I get the pro-Title II energy comes from the bottomless hate for the operators, but the expansion of communication options from 1996 to 2014 justifies preserving the regulatory status quo.
If you want to change something, you need to make the case for how your change offers improvement.
No one will have any luck or has even attempted making the case for the merits of Title II. We do not need to speculate on what Title II might accomplish in theory. The FCC has exercised Title II authority over the telephone network since 1934.
Let's look at how well that went, before extending Title II to the Internet.
Your caveat in the reply to Mark makes something we called in my days at Bell Labs the "spherical cow" assumption.
Masnick: "That assumes, incorrectly, that going to open internet rules under Title II *adds* real regulations. Look at what's being proposed. Look at Sections 201 and 202 of Title II. That's not real "regulation." It's not adding regulatory burden. It's just making sure that the network remains open."
I would not fear the imposition of Title II to IP networks if your assertion had a remote connection with reality. You are reaching a conclusion by first assuming a "spherical cow" exists in limiting Title II to issues thant are not real "regulation".
What in the entire 80 year history of FCC implementation of Title II suggests a capacity to surgically assert regulations? I hear the forebearance and not forbearance arguments and again ask, what in the entire history of the FCC suggests this is possible.
Trading a presumption of the non-regulation of IP networks for a presumption of regulation is a significant loss for entrepreneurdom. The presumption (I do not need a lawyer or the FCC chairman to confirm) owes to a granting of non-regulatory status for anything born from non-regulatory information services parents.
No one ever declared all things IP non-regulated, but entrepreneurs can safely make that presumption for the moment.
As a related point, what in the entire history of the FCC suggests a capacity to hold telco's and cableco's accountable? The problem was never an issue of authority. The problem was always an issue of implementation. The first decade of the NN debate did not even reach the question of implementation. History suggests creating a rule is the easy part. Death to innovation comes from implementation.
It is as important to evaluate what you are running toward as what you are running from.
An infinite list of complaints describing the problem tells us nothing about the merits of adopting Title II rules as a solution.
For example, Title II regulation of telecom accounts for the failure to improve voice quality from 1934 to 2014 that imposes a hearing impairment on everyone that uses a telephone.
Bode/Pro and Cuban/Con Title II address entirely separate issues
Karl,
The post misses entirely Cuban's concerns which have nothing to do with your points.
The case for Title II as "solution" does not move beyond an exhaustive and endless complaint about a "problem".
Let's conceded as a hypothetical first step the "problem" of net neutrality threatens the end of the planet.
Now please find anything in the 80 year history of Title II that promises to solve the end of the world problem.
Title II exists as a foundational disfunction to all the the complaints and nowhere in the history of telecommunications as a solution.
Mark Cuban is like many of us VERY worried Title II offers a cure far worse than the disease.
There exists no need to add words to a description of the dark future of communication.
There exists a need to explain and establish how extending the FCC's Title II authority to IP networks promises an outcome different than the innovation deadening and communication deadening history of Title II.
On the post: Mark Cuban Again Illustrates He Has No Idea What Net Neutrality Is Or Why It's Important
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you want to change something, you need to make the case for how your change offers improvement.
No one will have any luck or has even attempted making the case for the merits of Title II. We do not need to speculate on what Title II might accomplish in theory. The FCC has exercised Title II authority over the telephone network since 1934.
Let's look at how well that went, before extending Title II to the Internet.
On the post: Mark Cuban Again Illustrates He Has No Idea What Net Neutrality Is Or Why It's Important
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You are pointing to theory. I am not making a theoretical point.
Find me someone who interacts with the FCC on a day to day basis that supports Title II.
Ask the CLEC's about their fortunes under FCC protection.
Title II does not accomplish in reality what it purports to accomplish in theory.
The entire pro-Title II campaign presumes a degree of FCC virtue that does not exist.
Judge Greene pointed out the breakup would have been moot had the FCC ever done its job.
You are endorsing a dramatic expansion of FCC powers without assessing the existing track record.
The telco's and cableco's are the only entities with a capacity to actually negotiate FCC processes.
The FCC's contribution to the proliferation of communication options since 1996 owes to staying out of the way.
Please find examples where the FCC's direct interventions obtained a positive outcome before endorsing an extension of FCC authority to IP networks.
On the post: Mark Cuban Again Illustrates He Has No Idea What Net Neutrality Is Or Why It's Important
Re: Re:
Your caveat in the reply to Mark makes something we called in my days at Bell Labs the "spherical cow" assumption.
Masnick: "That assumes, incorrectly, that going to open internet rules under Title II *adds* real regulations. Look at what's being proposed. Look at Sections 201 and 202 of Title II. That's not real "regulation." It's not adding regulatory burden. It's just making sure that the network remains open."
I would not fear the imposition of Title II to IP networks if your assertion had a remote connection with reality. You are reaching a conclusion by first assuming a "spherical cow" exists in limiting Title II to issues thant are not real "regulation".
What in the entire 80 year history of FCC implementation of Title II suggests a capacity to surgically assert regulations? I hear the forebearance and not forbearance arguments and again ask, what in the entire history of the FCC suggests this is possible.
Trading a presumption of the non-regulation of IP networks for a presumption of regulation is a significant loss for entrepreneurdom. The presumption (I do not need a lawyer or the FCC chairman to confirm) owes to a granting of non-regulatory status for anything born from non-regulatory information services parents.
No one ever declared all things IP non-regulated, but entrepreneurs can safely make that presumption for the moment.
As a related point, what in the entire history of the FCC suggests a capacity to hold telco's and cableco's accountable? The problem was never an issue of authority. The problem was always an issue of implementation. The first decade of the NN debate did not even reach the question of implementation. History suggests creating a rule is the easy part. Death to innovation comes from implementation.
Dan
On the post: Mark Cuban Again Illustrates He Has No Idea What Net Neutrality Is Or Why It's Important
Re: Speaking as a hearing-impaired person...
An infinite list of complaints describing the problem tells us nothing about the merits of adopting Title II rules as a solution.
For example, Title II regulation of telecom accounts for the failure to improve voice quality from 1934 to 2014 that imposes a hearing impairment on everyone that uses a telephone.
Dan
On the post: Mark Cuban Again Illustrates He Has No Idea What Net Neutrality Is Or Why It's Important
Bode/Pro and Cuban/Con Title II address entirely separate issues
The post misses entirely Cuban's concerns which have nothing to do with your points.
The case for Title II as "solution" does not move beyond an exhaustive and endless complaint about a "problem".
Let's conceded as a hypothetical first step the "problem" of net neutrality threatens the end of the planet.
Now please find anything in the 80 year history of Title II that promises to solve the end of the world problem.
Title II exists as a foundational disfunction to all the the complaints and nowhere in the history of telecommunications as a solution.
Mark Cuban is like many of us VERY worried Title II offers a cure far worse than the disease.
There exists no need to add words to a description of the dark future of communication.
There exists a need to explain and establish how extending the FCC's Title II authority to IP networks promises an outcome different than the innovation deadening and communication deadening history of Title II.
Dan
.........................................
Daniel Berninger
Founder, Voice Communication Exchange Committee
e: dan@danielberninger.com
tel SD: +1.202.250.3838
SIP HD: dan@danielberninger.com
w: www.vcxc.org
Next >>