On 11/21/2014 5:47 PM, Drew Lentz wrote:
So here's what sparked the question. I was trying to get some
point-counterpoint going on with a friend of mine and found some
pretty good arguments on each. This article made me think about it all
a little differently:
http://www.netcompetition.org/congress/the-multi-billion-dollar-impact-of-fcc-title-ii-broadband-for-google-entire-internet-ecosystem
To Fred's point, the article mentions:
"That's because of the way the law and the forbearance provision are
written; they apparently do not allow for any immaculate ruling where
the FCC somehow rules the service and carrier of Internet traffic are
regulated, but not the Internet traffic itself that is precisely what
defines the service and carrier."
The article is pure garbage. Read the January ruling of the DC
Circuit. It was quite clear that the Computer II framework was legal.
And the Telecom Act was meant to memorialize that, not overturn it. The
Computer II framework very explicitly held that the "basic" carrier
function was regulated while the higher-layer "enhanced" traffic was
not. The reason the FCC keeps getting in trouble is that they don't
want restore that working model, since it would hurt some carriers'
fee-fees.
The idea that Title II requires metered pricing makes less sense than
the average diarrhea that comes from Louis Gohmerts' tuchus. The .0007
rate is for termination of local telephone calls; it has nothing to do
with bits or data services. Whoever wrote the article is either a) an
utter ignoramus; b) an utterly contemptible liar, or c) both.
There are all sorts of reasons why Title II would break the Internet.
But applied to the access layer, it would simply mean that ISPs could
lease DSL for a certain price per line per month, and perhaps a certain
number of cents per gigabit, but that price would have to be "just and
reasonable" in light of its actual cost to provision.
Oh, and Scott Cleland is now a lobbyist for the Bells, a professional
liar who used to pretend to be an industry "analyst" for the Wall Street
crowd, but who always shilled for the Bells.
Anyhow, not trying to beat a dead horse, but this got me questioning
things :) Have a great weekend y'all!
-drew
On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 4:45 PM, Drew Lentz <d...@drewlentz.com
<mailto:d...@drewlentz.com>> wrote:
So here's what sparked the question. I was trying to get some
point-counterpoint going on with a friend of mine and found some
pretty good arguments on each. This article made me think about it
all a little differently:
_______________________________________________
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
--
Fred R. Goldstein k1io fred "at" interisle.net
Interisle Consulting Group
+1 617 795 2701
_______________________________________________
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
