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

[Lou Duchez]

I've made as much political comment as I intend to on this topic, so in 
case there are any moderatorly worries that this will get excessively 
political, I promise not to do any pokin'.  (Since I am probably the 
entire left wing of OLUG, that should reduce the opportunity for 
politicking to roughly zero.)

> For those interested, I have asked the Hon. Fischer to elaborate on her
> singular "The Internet should not be regulated like a public utility."
> response.  Thanks again for listening.  My response is below.
>
> Dan
>
> === begin ===
> Hon. Fischer,
>
> Thank you for your response to my request on January 23 to my comments on
> the Internet 'Net Neutrality' and the 'Title II' option.  Your first three
> paragraphs recapped the history that has got us to this state - the facts
> are in line with what I understand, too.
>
> Your fourth paragraph begins: "The Internet should not be regulated like a
> public utility. That is why I joined eight of my colleagues..."  The
> reminder of the letter explains their position above the FCC and the plans
> to call on Chairman Wheeler to refrain from invoking the Title II option.
>
> While I am gratefully I understand your position, I would like further
> insight why you chose this specific position?
>
> I have discussed my initial email and your response on two tech mailing
> lists I am active on:
>   - Omaha Linux User Group <olug at olug.org>
>   - Omaha Maker Group <omaha-maker-group at googlegroups.com>
>
> We are an active and engaged group of technology enthusiasts and many of us
> are highly interested in the outcome of this, and the general "health" of
> the Internet in general.
>
> I (we) anticipate your response.
>
> Thanks,
> Dan Linder
> === end ===
>
> On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 10:32 AM, Dan Linder <dan at linder.org> wrote:
>
>> 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-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)
>>> ** *** ***** ******* *********** ************* *****************
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> ***************** ************* *********** ******* ***** *** **
>> "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)
>> ** *** ***** ******* *********** ************* *****************
>>
>
>