direct. He points out that the FCC has the authority to promote competitive broadband markets, and if that means trampling on big broadband lobbying efforts that restrict competition, that's well within the FCC's authority. He also points out that for all of Blackburn's supposed "concern" about the federal government overruling "local" governments, she doesn't seem to have a problem with state governments blatantly blocking municipal governments from doing what they want.
[M]any states have enacted laws that place a range of restrictions on communities' ability to make their own decisions about their own future. There is reason to believe that these laws have the effect of limiting competition in those areas, contrary to almost two decades of bipartisan federal communications policy that is focused on encouraging competition. I respect the important role of state governments in our federal system, but I also know that state laws which directly conflict with critical federal laws and policy may be subject to preemption in appropriate circumstances. I recognize that federal preemption is not a step to be taken and must be done only after careful consideration of all relevant legal and policy issues.The rest of the letter is him basically repeating that there will be lots of "careful consideration" before any move is actually taken.
It's almost as if Wheeler doesn't want to reveal what he's going to do until he does it (shocking, I know). At this point, it's not worth making too much of either letter, other than noting that Wheeler is sending responses that basically repeat the same thing he's been saying all along. And that takes us back to the point that many of us have been raising about the FCC for over a decade. It does an awful lot of talking, but rarely does much of substance. The real question here is if the Wheeler FCC will stand up and do something beyond a lot of talking.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: congress, fcc, marsha blackburn, muni broadband, net neutrality, open internet, title ii, tom wheeler
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Amusing, but missing the point entirely. This is potentially the most significant change in the way the internet is regulated and spread. It's not something that you do with the same casualness as decided what is for dinner.
This is more like getting a giant L tattoo on the middle of your forehead. You think long and hard before you do it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
DMCA seemed like a pretty obvious choice at the time too. Look where that got us.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Actually, what's with your logic tending to be scattered all over the place? You seem to just throw ideas out without thinking them through at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Remember, I am not talking about what DMCA looks like today looking back, but how it was perceived before it was enacted.
Getting the FCC involved to force net neutrality may sound like a good idea today, but will it really be a good idea tomorrow when the FCC seeks to extend it's reach to control actual content? Can you imagine an online v-chip?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
To you, maybe. Many of us were saying it was a bad idea from day one. Of course, industry sycophants simply called us pirates and chicken littles, rejected alternatives and ignored any concerns until after the foreseeable consequences were made reality. Don't fool yourself into thinking there weren't major objections at the time. That's why people won't let crap like SOPA get a foothold anywhere - we've seen the consequences of not making voices properly heard.
"Getting the FCC involved to force net neutrality may sound like a good idea today, but will it really be a good idea tomorrow when the FCC seeks to extend it's reach to control actual content?"
Given that self-regulation of the industry has been a hopeless failure and the industry has clearly indicated that it will destroy net neuitrality given half a chance, what's your alternative.
Come on, stop rejecting everyone else's ideas with a wave of your smug, self-righteous hand and discuss your ideas. If not the FCC, then who? How would you protect neutrality?
"Can you imagine an online v-chip?"
Has the FCC made an offline one yet? Is this your only objection - that because there's fictional worst-case scenario we should let net neutrality disappear?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't think there is very much in life that you think is a good idea, except moving out of the UK to avoid taxes.
Come on, stop rejecting everyone else's ideas with a wave of your smug, self-righteous hand and discuss your ideas. If not the FCC, then who? How would you protect neutrality?
I am not entirely sure why you think that every post I make has to have the ultimate perfect solution to everything. You can me smug and yet you seem lost without direction. Having issues?
Anyway, the reason why the FCC (or any other group) may not be the best solution is because they don't appear to be dealing with the real issues, and instead are trying to jam the internet into an existing regulator framework. It's not really the right idea.
If you want true net neutrality, you have to back up and start addressing the issues of how much bandwidth an ISP would generally be required to have per client. You can go down this page to communications (search for docsis) to get an idea of the problem:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overselling
even at the 12 to 1 ratio, current and expanding demands for P video services, especially in prime time, mean that the ratios won't satisfy consumers. So perhaps one of the best ways to assure net neutrality is to regulate how much bandwidth must be available per consumer based on their connection speed or promised throughput. At 1:1 through the full network including peering, there would be no real issues of bandwidth limitations causing bandwidth issues.
The downside is that it's likely that the costs to do this would be passed on to consumers. For a cable operator, as an example, it might require them to define many more head end zones, which would certain have significant costs both to install and maintain. You would also have to consider that many companies would have to upgrade much of their existing network infrastructure to assure that there is the mandated bandwidth per client.
Then you have to deal with the secondary issue of true neutrality, which is to say not giving preference or blocking any type of traffic. But even that has implications, such as "do you block pings" or other network related traffic that could be malicious? In a completely neutral network, nothing (and I mean nothing) would be blocked.
Regulation of the internet is almost certainly coming. However, rushing to select the handy current framework from another semi-related industry and trying to jam the internet into it is likely to cause more problems then it solves.
So how about you Paul? You are fast with the insults, how about being fast with solutions instead of gripes?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh dear, you've moved on to personal attacks now, instead of addressing arguments? Nice to see you still use total fiction you pull out of your ass instead of anything resembling a fact. Go on, explain which taxes I "avoided" by moving to another EU member state. Cite your sources.
You're still a delusional liar, I'm afraid - and you haven't even managed to come up with a realistic lie. But, your lies won't lead to me running away crying from threads like you do, so do your worst.
"I am not entirely sure why you think that every post I make has to have the ultimate perfect solution to everything. "
You reject everyone else's argument with smug proclamations that they're totally wrong without presenting any evidence. Since you refuse to debate and refuse to offer evidence, I can only assume you have a solution in mind that would overcome all the failures you point out in others.
Do you not have any solution, and are merely lying? Surely not! In that case, let's see your preferred solution. I can see from the rest of your comment that you still don't have a clue what the argument is and are addressing something else instead, so I'm going to guess you have nothing.
"You are fast with the insults"
In the thread you started with a claim that I'm a tax dodger, to accompany all the other things you've falsely accused me of recently? I bet you don't even recognise the hypocrisy, do you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I think I figured out your problem - you consider everything a personal attack. I'm a brit ex-pat as well, and the reason I and many others got out was because the tax rates were off the charts. Spain is slightly better, and the weather is nicer. My comment was tongue in cheek, considering you find nothing anyone seems to say as a good idea.
Now get over yourself, I am not attacking you, I am at best ribbing you a bit. Do you have no sense of humor? Oh for what it's worth "so sue me, big man".
You reject everyone else's argument with smug proclamations that they're totally wrong without presenting any evidence.
Again, your reading skills are horrible. I didn't reject any arguments here, I only pointed out that a rush to a decision is likely to help nobody. The original article seems to make it sound like there is some big rush to judgement here, but a little more consideration before jamming the internet into a regulatory framework is probably a good idea. It's called AN OPINION, and as much as you don't like it, I am entitled to one. If you don't agree, say so for reason that don't attack me personally, and you might get better responses.
Do you not have any solution, and are merely lying?
Why do you continue to insult me and call me a liar? I am not a liar at all, rather you just don't agree with me so there ya go. You need to learn the difference between opinion and pure fact.
I don't really see you adding anything here, you just want to engage me in a fight. As always, I end it here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, direct accusations of criminal activity do have that kind of connotation. But, the hypocrisy is noted.
"I didn't reject any arguments here, I only pointed out that a rush to a decision is likely to help nobody."
The debate's been going on for the best part of a decade. Try understanding it before jumping in next time, you'd be amazed at how clueless you are about what's really being discussed. At best, you're arguing a different subject to everybody else, with a fundamental misunderstanding of the issues.
"I am not a liar at all"
Yes, you are. I'm happy to point you to the threads where you've demonstrably lied, if you wish. Might take me a while to compile a full list of links, there's a lot of them.
Have you worked out how to link to your sources yet, or are we still meant to take your word for it because you say so?
"As always, I end it here."
Coward. You haven't even got the excuse of name-calling this time, since you personally switched to slanderous personal statements. Seer you in the next thread, where if you lie again, I will point it out again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Please go for it. But remember, if you are pointing to opinion and then claiming it's a lie, you lose.
I wait for you to make a fool of yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You'll be waiting for a long time. A quick couple of examples:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140806/07155928127/tektronix-uses-dmca-notice-to-try-to -stop-oscilliscope-hacking.shtml#c368
You claim that "while people generally are against ill gotten gains... they don't see the stuff obtained through digital means to be the same."
Now, while this might be a matter of opinion, the subject you were commenting on was PHYSICAL goods obtained through LEGAL means that people were trying to modify. This may have been your woeful inability to understand the subject at hand rather than your preferred fictional narrative, but the fact is that you were lying if you were claiming that this had anything to do with digital goods obtained illegally.
Strangely, you disappeared from that conversation when I called you out on your lie.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140729/16470728046/amazon-to-hachette-authors-here-let-us-ex plain-basic-price-elasticity-to-you.shtml#c1615
How about the time you claimed that Amazon don't understand their own transaction fees and the way they affect their marginal costs?
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140722/18173827975/musician-whose-works-are-center-copyrig ht-lawsuit-against-youtube-star-slams-lawsuit-copyright.shtml#c298
This one made me laugh. You claimed ""What they really hate to admit is that the sold out a long time ago to the man". Reading the actual article gives you the quote:
"When I signed with Ultra, I kissed goodbye forever the rights to own my music. They own it. And now Sony owns them. So now Sony owns my music. I knew that going in. "
So, you lied when you said that "they" hate to admit they "sold out", and the evidence for that is in the sodding article you're commenting on!
There's plenty more, that was just a random sampling of your bullshit. I can go on as long as I've been reading the crap you've posted, but hopefully others will get the point.
See you in the next thread, you ignorant lying ass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Okay, one down, first example and you failed already at the basics. Opinion is opinion.
Strangely, you disappeared from that conversation when I called you out on your lie
not strangely. Unless I specifically come back to check a thread after it's fallen off the first page, it's gone. You have proven to be very adapt at coming back and adding comments after that point and then claiming I ran away. You are pretty funny!
How about the time you claimed that Amazon don't understand their own transaction fees and the way they affect their marginal costs?
I didn't make any such claim, that is your reading of it. Amazon does understand it, clearly, but when it comes to profitability, it may not be the best solution - especially considering that the buying market isn't infinite and cannot be endlessly expanded.
Again, it's my opinion. You fail again!
Reading the actual article gives you the quote:
You fail at reading again. I was referencing artists IN GENERAL and not this specific artist. Read it:
The artists almost always are against the lawsuits, I suspect mostly because they don't want to look bad. What they really hate to admit is that the sold out a long time ago to the man
"the artists".
So, once again, you failed.
Just admit it. You are so much in a rush to damn me for my words that you twist them and spit them back out how you feel they will look bad. You fail - end to end. I think there is one liar here, but it's not me.
G'nite Paul, you lose again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Continue reading, dumbass, and the next part of my sentence tells you which part of your comment I was saying is opinion (hint: it's not the part that was an outright lie).
It's fun to see someone failing miserably at reading comprehension while accusing me of the same. No wonder you fail at addressing my actual points before running away every time I point your lies out.
"I didn't make any such claim"
Erm, your entire posting run in that thread was explaining how transaction fees work (which you got completely wrong, forgetting that they apply per transaction, not per item). Why would you feel the need to repeatedly do that if you accepted that Amazon's business model since day one was built with that understanding? My best guess: your pathological need to oppose *something* in every article leads you to make some very silly arguments sometimes, as often evidenced in what you write.
OK, maybe this was a bad example of a "lie", per se, but it's certainly dishonest and an attempt to derail the actual arguments made by others, which in tantamount to the same thing IMHO.
"You fail at reading again. I was referencing artists IN GENERAL and not this specific artist."
Artists admit this all the time. You just ignore them when they do so you can claim otherwise. "Oh, I didn't mean *that* artist who clearly says the thing I claimed they never say, I meant the *other* artists*". That seems... convenient...
Want some more examples? I have plenty, but you will just delude yourself into thinking your not dishonest due to some excuse or another.
"G'nite Paul, you lose again."
In the fantasy world that exists in your head, yes. Again, see you on the other side where I point out the next time you lie and distort. I know I won't be waiting long.
Hey, but bravo for actually continuing the discussion rather than whining and running like a little girl like you did in all 3 of those threads. You're improving. Now, if you just work on the words you actually post...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sorry, I can't help you. You are seriously delusional and obsessed with me to a point that is more than slightly creepy.
Learn how to read, learn how to think, and we can try this conversation again sometime in the future. For now, just accept that you got it all wrong (again).
(oh, and keep the adhoms and personal attacks for your mother.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
See you in the next thread, where if you lie again I will let you know. Maybe you can learn what one looks like.
"(oh, and keep the adhoms and personal attacks for your mother.)"
I notice you haven't apologised for your slanderous comments. Sorry, I keep politeness to those who deserve it, not delusional liars.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Overselling wouldn't be a problem if the cable and telcos would commit to upgrading their infrastructure at a rate that meets the pace of increasing demand.
You're right that it costs money to upgrade. No one is saying it doesn't, and you complaining about it is just a strawman. It's also the normal cost of doing business in a quickly expanding market with quickly changing technology. It's not the consumer's fault that the telcos' decades old business models about infrastructure costs can't keep up.
Sure, the costs will be passed on to consumers. And I'm fine if those are *actual* costs to upgrade, and not the current "raise your rates repeatedly and offer worse and worse service every year while still not upgrading the infrastructure for the future yet still raking in insane profits" bullshit you can only get from an entrenched monopoly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I think it's also key here that an incorrect framework could actually make it all worse, by taking away the financial benefits of investing, and instead freeze the networks into their current situation. The US could find itself locked into it's current circumstance with little chance of a better product to come.
The other real issue is that outside of cash flush Google who are busy trying to buy market share, no outside companies are really doing much to make things move forward. The muni fiber deals that have happened have mostly fallen though, and the ones that are out there may be discouraging other investment.
The root cause of the issues is ISPs allowed to massively oversell their networks, and not having to maintain a good ratio of peered connectivity for it's user base. Unless that is being dealt with, there will always be the need or desire to throttle or control the traffic in network.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Perhaps because it's not really a "real root cause". That is, if you solved the overselling issue 100%, there are still plenty of other -- even stronger -- reasons why net neutrality can't be left to the ISPs.
For example, deliberately hampering competing services to make the ISP's services more attractive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You are correct John, but how do they do that exactly now? They do it by making sure that the competing service doesn't have enough incoming bandwidth.
There is not a single way to solve the issue, but as long as you have less than truly needed bandwidth, you will always have the issue that ISPs will want to do traffic shaping, or will allow peers to overload because it's to their benefit.
I personally think that last mile ISPs should not be controlled by any company that also creates content. The temptation to play with what the user sees is too high.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This is correct, and the reason why there's a call for an external party to oversee them and ensure fair competition.
Did you somehow miss this major part of the conversation in your mad dash to smugly proclaim that you "know" better than everyone else (while in fact knowing nothing)?
", you will always have the issue that ISPs will want to do traffic shaping, or will allow peers to overload because it's to their benefit. "
Which is why a body like the FCC needs to ensure common carrier status. Again, was this point, clearly stated, too complicated for you, or do you simply have a pathological need to pretend you know better (while, again, knowing nothing)?
"I personally think that last mile ISPs should not be controlled by any company that also creates content. The temptation to play with what the user sees is too high."
Wow. You see? When you lapse into honesty, we can agree on something!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What a bunch of revisionist history bullshit.
Nobody saw what would happen? If you want links back from 1998, I'm sure I can find a few, but since you never bother to read or understand, I have better things to do with my time.
There was a huge outcry from the beginning against the DMCA, all warnings that ultimately have been proven 100% accurate. Warnings that the takedown process would be abused to prevent legitimate speech and legitimate content creation - it has been to a staggering degree. Warnings that the anti-circumvention clause would be abused to prevent legitimate competition and legitimate security research - and it has. And of course the warning that the law would do nothing at all to stop or even slow piracy - and of course, it hasn't.
The only good thing about the DMCA - protection from liability for ISPs and (at the time very nascent) hosting providers - was fought against very hard by the copyright lobby. It shouldn't have even been needed, as common sense would tell you to go after the person responsible instead of doing the Steve Dallas-type lawsuit against the tool provider.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
To some, maybe. I remember the general consensus being that the DMCA was a terrible idea at the time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not true. What has happened with it is pretty much what people were saying was going to happen. Remember, the notice and takedown was a "compromise" included because the original law was so draconian that it was going to sink the whole deal. Nobody outside of the maximalists thought it was a great thing. It was just not quite as terrible as the law would be without it -- which is still true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But, hey, this asshole has a different history in his head, so everything is invalid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There's so much bad in the DMCA that was recognized as such before it was even passed that it's frustrating to hear anyone trying to claim that people ever thought it was a good thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Obvious
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What, like a static IP? That people are usually paying extra to have? Yeah, wouldn't that be terrible.
Look, a dynamic IP and anonymity have nothing to do with each other. Those who know how to be anonymous can be anonymous with a static IP with exactly the same level of success. Those who don't know... well, a dynamic IP ain't gonna help 'em.
Or you can just use seven proxies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Dynamic IPs were never considered a good thing. They are just a way of dealing with a limited pool of IP addresses. Fixing the underlying problem and allowing people to have fixed IP addresses again was one of the big selling points of IPv6.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]