The founding fathers of the US specifically required that the government kept out of the communication business.
I disagree; the Founding Fathers specifically put the government in the communications business by putting the Post Office under federal control. Otherwise I agree with your post.
ISPs are *not* a natural monopoly, they are a statutory monopoly.
The 1992 Cable Act banned exclusive cable franchises. The 1996 Telecom Ac did the same for telco franchises.
I don't know if being an ISP requires a license either from the FCC or state PUC (I doubt it), which by definition means it cannot be a statutory monopoly.
Democrats were against Title II before they were for it
In 1998, Democratic Senators Ron Wyden and John Kerry (among others) wrote a letter to then FCC Chairman William Kennard asking that the FCC not classify ISPs as telecommunications carriers (i.e., subject them to Title II, common carrier regulation). Here are some quotes:
We wish to make it clear that nothing in the 1996 Act or its legislative history suggests that Congress intended to alter the current classification of Internet and other information services or to expand traditional telephone regulation to new and advanced services.
Were the FCC to reverse its prior conclusions and suddenly subject some or all information service providers to telephone regulation, it seriously would chill the growth and development of advanced services to the detriment of our economic and educational well-being.
Some have argued that Congress intended that the FCC's implementing regulations be expanded to reclassify certain information service providers, specifically Internet Service Providers (ISPs), as telecommunications carriers. Rather than expand regulation to new service providers, a critical goal of the 1996 Act was to diminish regulatory burdens as competition grew. Significantly, this goal has been the springboard for sound telecommunications policy throughout the globe and underscores U.S. leadership in this area. The FCC should not act to alter this approach.
That's why businesses pay more for a local telephone line than residential customers, even though both get exactly the same service. City customers pay more than rural customers, in order to provide a subsidy.
Intrastate LD rates are higher than interstate LD rates. Yet all these services are regulated under Title II. Anyone who says you won't be able to discriminate under Title II does not know what they're talking about.
I think what you yourself are failing to consider is that this involves restricting speech and property rights of everyone else on the planet.
Are you seriously suggesting that if I, as an artist choose to sell my song at a price that you personally disagree with, that somehow infringes on your speech and property rights?
How exactly are your speech and property rights infringed if I create something and choose not to sell it at all?
If I misunderstood you, I apologize. Please enlighten me.
I am on the web for most days and yesterday was no different. I didn't notice any slow downs on any of the websites I visited. Did anyone see an actual slowdown on a website?
I don't see any headlines today trumpeting the success of yesterday's slowdown.
I think what tech-dirt and other sites promoting "free" fail to consider, is this: if the artist wants to include free in his business model fine, if he doesn't, that's fine too.
Only the artist can make that decision. It is not a decision that the consumer can make (in the form of piracy for example), or tech-dirt, or anyone else, other than the artist.
Kids today read so little, I support their reading of comix because in some cases, without the comix, they'd probably read nothing at all.
I read comix as a kid. I was partial to Sgt. Rock, Johnny Cloud, and the JEB Stuart tank comix of the early '60s. I wasn't really into super heroes, although I was marginally more of a DC-fan than Marvel.
Today my older son reads Mangia graphic novels. I would prefer that he read more substantive books, but I'm glad that he at least reads those.
Frivolous pleadings. It shall be unlawful for any party to file a frivolous pleading with the Commission. Any violation of this paragraph shall constitute an abuse of process subject to appropriate sanctions.
Of course the FCC doesn't have the resources to sue 1M spammers and trolls. But maybe they should "subject" some of them to "appropriate sanctions".
Rick, correct me if I'm wrong, but don't many small rural telcos file their DSL service offerings in a NECA tariff?
I.e., those small businesses offer broadband under Title II regulation. They are not required to offer broadband this way, they choose to do so. As far as I know, that choice hasn't lessened their incentives to invest risk capital in their broadband networks (i.e., REA or RUS is still lending them government-subsidized, below market rate money to invest in their networks). I'm not a wireless expert so I can't speak to how Title II will affect WISP investment.
By they way: there is no URL linking to the WISPA Petition for Reconsideration. But I'd like to read it.
"Title II, with forbearance, is really *less* gov than 706"
You say that like forbearance is a foregone conclusion -- it isn't. Once under Title II, broadband Internet access is subject to many of the same regulations as traditional telephone service, and the FCC has to make an affirmative decision NOT to apply certain regulations.
If history is any guide, the FCC is notoriously slow to forebear from any of it rules, unless Congress specifically spells it out in legislation. Under Genachowski's "Third Way" proposal, he basically said "Title II but with lots of forbearance -- trust us".
ISPs don't trust government bureaucrats to stop doing what they are paid to do, which is regulate.
All this article shows is just how little Congresspeople and their staffers know about any given topic. It basically proves that lobbying is necessary to educate them.
It also shows how naïve some staffers can be. I like reading TechDirt, too. But if Jen thinks TechDirt has no agenda other than "the public interest" then she truly does need some help.
Re: i can't find out who is responsible for this mess...
Have you actually SEEN an ISP "non-compete" agreement? If you have, then I challenge you to produce it. Otherwise, I'm not so sure Comcast is the one "lying" here.
The problem with the flood of inane and pointless comments is that it makes it damn near impossible to find the useful, fact-based comments.
Everyone has a First Amendment right to express their opinion, but what the FCC actually needs is factual responses to the questions it asks in its NPRM. Truth be told, none of the people screaming at the FCC have even bothered to read the NPRM. OTOH, corporations like AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast will respond with facts, and address the FCC's questions.
The result will be, predictably, that the FCC will rely on the facts presented by the AT&T's of the world, while ignoring the fact-free opinions and mindless rants of all the spammers. By making the FCC's job more difficult, the spammers are actually pushing the FCC into the arms of the big ISPs.
Note that there is a reason we tend to go for indirect democracy; the idea is that you find representation that can put in the work for you, since you can't have an insightful and researched opinion on every issue at hand, and still have a real life/job. In theory that is the job of your selected representatives.
Exactly. No one can be an expert on every issue.
The same holds for Representatives and Senators. So they educate themselves, and one way of doing that is lobbying. We may not like it, but the truth is, lobbying is necessary, unless you want people to vote on every issue without any clue as to what the issue entails. And lobbying isn't limited to pro-ISP interests. The ACLU, EFF, Consumer Reports, and many other pro-consumer groups also lobby.
So be careful about efforts to ban lobbying -- that would result in banning all those pro-consumer groups, too.
On the post: Net Neutrality Is Not 'The Government Takeover Of The Internet' -- Or Why Republicans Should Support Reclassification
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Net Neutrality Is Not 'The Government Takeover Of The Internet' -- Or Why Republicans Should Support Reclassification
Re: Re:
On the post: Net Neutrality Is Not 'The Government Takeover Of The Internet' -- Or Why Republicans Should Support Reclassification
Re: Monopolies
I don't know if being an ISP requires a license either from the FCC or state PUC (I doubt it), which by definition means it cannot be a statutory monopoly.
On the post: Net Neutrality Is Not 'The Government Takeover Of The Internet' -- Or Why Republicans Should Support Reclassification
Re: Re: Re: No one is against net neutrality
I suspect once NN proponents are successful in applying Title II to ISPs, they will oppose every ISP request for forbearance.
On the post: Net Neutrality Is Not 'The Government Takeover Of The Internet' -- Or Why Republicans Should Support Reclassification
Re: Re: Democrats were against Title II before they were for it
And I agree the telcom infrastructure has always been Title II (but not the cable infrastructure).
On the post: Net Neutrality Is Not 'The Government Takeover Of The Internet' -- Or Why Republicans Should Support Reclassification
Democrats were against Title II before they were for it
The letter is available here:
http://cbit.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Senate-Letter.pdf
On the post: The Court's Own Words: Life Without Title II Has Online Discrimination, Paid Prioritization, Exclusive Deals, And Maybe Blocking
Title II does not ban discrimination
Intrastate LD rates are higher than interstate LD rates. Yet all these services are regulated under Title II. Anyone who says you won't be able to discriminate under Title II does not know what they're talking about.
On the post: U2 Still Insists No Value In 'Free' Music, Despite Making Millions From It
Re: Re: Free is in the eye of beholder
On the post: U2 Still Insists No Value In 'Free' Music, Despite Making Millions From It
Re: Re: Free is in the eye of beholder
How exactly are your speech and property rights infringed if I create something and choose not to sell it at all?
If I misunderstood you, I apologize. Please enlighten me.
On the post: The Battle For The Internet's Next Round: Internet Slowdown Day
Make any difference?
I am on the web for most days and yesterday was no different. I didn't notice any slow downs on any of the websites I visited. Did anyone see an actual slowdown on a website?
I don't see any headlines today trumpeting the success of yesterday's slowdown.
On the post: U2 Still Insists No Value In 'Free' Music, Despite Making Millions From It
Free is in the eye of beholder
Only the artist can make that decision. It is not a decision that the consumer can make (in the form of piracy for example), or tech-dirt, or anyone else, other than the artist.
On the post: Learning From History: How One Lying Liar Almost Screwed The Comic Book Industry
Comix and reading
I read comix as a kid. I was partial to Sgt. Rock, Johnny Cloud, and the JEB Stuart tank comix of the early '60s. I wasn't really into super heroes, although I was marginally more of a DC-fan than Marvel.
Today my older son reads Mangia graphic novels. I would prefer that he read more substantive books, but I'm glad that he at least reads those.
On the post: Guy Files Dishwasher User Manual As An FCC Comment On Net Neutrality
"Frivolous" comments are illegal
On the post: Reclassifying Broadband Under Title II Becoming Politically Feasible
Re: Title II and Small Business
I.e., those small businesses offer broadband under Title II regulation. They are not required to offer broadband this way, they choose to do so. As far as I know, that choice hasn't lessened their incentives to invest risk capital in their broadband networks (i.e., REA or RUS is still lending them government-subsidized, below market rate money to invest in their networks). I'm not a wireless expert so I can't speak to how Title II will affect WISP investment.
By they way: there is no URL linking to the WISPA Petition for Reconsideration. But I'd like to read it.
On the post: Reclassifying Broadband Under Title II Becoming Politically Feasible
Re: Re:
You say that like forbearance is a foregone conclusion -- it isn't. Once under Title II, broadband Internet access is subject to many of the same regulations as traditional telephone service, and the FCC has to make an affirmative decision NOT to apply certain regulations.
If history is any guide, the FCC is notoriously slow to forebear from any of it rules, unless Congress specifically spells it out in legislation. Under Genachowski's "Third Way" proposal, he basically said "Title II but with lots of forbearance -- trust us".
ISPs don't trust government bureaucrats to stop doing what they are paid to do, which is regulate.
On the post: If You Want To Know How Supporting Techdirt Can Help Shift The Debate In Washington DC, Read This
Lobbyists are necessary
It also shows how naïve some staffers can be. I like reading TechDirt, too. But if Jen thinks TechDirt has no agenda other than "the public interest" then she truly does need some help.
On the post: Comcast Ramps Up Ad Campaign Claiming To Support Net Neutrality, Even As It Really Supports Killing It
Re: i can't find out who is responsible for this mess...
On the post: Awesome Stuff: One Last Chance To Join With Thousands Of Others To Help Limit The Influence Of Money In Politics
Not old enough to vote, 16-year-old builds money-in-politics plug-in
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/in-the-loop/wp/2014/07/03/not-old-enough-to-vote-16-year-old -builds-money-in-politics-plug-in/
On the post: Don't Be Fooled Or Distracted By Trollish Comments To The FCC
Quality vs. Quantity
Everyone has a First Amendment right to express their opinion, but what the FCC actually needs is factual responses to the questions it asks in its NPRM. Truth be told, none of the people screaming at the FCC have even bothered to read the NPRM. OTOH, corporations like AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast will respond with facts, and address the FCC's questions.
The result will be, predictably, that the FCC will rely on the facts presented by the AT&T's of the world, while ignoring the fact-free opinions and mindless rants of all the spammers. By making the FCC's job more difficult, the spammers are actually pushing the FCC into the arms of the big ISPs.
Is that the result people really want?
On the post: New Net Neutrality Bill Introduced, Has No Chance Of Passing
Re: Re: as i have said before
Exactly. No one can be an expert on every issue.
The same holds for Representatives and Senators. So they educate themselves, and one way of doing that is lobbying. We may not like it, but the truth is, lobbying is necessary, unless you want people to vote on every issue without any clue as to what the issue entails. And lobbying isn't limited to pro-ISP interests. The ACLU, EFF, Consumer Reports, and many other pro-consumer groups also lobby.
So be careful about efforts to ban lobbying -- that would result in banning all those pro-consumer groups, too.
Next >>