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

Fri Jan 23 15:22:10 CST 2015

The new players can be licensed to have their wires on the poles, or
sublease them out to or from other players who are licensed to have them on
the poles. The only reason we have licenses for putting wires on poles is
to make sure that they're not going to impede other players in doing so.

On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 2:52 PM, Jeff Hinrichs - DM&T <jeffh at dundeemt.com>
wrote:

> Not to degrade the conversation, but a statement like "Vote Republican and
> you get someone who sides with business over the common good every single
> time" is too broad a statement and is not accurate, as it implies the other
> side is better.  A completely wrong implication.
>
> You can expect both side to get suckered in by either stupidity, uncaring
> or worse by lobbyist who only try to make their side look like the
> "American" way.
>
> This all started because government granted iditotic Monopolies, who don't
> play ball like the old timers and instead of being a good netizens, are
> looking for a way to:
>   * create new ways to bill/generate revenue
>   * reinforce their monopolies
>
> The only real way to fix this is to allow it to get messier and then let
> the market, the real free market, correct itself.  However, Washington
> could never stomach that nor do they no how to pitch it.  The monopolies
> need to have their strangle holds removed, existing wires need to be opened
> up to all comers and they need to play with the same rules as the new
> entrants.
>
> This will never be done.  This was all caused years ago with poor
> governmental decisions.  There is no easy solution here, but there is a way
> out.  Allow new players to enter the market and then get the government as
> far out of the market and playing favorites as we can.
>
> Not pretty, but true.  Just like life.
>
> This message has a cash value < $0.02
> ;)
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 11:22 AM, Lou Duchez <lou at paprikash.com> wrote:
>
> > I'm sorry Senator Fischer responded as she did, and even more sorry that
> > her response was entirely to be expected.  Vote Republican and you get
> > someone who sides with business over the common good every single time;
> > deep down we all know this, we just try not to think about it too hard.
> > Until the common good in question impacts us directly.
> >
> >
> >  Today I received this response back from the honorable Ms. Fischers
> >> office.  The first paragraphs recapped the history the Net Neutrality
> >> discussion has taken, then this single paragraph is her response:
> >>
> >>  The Internet should not be regulated like a public utility. That is
> >>> why I joined eight of my colleagues from the Senate Commerce,
> >>> Science, and Transportation Committee, the Committee with
> >>> jurisdiction over the FCC, in calling on Chairman Wheeler to refrain
> >>> from regulating the Internet by reclassifying consumer broadband
> >>> services under Title II.
> >>>
> >> (Her full response is copied below my signature line.)
> >>
> >>  From this I have two questions:
> >> 1: To simply state "The Internet should not be regulated like a public
> >> utility." without listing her reasoning or guidance seems rather terse.
> >> 2: She ends her letter with "It is an honor to represent Nebraska in the
> >> U.S. Senate".  For those of you who are so inclined, I would suggest you
> >> write (or call!) her yourself and either confirm or refute her stance as
> >> representative of those of us in Nebraska.
> >>
> >> Thanks again for your time, I now return you to your regularly scheduled
> >> geek discussions.
> >>
> >> Dan
> >>
> >> === begin response ===
> >> January 23, 2015
> >>
> >>
> >> Dear Dan,
> >>
> >> Thank you for contacting me about net neutrality. I appreciate hearing
> >> from
> >> you.
> >>
> >> On November 20, 2011, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
> adopted
> >> its Open Internet Order. The Order established rules to govern the
> network
> >> management practices of broadband Internet access providers. It was
> >> intended to maintain network neutrality by establishing rules ensuring
> >> transparency, no blocking, and no unreasonable discrimination.
> >>
> >> In Verizon Communications Inc. v. the Federal Communications Commission,
> >> Verizon challenged the Order arguing that the FCC does not have the
> >> necessary authority over broadband services to promulgate these rules.
> On
> >> January 14, 2014, the D.C. Court of Appeals invalidated portions of the
> >> Order. Specifically, the Court struck down the rules prohibiting
> blocking
> >> and discrimination but maintained the rule that requires disclosure of
> >> Internet traffic management policies. In response to the court’s
> decision,
> >> FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler has indicated he will propose new rules on net
> >> neutrality.
> >>
> >> On November 10, 2014, President Obama called on the FCC to regulate
> >> Internet service providers under a Title II public-utility style
> >> regulatory
> >> framework. Despite the president’s recommendation, the FCC is an
> >> independent agency free from influence by the Obama Administration.
> >>
> >> The Internet should not be regulated like a public utility. That is why
> I
> >> joined eight of my colleagues from the Senate Commerce, Science, and
> >> Transportation Committee, the Committee with jurisdiction over the FCC,
> in
> >> calling on Chairman Wheeler to refrain from regulating the Internet by
> >> reclassifying consumer broadband services under Title II.
> >>
> >> Again, thank you for contacting my office. It is an honor to represent
> >> Nebraska in the U.S. Senate, and I appreciate hearing your views. If you
> >> have additional questions or concerns, please visit my website at
> >> www.fischer.senate.gov.
> >>
> >> Sincerely,
> >>
> >>
> >> Deb Fischer
> >> United States Senator
> >> === end response ===
> >>
> >>
> >> 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-
> >>> 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
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> ***************** ************* *********** ******* ***** *** **
> >>> "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
> _______________________________________________
> OLUG mailing list
> OLUG at olug.org
> https://lists.olug.org/mailman/listinfo/olug
>