Please don't imply that winning in court proves something is just or correct.
There remain the options that: 1 - our laws had unintended consequences 2 - our laws have intended consequences, but were manipulated and are not just 3 - the court messed up 4 - the full legal process is not complete 5 - relevant evidence was suppressed 6 - one side successfully lied or faked or suppressed evidence
etc, etc. Sure, a trial is legally conclusive, but OJ got off, and lots of innocent people are in jail. False positives and false negatives abound.
Here's reference on Powell actually taking the big telcos side of the UNE-P debate:
"While Commissioner Martin supported all provisions of the order, the two other Republicans on the FCC, Chairman Powell and Commissioner Kathleen Abernathy...both supported exempting broadband from unbundling...The two Democrats, Copps and Adelstein...both dissented on exempting broadband from unbundling requirements."
-Shaping American Telecommunications: A History of Technology, Policy, and Economics; By Christopher H. Sterling, Phyllis W. Bernt, Martin B.H. Weiss
There's a lot more to this, of course. Things like the boom and bust of the late 90s through 2002; things like the first court case against the 1996 Act that the FCC won in 1999. The Powell argument was always that "UNE-P means that the premise-based telcos won't invest in their networks anymore." Which, on the surface is logical. But I think the evidence of Europe vs. the USA has since stacked up to prove Powell was either a shill, or just way fucking wrong.
I think you're trying to put the blame on Clinton here (I may be wrong.) But the Telecom Act is more of an FCC thing than a Clinton thing.
And, moreover, it was GOOD for competition. It was the Telecom Act of 1996 that brought us UNE-P - The plan for Unbundling Network Elements. In plain English, that means separating the copper wire in the ground from the incumbents, and letting any other competing ISP lease that copper.
The result was the immediate flourish of DSL, and always-on broadband for the first time to consumers in the USA. We had a rush of new entrants, Covad being the most recognized names, but there were MANY. These competitors COMPETED with the incumbents for our DSL business, and prices were dropping, while services were improving.
This spurred the cable companies into responding, so they came out with DOCSIS and Internet over their lines, which actually turned out to be a "fatter pipe".
Things were going quite well under the 1996 Act. Which was not appreciated by the big telecom players. They sued to quash UNE-P.
Unfortunately, "both the UNE Remand Order and the Line Sharing Orders were remanded by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in United States Telecom Association v. FCC, decided on May 24, 2002."
2002...Hmmm...who was the FCC Chairman at the time? Powell, you say? How hard do we think the Powell FCC fought the big telecom operators in court to protect the competition that the 1996 Act brought citizens? Not hard - Powell actually argued on the incumbent's side in the debate.
In conclusion, as far as laws and regs go, the 1996 Telecom Act was FUCKING GREAT for the citizens of the USA. But it was gutted under a willing FCC Chairman Powell. You've gotta be pretty blind to not see that this man was always in the pocket of incumbents, and singly set US telecom competition back more than a decade.
Since I am a political man, I'll point out that the Dems and the GoP were consistently on opposite sides of this short history. You'll hopefully note where your angry letters should be sent.
Re: former FCC boss turned slimy cable lobbyist is right!
Aside from the entertaining AGW debate (it's real, idiots!)...
There HAS been an example where people had real and serious cable/isp competition. Lots of examples, in fact.
Look at any market in Western Europe. The UK or France, for example. They took the US idea of UNE-P (letting companies like Covad compete over the incumbent's in-ground copper). While during Powell's tenure, we lost UNE-P in the USA, Europe ran with our idea. What happened?
ISP bundles at 20 euros ($22.41) including: - phone, free calls to international - aDSL - Cable TV content, 150 channels with DVR
The fact that they just kept repeating this request over and over, regardless of counterpoints is a probably part of an organized effort. It uses element's from one dear leader's große Lüge theory, that if you just repeat the lie over and over, people start to believe it.
The result of their organization and repetition will doubtless be that one of the Copyright Office's MAIN take-aways will be "There seems to be consensus around the need for notice and staydown."
Sports player 1 wants more money, gets it. Sports player 2 scores baskets, demands equal pay. Gets it. Team payroll too high, demand ESPN pay more, get it. ESPN costs too high, demand Cable cos pay more. They do. Cable co passes costs on to consumers.
Some say, "I don't watch ESPN", but ESPN deal with cableco says, you MUST sell ESPN in the bundle to all your subscribers, so they do. ESPN is $6/mo of your cable bill, it is the biggest individual channel cost in the mandatory bundle.
So, it's not pro sports owners who go bankrupt over paying for players. Instead, they force each of US to pay for it, but it's a little pain shared over millions of people, so they hope we don't notice.
- broadcasters can bully cable cos into giving them more money, over and over
- cable cos simply pass on the costs to us
- in a world where "cable TV" was supposed to mean that a company used big antennas to gather up a bunch of FREE TO AIR tv signals, and deliver them to our homes, and we paid for the clear signals, that model was perverted beyond recognition to one where we are paying for the content...but where that content is still rife with ads. Double dipping!
A "tragedy of the commons" implies over-use of a free and shared resource. That is completely unrelated to this case. If "customer's dollars" are the resource they are over-using, it was never a free resource to us!! My money is not "the commons".
Only cable cos, who have been passing these costs on to us for decades, would look at our money as a "price free resource".
His use of the wrong term is not a mistake...it is how Cable Cos actually see the world.
The problem with your perception is that in the US, caps are pretty much ONLY used anti-competitively. That's to be expected, since we have too little competition.
Caps are not anti-competitive. They are part of a service offering. In the US, all fast food chains let you fill and refill your soda cup. If Taco Bell offered caps on their drinks of one fill-up per cup, is that anti-competitive? No. But, you might go to Burger King instead. So the cap is just part of their offering. The only difference is that the customer has options.
Peering is just for Tier 1 to Tier 1 carriers. Smaller carriers, like Bend, must pay the Tier 1.
Since traffic demand per customer keeps growing year after year, it DOES cost annual money to continue meeting that demand.
My argument is those that consume significantly more traffic should pay somewhat more than those that consume the norm or less.
"Further, as the the "we will not charge you extra if you subscribe to cable" shows, they are more worried about their legacy cable business than the actual cost of providing Internet services."
Yes, but like Karl, you're now conflating two things. The caps themselves are not evil. They are being used anti-competitively. It's like a 2x4 board. It's not evil. It holds up my house. But if you hit me on the head with it, I perceive it as bad. Really, though, the problem is you hitting me on the head, the board is neutral. Our US problem is that, due to the state of competition, most of our exposure to caps is when the ISPs hit us on the head with them. This is why you and Karl misinterpret the cap.
The right likes to kid itself that it's for people's rights. The small guy against big gov't. Defend the constitution, yada yada.
But it's all talk and bluster. Conservative tendencies are correlated to authoritarianism tendencies, and so tend to support shows of force: stronger and larger police, or the military whether right or wrong.
The only constitutional right they really legislate is the second amendment. The fourth and fifth are too complicated for public comprehension, and even the first manages to baffle much of the public, who frequently conflate criticism or shaming with censorship.
Meanwhile, they've got a hypocritical boner for limiting the rights of women or any minority or marginalized group.
All that eventually trickles out of the right's self-delusion of being David against Goliath is: lower taxes on the rich and lots of guns.
Well, at least I benefit from one of those two things.