Daniel Berninger 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (29) comment rss

  • On the post: Mark Cuban Again Illustrates He Has No Idea What Net Neutrality Is Or Why It's Important

    Daniel Berninger ( profile ), 26 Nov, 2014 @ 11:15am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Mike,

    You are pointing to theory. I am not making a theoretical point.

    Find me someone who interacts with the FCC on a day to day basis that supports Title II.

    Ask the CLEC's about their fortunes under FCC protection.

    Title II does not accomplish in reality what it purports to accomplish in theory.

    The entire pro-Title II campaign presumes a degree of FCC virtue that does not exist.

    Judge Greene pointed out the breakup would have been moot had the FCC ever done its job.

    You are endorsing a dramatic expansion of FCC powers without assessing the existing track record.

    The telco's and cableco's are the only entities with a capacity to actually negotiate FCC processes.

    The FCC's contribution to the proliferation of communication options since 1996 owes to staying out of the way.

    Please find examples where the FCC's direct interventions obtained a positive outcome before endorsing an extension of FCC authority to IP networks.

  • On the post: Mark Cuban Again Illustrates He Has No Idea What Net Neutrality Is Or Why It's Important

    Daniel Berninger ( profile ), 26 Nov, 2014 @ 10:45am

    Re: Re:

    Mike,

    Your caveat in the reply to Mark makes something we called in my days at Bell Labs the "spherical cow" assumption.

    Masnick: "That assumes, incorrectly, that going to open internet rules under Title II adds real regulations. Look at what's being proposed. Look at Sections 201 and 202 of Title II. That's not real "regulation." It's not adding regulatory burden. It's just making sure that the network remains open."

    I would not fear the imposition of Title II to IP networks if your assertion had a remote connection with reality. You are reaching a conclusion by first assuming a "spherical cow" exists in limiting Title II to issues thant are not real "regulation".

    What in the entire 80 year history of FCC implementation of Title II suggests a capacity to surgically assert regulations? I hear the forebearance and not forbearance arguments and again ask, what in the entire history of the FCC suggests this is possible.

    Trading a presumption of the non-regulation of IP networks for a presumption of regulation is a significant loss for entrepreneurdom. The presumption (I do not need a lawyer or the FCC chairman to confirm) owes to a granting of non-regulatory status for anything born from non-regulatory information services parents.

    No one ever declared all things IP non-regulated, but entrepreneurs can safely make that presumption for the moment.

    As a related point, what in the entire history of the FCC suggests a capacity to hold telco's and cableco's accountable? The problem was never an issue of authority. The problem was always an issue of implementation. The first decade of the NN debate did not even reach the question of implementation. History suggests creating a rule is the easy part. Death to innovation comes from implementation.

    Dan

  • On the post: Mark Cuban Again Illustrates He Has No Idea What Net Neutrality Is Or Why It's Important

    Daniel Berninger ( profile ), 26 Nov, 2014 @ 09:58am

    Re: Speaking as a hearing-impaired person...

    It is as important to evaluate what you are running toward as what you are running from.

    An infinite list of complaints describing the problem tells us nothing about the merits of adopting Title II rules as a solution.

    For example, Title II regulation of telecom accounts for the failure to improve voice quality from 1934 to 2014 that imposes a hearing impairment on everyone that uses a telephone.

    Dan

  • On the post: Mark Cuban Again Illustrates He Has No Idea What Net Neutrality Is Or Why It's Important

    Daniel Berninger ( profile ), 26 Nov, 2014 @ 12:08pm

    A simple test of the merits of extending Title II authority to IP networks

    The FCC issues major decisions and rules at monthly meetings at a rate of 3-4 per meeting.

    These decisions and rules can be viewed as falling into two mutually exclusive categories.

    1. Leave IP networks alone. We do not need to do anything.

    2. We need to do something and here is our plan.

    I challenge the forces in favor of extending FCC Title II authority to IP networks to find a single decision in the second category that makes a meaningful contribution to the day to day lives of the communicating public in 2014.

    Feel free to look at decisions going back to the Telecom Act of 1996 or among the roughly 18 years and 800 major decisions.

    In other words, a review of the actual track record will reveal the present positive aspects of the communication environment would exist whether or not the FCC existed (category 1).

    The aspects of the telephone network the FCC asserted positive control over have steadily lost adoption to the point of disappearing from the landscape.

    The fact everything the FCC has touched died seems reason enough to question the expansion of FCC authority to IP networks.

  • On the post: Mark Cuban Again Illustrates He Has No Idea What Net Neutrality Is Or Why It's Important

    Daniel Berninger ( profile ), 26 Nov, 2014 @ 09:02am

    Bode/Pro and Cuban/Con Title II address entirely separate issues

    Karl,

    The post misses entirely Cuban's concerns which have nothing to do with your points.

    The case for Title II as "solution" does not move beyond an exhaustive and endless complaint about a "problem".

    Let's conceded as a hypothetical first step the "problem" of net neutrality threatens the end of the planet.

    Now please find anything in the 80 year history of Title II that promises to solve the end of the world problem.

    Title II exists as a foundational disfunction to all the the complaints and nowhere in the history of telecommunications as a solution.

    Mark Cuban is like many of us VERY worried Title II offers a cure far worse than the disease.

    There exists no need to add words to a description of the dark future of communication.

    There exists a need to explain and establish how extending the FCC's Title II authority to IP networks promises an outcome different than the innovation deadening and communication deadening history of Title II.

    Dan
    .........................................
    Daniel Berninger
    Founder, Voice Communication Exchange Committee
    e: dan@danielberninger.com
    tel SD: +1.202.250.3838
    SIP HD: dan@danielberninger.com
    w: www.vcxc.org

  • On the post: Net Neutrality Is Not 'The Government Takeover Of The Internet' — Or Why Republicans Should Support Reclassification

    Daniel Berninger ( profile ), 17 Sep, 2014 @ 10:44am

    No one is against net neutrality

    Mike,

    Net neutrality left the rails because the debate addresses a theoretical solution to a theoretical problem. There exists no one with actual FCC experience (required to file form 499) in favor of expanding FCC authority to IP networks. The enthusiasm comes from folks who embrace a theory of regulatory virtue that does not exist. Free Press offered a comprehensive list of the actual problems attributable to net neutrality in the last decade. They found 12 among trillions of economic and social transactions associated with IP networks.

    The present transition to all-IP networks changes the incentives for all players in the communication ecosystem. Pointing to behaviors associated with networks in the last century does not tell us anything about the new world.

    The desire to give the FCC authority over IP networks reflects anxiety about the future and not the past. This is a fear based rationale. Anyone with actual experience dealing with the FCC will tell you the cure is much worse than the disease.

  • On the post: Success, By Itself, Is Not A Monopoly

    Daniel Berninger ( profile ), 18 Nov, 2010 @ 09:58am

    Solution to "monopoly" is the rise of distributed options

    AOL dominated content circa 1990 until the distributed content option known as the web emerged with the help of the web browser after 1991. Sadly, after the Internet went fully commercial in 1995, the new applications have all be AOL style walled gardens. We saw this with IM. Facebook, Twitter, and Skype represent recent examples. The Internet community needs to recognize quality of life will not improve until the routine mode of deployment returns to the distributed model ala joindiaspora.com in social network, status.net in microblogging, and siptosip.net in VoIP.

    The general approach is outlined as "free addressing" at http://e-caller.com/2010/11/the-power-of-free-addressing/

  • On the post: When The News Lets Everyone Really Participate, It Changes The Way News Works

    Daniel Berninger ( profile ), 10 Nov, 2010 @ 04:49am

    discussion versus creation

    Clay mentions discussion of stories as one of the existing roles, but he focuses his new paradigm ideas on participatory content creation.

    The existence of techdirt and other venues seem like an example of how the web also transforms the nature of discussion (more than just around the dinner table).

    The propagation of discussion seems like a distinct dynamic, although people discussing a story can become motivated to contribute to a story.

    Maybe there is a continuum of engagement between non-participant and active participant that captures both dynamics.

  • On the post: Prior Art On Verizon's VoIP Patents

    Daniel Berninger ( profile ), 18 Apr, 2007 @ 08:30am

    Prior Art

    Brandon is correct only to the extent you make a number of assumptions that may or may not prove valid. The 12mo grace period is not automatic. The patentee will have the obligation to prove a pre-filing invention date in order to dispute prior art during the grace period. Also, keep in mind the two patents represent themselves as a single patent with the second a "continution" of the first. This requires the patentee to defend the new claims against the assetion they go outside the scope established by the first patent. Scrutiny of the claims in the second patent against prior art from any time before the second filing can be used to dispute the notion of continuation. For example, it can be argued that Verizon's continuation patent claims relied on subsequent market developments beyond what was established in the scope of the first patent. The prior art identified 12mo's before the first patent has the most utility, but other prior art within the grace period or between the patents may prove useful. The larger thesis of the article seeks to draw attention to the two VoIP open standards efforts (H.323, SIP) as sources for prior art dating back into 1996 with precussors developments back to 1972, as well as, the implications for the larger infotech sector. Finally, regarding why now. The challenge of finding 12+ year old records should be self-evident.