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

[Joseph Gulizia]

Fight for the Future or EFF (Electronic Freedom Foundation)

https://www.battleforthenet.com/





On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 2:08 AM, Lou Duchez <lou at paprikash.com> wrote:

> In a lot of ways this reminds me of the Telecommunications Reform Act of
> 1996.  A big argument in favor of the TRA was: according to existing
> regulations covering telecommunications, telecom providers were not making
> enough money to research, innovate, and upgrade; allow telecom companies to
> raise rates and they will be able to offer a host of new services to
> consumers.  There had even been plans to lay fiber cable to residences the
> way copper cable is standard now.  Well, as soon as the TRA was passed, the
> telecom providers all suddenly changed their tune about the upgraded
> services, so they walked away being able to raise rates on consumers while
> giving them nothing in return.  Relaxed regulations win again!
>
> Over the past 20 years, the Internet has become central to American life,
> not just for those of us in technical fields, but to virtually every type
> of business and to private citizens.  The telecom giants have not
> demonstrated sufficient good faith for us to simply trust that they'll
> offer quality, affordable service unless legally obligated to.  I can't
> fault them for being profit-driven -- that's kind of the point of business
> -- but I also recognize the nature of the beast is to have little
> commitment to anyone else's prosperity.
>
>
>
>  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-
>> 6PkyeUxq3h1udZP1oBqeIbePpV5LQuLdoh143QvVckSCEEmx1MM53mht8srz
>> oCosVLlQpvryziB3pmc6k9bn1arMd8krbK3wQw&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
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> OLUG mailing list
> OLUG at olug.org
> https://lists.olug.org/mailman/listinfo/olug
>