Given Tom Wheeler's previous work with Comcast, he surely was knowledgeable with the important issues pointed out by OpEd contributors. What concerns me is that the supposed "net neutrality" protection offered by the FCC fails to honestly define itself as part of a bigger "open and free Internet" that makes possible access to all and that has become a beacon for democracies around the world.
After months of silence, President Obama latched onto an opportunity to regulate the Internet, capitalizing on the residual "throttling" and "prioritization" angst felt by Americans following the January 2014 Verizon court case decision. The President helped enhance his popularity among Americans with whom he had fallen in to disfavor by declaring that he would enforce "net neutrality." Theoretically FCC agencies are supposed to operate impartially, but the President placed pressure on Wheeler to move beyond initial hesitations and commit to a constitutionally questionable plan of action.
The President also wanted to collect $16 billion in fees for a federally funded project. Additionally, though, states and localities would be able to collect taxes on mobile phone broadband,thereby increasing mobile phone costs by 22% and more.
Gradually, American are understanding that important tenents of a "free and open Internet" have been violated. For one, the FCC Title II solution hurts the disadvantaged who mostly rely on their cell phone to access the Internet. Denying them access to free content further adds insult to damage. In fact, doing so censors the Internet, something I'm wondering might anticipate the President's desires to treat political content on the Internet as it's done on TV (the FEC Commissioner has already come public about this intent).
Our "free and open Internet" would become stymied in other ways because by making it much tougher for smaller ISP and Internet of things businesses to launch their endeavors. In order to obtain approval from a slew of bureaucrats, costly lawyers would be required to interpret and comply with the complicated and nuanced FCC Title II reclassification of the Internet as a utility. The reclassification achieved by forbearing inapplicable rules that were intended for 1930s utilities.
Prior to the FCC vote, a Progressive poll showed that at least 70% of Americans requested guidance in better understanding "net neutrality." Of those that understood, over 65% opposed the feds regulating the Internet. Most Americans want less big government, not more.
Wheeler ignored concerns expressed by two commissioners and speedily put through the Title II regs. He provided a brief blog that was full of generalities and vagaries. Even after the FCC vote, yet another poll showed that most Americans didn't understand what was going on and, again, those who did were preponderantly against big government getting involved. Once again, the administration operated in a stealth rather than transparent manner.
The industry giants can benefit in yet another way. As was warned by Commissioner Pai, smaller industry businesses would be unable to participate in the Parity Program because they unable to bid up to what DISH could easily afford to do. While Wheeler might now modify the Parity Program (unlike a law, FCC regs can easily be changed, another weakness), why didn't he listen to Pai's advice weeks before the vote was cast? Pai more recently further expanded his concerns in another report:
We'll have to see who litigates. I suspect it might not be the giant ISPs; Comcast has already intimidated that while litigation was inevitable, they might not do so.
A federal court injunction might put a halt to all this nonsense, but I fear not before more adverse ramifications occur.
Fortunately many of our democratic allies observed short-comings inherent in the FCC Title II "net neutrality" regs and incorporated corrections in their own solutions.
I'm glad that Netflix and Mark Zuckerman have acknowledged their mistake in backing the FCC Title II reclassification. Google surely understood problems but stayed silent because it was intent on increasing its fiber optics market.
Seem like "fairness" as echoed across the county advocates of the Marketplace Fairness Act sounded right to the Senate that passed the act May 6, 2013 as the vote followed the $50 million lobby funds. And now it seems to be getting much mileage in the House because it "sounds" right, maybe like a universal truth padded by yet another $50 million.
Perhaps the Congressmen will get the small business' point if we rename it the "Grinch that Stole Christmas Act!"
Big gov't again picks winners & losers
Given Tom Wheeler's previous work with Comcast, he surely was knowledgeable with the important issues pointed out by OpEd contributors. What concerns me is that the supposed "net neutrality" protection offered by the FCC fails to honestly define itself as part of a bigger "open and free Internet" that makes possible access to all and that has become a beacon for democracies around the world.
After months of silence, President Obama latched onto an opportunity to regulate the Internet, capitalizing on the residual "throttling" and "prioritization" angst felt by Americans following the January 2014 Verizon court case decision. The President helped enhance his popularity among Americans with whom he had fallen in to disfavor by declaring that he would enforce "net neutrality." Theoretically FCC agencies are supposed to operate impartially, but the President placed pressure on Wheeler to move beyond initial hesitations and commit to a constitutionally questionable plan of action.
The President also wanted to collect $16 billion in fees for a federally funded project. Additionally, though, states and localities would be able to collect taxes on mobile phone broadband,thereby increasing mobile phone costs by 22% and more.
Gradually, American are understanding that important tenents of a "free and open Internet" have been violated. For one, the FCC Title II solution hurts the disadvantaged who mostly rely on their cell phone to access the Internet. Denying them access to free content further adds insult to damage. In fact, doing so censors the Internet, something I'm wondering might anticipate the President's desires to treat political content on the Internet as it's done on TV (the FEC Commissioner has already come public about this intent).
Our "free and open Internet" would become stymied in other ways because by making it much tougher for smaller ISP and Internet of things businesses to launch their endeavors. In order to obtain approval from a slew of bureaucrats, costly lawyers would be required to interpret and comply with the complicated and nuanced FCC Title II reclassification of the Internet as a utility. The reclassification achieved by forbearing inapplicable rules that were intended for 1930s utilities.
Prior to the FCC vote, a Progressive poll showed that at least 70% of Americans requested guidance in better understanding "net neutrality." Of those that understood, over 65% opposed the feds regulating the Internet. Most Americans want less big government, not more.
Wheeler ignored concerns expressed by two commissioners and speedily put through the Title II regs. He provided a brief blog that was full of generalities and vagaries. Even after the FCC vote, yet another poll showed that most Americans didn't understand what was going on and, again, those who did were preponderantly against big government getting involved. Once again, the administration operated in a stealth rather than transparent manner.
The industry giants can benefit in yet another way. As was warned by Commissioner Pai, smaller industry businesses would be unable to participate in the Parity Program because they unable to bid up to what DISH could easily afford to do. While Wheeler might now modify the Parity Program (unlike a law, FCC regs can easily be changed, another weakness), why didn't he listen to Pai's advice weeks before the vote was cast? Pai more recently further expanded his concerns in another report:
http://www.fcc.gov/document/remarks-commissioner-ajit-pai-2015-nab-show
We'll have to see who litigates. I suspect it might not be the giant ISPs; Comcast has already intimidated that while litigation was inevitable, they might not do so.
A federal court injunction might put a halt to all this nonsense, but I fear not before more adverse ramifications occur.
Fortunately many of our democratic allies observed short-comings inherent in the FCC Title II "net neutrality" regs and incorporated corrections in their own solutions.
I'm glad that Netflix and Mark Zuckerman have acknowledged their mistake in backing the FCC Title II reclassification. Google surely understood problems but stayed silent because it was intent on increasing its fiber optics market.
Here is another link:
http://ipcarrier.blogspot.com/2014/07/all-apps-treated-equally-will-slow.html
Please join us in discussing "net neutrality" further and invite your friends, neighbors, and colleagues to do the same:
https://www.facebook.com/OpposeInternetSalesTaxes?fref=nf
Let's call the Marketplace Fairness Act the "Grinch that Stole Christmas"
Seem like "fairness" as echoed across the county advocates of the Marketplace Fairness Act sounded right to the Senate that passed the act May 6, 2013 as the vote followed the $50 million lobby funds. And now it seems to be getting much mileage in the House because it "sounds" right, maybe like a universal truth padded by yet another $50 million.
Perhaps the Congressmen will get the small business' point if we rename it the "Grinch that Stole Christmas Act!"
http://blogs.adobe.com/digitalmarketing/digital-marketing/will-the-tax-grinch-steal-internet-christmas/