fgoodwin 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (106) comment rss

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

    fgoodwin ( profile ), 17 Sep, 2014 @ 12:18pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    John Fenderson wrote:

    In the vast majority of cases I've seen, the government does this much better than private businesses.
    Could the government have given us a better OS than Microsoft Windows? If so, I'd be all for it!

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

    fgoodwin ( profile ), 17 Sep, 2014 @ 12:15pm

    Re: Re:

    Michael said:

    The founding fathers of the US specifically required that the government kept out of the communication business.
    I disagree; the Founding Fathers specifically put the government in the communications business by putting the Post Office under federal control. Otherwise I agree with your post.

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

    fgoodwin ( profile ), 17 Sep, 2014 @ 12:10pm

    Re: Monopolies

    ISPs are *not* a natural monopoly, they are a statutory monopoly.
    The 1992 Cable Act banned exclusive cable franchises. The 1996 Telecom Ac did the same for telco franchises.

    I don't know if being an ISP requires a license either from the FCC or state PUC (I doubt it), which by definition means it cannot be a statutory monopoly.

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

    fgoodwin ( profile ), 17 Sep, 2014 @ 12:06pm

    Re: Re: Re: No one is against net neutrality

    You make it sound like forbearance is easy -- it is not. Getting the FCC to forbear from any of its Title II requirements is like pulling hen's teeth.

    I suspect once NN proponents are successful in applying Title II to ISPs, they will oppose every ISP request for forbearance.

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

    fgoodwin ( profile ), 17 Sep, 2014 @ 12:02pm

    Re: Re: Democrats were against Title II before they were for it

    Mike my title may have been snarky, but the letter speaks for itself; how is it "revisionism"?

    And I agree the telcom infrastructure has always been Title II (but not the cable infrastructure).

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

    fgoodwin ( profile ), 17 Sep, 2014 @ 10:36am

    Democrats were against Title II before they were for it

    In 1998, Democratic Senators Ron Wyden and John Kerry (among others) wrote a letter to then FCC Chairman William Kennard asking that the FCC not classify ISPs as telecommunications carriers (i.e., subject them to Title II, common carrier regulation). Here are some quotes:

    We wish to make it clear that nothing in the 1996 Act or its legislative history suggests that Congress intended to alter the current classification of Internet and other information services or to expand traditional telephone regulation to new and advanced services.
    Were the FCC to reverse its prior conclusions and suddenly subject some or all information service providers to telephone regulation, it seriously would chill the growth and development of advanced services to the detriment of our economic and educational well-being.
    Some have argued that Congress intended that the FCC's implementing regulations be expanded to reclassify certain information service providers, specifically Internet Service Providers (ISPs), as telecommunications carriers. Rather than expand regulation to new service providers, a critical goal of the 1996 Act was to diminish regulatory burdens as competition grew. Significantly, this goal has been the springboard for sound telecommunications policy throughout the globe and underscores U.S. leadership in this area. The FCC should not act to alter this approach.
    The letter is available here:

    http://cbit.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Senate-Letter.pdf

  • On the post: The Court's Own Words: Life Without Title II Has Online Discrimination, Paid Prioritization, Exclusive Deals, And Maybe Blocking

    fgoodwin ( profile ), 13 Sep, 2014 @ 08:11am

    Title II does not ban discrimination

    That's why businesses pay more for a local telephone line than residential customers, even though both get exactly the same service. City customers pay more than rural customers, in order to provide a subsidy.

    Intrastate LD rates are higher than interstate LD rates. Yet all these services are regulated under Title II. Anyone who says you won't be able to discriminate under Title II does not know what they're talking about.

  • On the post: U2 Still Insists No Value In 'Free' Music, Despite Making Millions From It

    fgoodwin ( profile ), 12 Sep, 2014 @ 12:04pm

    Re: Re: Free is in the eye of beholder

    I said Techdirt "promotes" free. This very article is an example. Don't be a pedant, Mike.

  • On the post: U2 Still Insists No Value In 'Free' Music, Despite Making Millions From It

    fgoodwin ( profile ), 12 Sep, 2014 @ 11:57am

    Re: Re: Free is in the eye of beholder

    I think what you yourself are failing to consider is that this involves restricting speech and property rights of everyone else on the planet.
    Are you seriously suggesting that if I, as an artist choose to sell my song at a price that you personally disagree with, that somehow infringes on your speech and property rights?

    How exactly are your speech and property rights infringed if I create something and choose not to sell it at all?

    If I misunderstood you, I apologize. Please enlighten me.

  • On the post: The Battle For The Internet's Next Round: Internet Slowdown Day

    fgoodwin ( profile ), 11 Sep, 2014 @ 10:39am

    Make any difference?

    Did anyone notice a slowdown yesterday?

    I am on the web for most days and yesterday was no different. I didn't notice any slow downs on any of the websites I visited. Did anyone see an actual slowdown on a website?

    I don't see any headlines today trumpeting the success of yesterday's slowdown.

  • On the post: U2 Still Insists No Value In 'Free' Music, Despite Making Millions From It

    fgoodwin ( profile ), 11 Sep, 2014 @ 10:30am

    Free is in the eye of beholder

    I think what tech-dirt and other sites promoting "free" fail to consider, is this: if the artist wants to include free in his business model fine, if he doesn't, that's fine too.

    Only the artist can make that decision. It is not a decision that the consumer can make (in the form of piracy for example), or tech-dirt, or anyone else, other than the artist.

  • On the post: Learning From History: How One Lying Liar Almost Screwed The Comic Book Industry

    fgoodwin ( profile ), 08 Aug, 2014 @ 01:01pm

    Comix and reading

    Kids today read so little, I support their reading of comix because in some cases, without the comix, they'd probably read nothing at all.

    I read comix as a kid. I was partial to Sgt. Rock, Johnny Cloud, and the JEB Stuart tank comix of the early '60s. I wasn't really into super heroes, although I was marginally more of a DC-fan than Marvel.

    Today my older son reads Mangia graphic novels. I would prefer that he read more substantive books, but I'm glad that he at least reads those.

  • On the post: Guy Files Dishwasher User Manual As An FCC Comment On Net Neutrality

    fgoodwin ( profile ), 07 Aug, 2014 @ 06:17am

    "Frivolous" comments are illegal

    See 47 CFR 8.13(d):

    Frivolous pleadings. It shall be unlawful for any party to file a frivolous pleading with the Commission. Any violation of this paragraph shall constitute an abuse of process subject to appropriate sanctions.
    Of course the FCC doesn't have the resources to sue 1M spammers and trolls. But maybe they should "subject" some of them to "appropriate sanctions".

  • On the post: Reclassifying Broadband Under Title II Becoming Politically Feasible

    fgoodwin ( profile ), 01 Aug, 2014 @ 09:19am

    Re: Title II and Small Business

    Rick, correct me if I'm wrong, but don't many small rural telcos file their DSL service offerings in a NECA tariff?

    I.e., those small businesses offer broadband under Title II regulation. They are not required to offer broadband this way, they choose to do so. As far as I know, that choice hasn't lessened their incentives to invest risk capital in their broadband networks (i.e., REA or RUS is still lending them government-subsidized, below market rate money to invest in their networks). I'm not a wireless expert so I can't speak to how Title II will affect WISP investment.

    By they way: there is no URL linking to the WISPA Petition for Reconsideration. But I'd like to read it.

  • On the post: Reclassifying Broadband Under Title II Becoming Politically Feasible

    fgoodwin ( profile ), 01 Aug, 2014 @ 09:04am

    Re: Re:

    "Title II, with forbearance, is really less gov than 706"

    You say that like forbearance is a foregone conclusion -- it isn't. Once under Title II, broadband Internet access is subject to many of the same regulations as traditional telephone service, and the FCC has to make an affirmative decision NOT to apply certain regulations.

    If history is any guide, the FCC is notoriously slow to forebear from any of it rules, unless Congress specifically spells it out in legislation. Under Genachowski's "Third Way" proposal, he basically said "Title II but with lots of forbearance -- trust us".

    ISPs don't trust government bureaucrats to stop doing what they are paid to do, which is regulate.

  • On the post: Latest Survey Shows People Across The Political Spectrum Are Skeptical Of Government Surveillance

    fgoodwin ( profile ), 30 Jul, 2014 @ 11:06am

    Re: Self-identified?

    The categories are defined in the original report. Here for example is the definition of "Solid Liberal":

    Highly educated and affluent, Solid Liberals strongly support the social safety net and take very liberal positions on virtually all issues. Most say they always vote Democratic and they are unflagging supporters of Barack Obama. Solid Liberals are very optimistic about the nation’s future and are the most likely to say that America’s success is linked to its ability to change, rather than its reliance on long-standing principles. On foreign policy, Solid Liberals overwhelmingly believe that good diplomacy – rather than military strength – is the best way to ensure peace.
    http://www.people-press.org/2014/06/26/typology-comparison/types/solid-liberals/

  • On the post: Guy Files Dishwasher User Manual As An FCC Comment On Net Neutrality

    fgoodwin ( profile ), 30 Jul, 2014 @ 08:51am

    Re: Re: Re: Puzzling

    Emailed comments are not included in ECFS. If you actually filed a comment via ECFS, search on your name (without delimiters like dates) and see what comes up.

  • On the post: Guy Files Dishwasher User Manual As An FCC Comment On Net Neutrality

    fgoodwin ( profile ), 30 Jul, 2014 @ 08:42am

    Re: Re: Puzzling

    So Mike was casually browsing a million comments and happened to stumble upon this one? Sure he did.

    I think the more likely explanation is that Kurt Schaake tipped-off TechDirt as a way of publicizing his own stupid comment.

    But hey, First Amendment, YAY!

  • On the post: If You Want To Know How Supporting Techdirt Can Help Shift The Debate In Washington DC, Read This

    fgoodwin ( profile ), 29 Jul, 2014 @ 12:20pm

    Lobbyists are necessary

    All this article shows is just how little Congresspeople and their staffers know about any given topic. It basically proves that lobbying is necessary to educate them.

    It also shows how naïve some staffers can be. I like reading TechDirt, too. But if Jen thinks TechDirt has no agenda other than "the public interest" then she truly does need some help.

  • On the post: Comcast Ramps Up Ad Campaign Claiming To Support Net Neutrality, Even As It Really Supports Killing It

    fgoodwin ( profile ), 25 Jul, 2014 @ 10:30am

    Re: i can't find out who is responsible for this mess...

    Have you actually SEEN an ISP "non-compete" agreement? If you have, then I challenge you to produce it. Otherwise, I'm not so sure Comcast is the one "lying" here.

Next >>