You may remember this quote from Free Press' Derek Turner, "If members of Congress understood that the FCC is contemplating a broadband tax, they'd sit up and take notice," said Derek Turner, research director for Free Press, a consumer advocacy group that opposes the tax (http://thehill.com/policy/technology/245479-fcc-eyes-tax-on-internet-service).
Seems this fear - which echoes a regressive theme - is curiously missing in your piece. After all, if the b-band providers imposed (at least) a $4 billion fee / tax for their services, you'd be up in arms (as piece of your report hint at). But if the government does it, you go all cricket on us. C'mon.
Wonder what Turner thinks - I mean, Free Press basically admits taxes and fees are going up as a result of their reclassification push / FCC actions. BY BILLIONS!
We get in on the unfair and unbalanced stuff on your opinion page. That's fine. You have a stake in seeing Title II go through, and anything that questions those numerous assumption is hurtful to your argument. Fine.
This idea is not specifically on the table (we are led to believe), but it could happen via Section 251. But, Open Access has failed here. Why would it now "work"?
Thanks for highlighting the section of the Comm Act - i.e., 201(b) - that allows reasonable discrimination and service differentiation by common carriers. If ISPs get regulated with Title II, it is here they'll be able to provide, gulp, prioritized services.
Re: Amazingly weak article
Richard, tremendous rebuttal!
Re: Re: Hal Singer rebuttal of Free Press
Fees / taxes are going up by billions as a consequence of T2. 'Nuff said.
Thanks, Free Press.
Hal Singer rebuttal of Free Press
PPI's Hal Singer has a good surrebuttal of the Free Press rebuttal here:
https://haljsinger.wordpress.com/2014/12/03/flaws-in-free-presss-alternative-estimate-of-new-state-and-local-fees-attributable-to-reclassification/
You may remember this quote from Free Press' Derek Turner, "If members of Congress understood that the FCC is contemplating a broadband tax, they'd sit up and take notice," said Derek Turner, research director for Free Press, a consumer advocacy group that opposes the tax (http://thehill.com/policy/technology/245479-fcc-eyes-tax-on-internet-service).
Seems this fear - which echoes a regressive theme - is curiously missing in your piece. After all, if the b-band providers imposed (at least) a $4 billion fee / tax for their services, you'd be up in arms (as piece of your report hint at). But if the government does it, you go all cricket on us. C'mon.
Wonder what Turner thinks - I mean, Free Press basically admits taxes and fees are going up as a result of their reclassification push / FCC actions. BY BILLIONS!
We get in on the unfair and unbalanced stuff on your opinion page. That's fine. You have a stake in seeing Title II go through, and anything that questions those numerous assumption is hurtful to your argument. Fine.
Keep up the good work!
Re: Re: Re: Re: 201(b) allows reasonable discrimination
This idea is not specifically on the table (we are led to believe), but it could happen via Section 251. But, Open Access has failed here. Why would it now "work"?
Re: Re: 201(b) allows reasonable discrimination
How so, John? 201 (and 202) have nothing to do with that.
201(b) allows reasonable discrimination
Thanks for highlighting the section of the Comm Act - i.e., 201(b) - that allows reasonable discrimination and service differentiation by common carriers. If ISPs get regulated with Title II, it is here they'll be able to provide, gulp, prioritized services.
It was PCCC's publicity stunt that backfired
Mike, it was PCCC's publicity stunt and it backfired. None won, as noted here:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/Examiner-Opinion-Zone/95-PCCC-Pro-Net-Neutrality-Democrats-all-lost-on-Tuesday-and-PCCC-raised-less-than-300-on-it-106899848.html
What would they / you make of it all (or even a substantial portion) won?