[olug] [OT/Political] Letter to representative regarding ISPs and "Common Carrier" status.

[Jeff Hinrichs - DM&T]

Dan would you post a link to what your were responding?  I can't seem to
get goog to cough it up.

It is hard to tell for sure where the Senator is going to fall on these
issues.
http://siliconprairienews.com/2014/10/nebraska-sen-deb-fischer-lays-agenda-tech-growth-innovation/
and
http://www.omaha.com/blogs/washington_notebook/fischer-solicits-ideas-for-cutting-regulations/article_53a0e9ac-c186-575a-a8c5-f3046b14d2d1.html
would suggest that she is in favor of limiting government intervention.

However, being worldly, I am always very suspicious when ever the
government wants to do something to benefit me.  It never seems to turn out
to be in my best interest.

Eventually, with or without regulation, carriers and providers will be
forced to understand that they are commodity providers.  Phone is an app -
a crappy one at that too.  Until we get real carrier/provider competition -
not government sponsored pillow fights designed to fleece us, things are
going to continue to suck.


curmudgeonly,

-Jeff

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eyCWJuBhADo
currently studying to get my Technician license so I can start playing
around with this -- who knows, maybe the overnet (over-the-air-net) will be
what gets us around commercial and governmental manipulation of
connectivity.

On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 9:24 PM, Dan Linder <dan at linder.org> wrote:

> I apologize in advance if this is too political but most of us have some
> interest in our Internet connectivity so I thought this was a worthy post
> to the group.  What follows is what I posted to Facebook, Google+, and sent
> to her contacts page.  Feel free to discuss, or use it (in whole or in
> part) to contact your representatives. - Dan
>
>
> Hon. Fischer,
>
> Today (Jan 15) I saw your comments regarding President Obamas suggestion
> that Internet Service Providers should be classified as "Common Carriers"
> under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934.
>
> As a Republican myself I don't favor government intervention, in this case
> speaking as a professional computer engineer and long-time user of "high
> speed Internet" I must disagree and I am in strong favor of the
> reclassification. Here are my reasons why:
>
> 1: In 1992, various Bells filed applications with the FCC for something
> called "video dialtone." To pay for these net networks, the phone companies
> lobbied state governments for financial incentives to upgrade their
> fiber-optic plants. These show up on our bills in various forms but usually
> amount to $4-5 per month per customer. In the following 23 years, this
> increase to their revenue has not gone toward the promised roll-out
> high-speed data connections to homes or working to provide broadband
> connections to the rural areas. Instead, it went toward higher profit
> margins, and additional work to squeeze out any other competition. I'm sure
> there are some examples they will pull up, but they have used the
> classification to their advantage too. See "
> http://arstechnica.com/…/fcc-urged-to-investigate-verizons…/
> <
> http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/01/fcc-urged-to-investigate-verizons-two-faced-statements-on-utility-rules/
> >
> "
>
> 2: With the boom of the Internet and cellular phones throughout the 90's
> and early 2000s, many of these providers claimed they needed to get special
> treatment and "due to the excessive cost" they needed breaks and guarantees
> from city and state governments. These guarantees became laws, and most if
> not all of them gave them the legal standing to be the only (ONLY!)
> provider of Internet services in the areas they claimed to service. When
> cities got wise to these monopolistic practices and attempted to setup
> their own "public utility" for Internet access to their citizens, these
> companies filed lawsuits and went on extensive lobbying efforts to force
> the cities to give up these plans. Thankfully some cities have fought their
> way through and have rolled out some wildly successful networks. For
> instance, Chattanooga TN has a 1GB package for $69/month! My Cox provider
> provides me 1/40th the speed for the same price, or I can pay $150/month
> for only 1/10th the speed. Google has rolled out similar successful
> networks in other cities, and the incumbents immediately found that it
> *WAS* possible to slash their broadband prices. See "
> http://www.cnet.com/…/googles-fiber-effect-fuel-for-a-broa…/
> <
> http://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnet.com%2Fnews%2Fgoogles-fiber-effect-fuel-for-a-broadband-explosion%2F&h=lAQG9YeBy&enc=AZO9jIBx5AwcvxXJh-CtQKfBn4kHmzKkgpIgTkwBh4Tnaj4t1_Jq7PfJApQH02g_Sb1nrQL8s4j-6PkyeUxq3h1udZP1oBqeIbePpV5LQuLdoh143QvVckSCEEmx1MM53mht8srzoCosVLlQpvryziB3pmc6k9bn1arMd8krbK3wQw&s=1
> >
> "
>
> All I see when I look at the broadband market is a lot of incumbent players
> which have been sitting on their collective rear-ends taking in my money
> and not following through on the promises they made 20 years ago.
>
> Your campaign quote said you were a "hardworking leader" - show them what
> hardworking is, and that you'll take the stance for the hardworking public
> so we can get what we've paid for all these years.
>
> Thank you for your time.
>
> Dan Linder
>
> --
> ***************** ************* *********** ******* ***** *** **
> "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"
>     (Who can watch the watchmen?)
>     -- from the Satires of Juvenal
> "I do not fear computers, I fear the lack of them."
>     -- Isaac Asimov (Author)
> ** *** ***** ******* *********** ************* *****************
> _______________________________________________
> OLUG mailing list
> OLUG at olug.org
> https://lists.olug.org/mailman/listinfo/olug
>



-- 
Best,

Jeff Hinrichs
402.218.1473