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

[Dan Linder]

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…/"

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…/"

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)
** *** ***** ******* *********** ************* *****************

[Jason]

Title II, as currently being proposed, is *not* a solution to any of the problems you outlined.

Bought-and-paid-for Tom Wheeler is already talking Title II reclassification.  As you can guess, though, if it weren't good for the cable companies and their lobbyists, it wouldn't be on the docket.

We need more than just Title II reclass: under Tom's current plan, ISPs would be reclassed title II which would prevent 'fast lanes' and ensure 'fair' peering agreements, these are the good things.   What's the bad? Tom has specifically said that local-loop unbundling portion is off the table.  

Do you really think Comcast/Cox/whoever is just going to be say "oh no, I guess we're just going to miss out on those shady profits now...".   No.  Without local loop unbundling Title II reclass is just a gift to the ISPs, giving them an 'excuse' to charge as much as they'd with no fear of losing customers thanks to their gerrymandered market division and municipally enforced monopoly.  

Last mile competition is the only way anything good will come of telecom regulation.

[Kevin Fusselman]

+1.

With experience in the Internet access business (with an "alternative last mile carrier"), I can't agree with Jason more.

[Dan Linder]

Jeff - I'm referencing her comments (short as they were) that are quoted here:

  http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/barack-obama-broadband-internet-republicans-114265.html

(I don't usually quote politico.com, but they were one of the easiest to find that quoted what I saw on TV earlier this week.)

I agree - I don't like using a law to fix things.  Even if it fails or Title II (T2?) gets pulled from the FCC arsenal, at least the companies have been put on notice that we (tax payers and customers) are expecting something more than their "best we can give you" attitude today.

Jason - Sometimes the best best way to recharge a company and get them to innovate and bring new ideas to market (or at the very least streamline their internal processes) is to give them a new constraint (law) that they need to work around.  I don't see T2 (or TRA as you pointed out) being a perfect fix, but if it causes them to rethink and try new things it could be a good idea.

Kevin - I agree that I'd like to be able to have COX provide the physical cable to my house, but use Google for my IP address and actual Internet egress/ingress (just to use two big name examples), but if they don't place the "last mile" under T2 I'm optimistic that there might be enough profit in the rest that was opened up to bring another competitor to my neighborhood.

Just my $0.02 worth.

Dan

On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 8:22 AM, Kevin Fusselman <ke...@fusselman.org> wrote:

+1.

With experience in the Internet access business (with an "alternative last mile carrier"), I can't agree with Jason more.

--
Support Omaha Maker Group with purchases you make anyway. Shop Amazon using our Affiliates link, and OMG receives a portion of the proceeds. http://amzn.to/1f3i3ve
 
2015 Omaha Mini Maker Faire - An event for everyone!
September 19, 2015 - 9a - 5p
Omaha Children's Museum - www.omahamakerfaire.com
 
Leave lurking behind — come visit us at the Makery at 8410 K Street, #5, Omaha (just off 84th & L). We’re nice, we promise. http://bit.ly/1dKnTmC
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Omaha Maker Group" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to omaha-maker-gr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Nathan Schulte]

I don't know... I agree with your sentiment Dan, I think we all want
the same thing here. But, why play with uncertainties when we have
the expertise to ensure a sure-fire solution? I know that's living a
pipe dream, but I think it's wrong to settle for a less appealing
solution. Those have a track record of turning out for the worse; you
would think we might have learned a thing or two by now.

/rant. I hadn't heard anything about this, so I'm glad you posted
this to the group.

--
Nate

[Dan Linder]

Thanks for all the positive feedback on this - both pro and con to my opinion.   I too feel like we're given only two options, one very bad, and one slightly better. If there's a documented/posted option that I've overlooked I'd love to have that as an option to send on to my representatives.  Sadly, the only alternative making news and getting mindshare seems to be tried and true "Title Two" option...

Thanks,

Dan

[Dan Linder]

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 ===

[Dan Linder]

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 <ol...@olug.org>
 - Omaha Maker Group <omaha-ma...@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 ===

[Nathan Schulte]

On 01/25/2015 11:52 AM, Dan Linder wrote:
> 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.

I'm interested. Any word? I'm still not sure how I feel about this.
Jason seems to have much more insight into the real issues than I do, so
I'm inclined to follow his position.

--
Nate