Just and reasonable... Give me a break.
There is a reason the carriers let the POTS network decay... My wife,
before she died, spent 28 years with Michigan Bell... From before Judge
Greene, thru Ameritec and then SBC. She saw this from the inside.
Because they were forced to allow others to use their wired plant at
prices below the cost of maintenance, let alone upgrades.
Do you want to be forced to allow other to use your wireless network?
And have your costs and reimbursements determined by bureaucrats?
Title II, if forced on the small wisps, will kill us.
--
On 11/21/2014 6:19 PM, Fred Goldstein wrote:
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 <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> 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
[email protected]
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
[email protected]
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
--
West Michigan Wireless ISP
Allegan, Michigan 49010
269-686-8648
A Division of:
Camp Communication Services, INC
_______________________________________________
Wireless mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
