Source: Free Press
Washington, D.C. - September 22, 2017 (The Ponder News) -- In filings this week about the FCC’s forthcoming wireless-competition report, Free Press called out Chairman Ajit Pai for misrepresenting the state of broadband investment following the agency’s 2015 Net Neutrality ruling.
The FCC is required by statute to compile this annual report to Congress on the state of the wireless industry. The 20th annual report is the first edition to come due during Pai’s chairmanship. The report is on the docket for the FCC’s next monthly meeting, which will take place on Tues., Sept. 26. During that meeting, the commissioners will consider and then vote on adoption of the final report. Pai released the draft of this annual report earlier this month.
In a recent speech at an industry conference, Pai claimed that this draft contains evidence that wireless-industry capital investment declined from 2015 to 2016. He suggested that this decline is due to the FCC’s February 2015 Title II reclassification decision and adoption of open-internet rules.
On Tuesday, Free Press sent a letter to Pai condemning the chairman for misusing this report and “once again misleading the public” to advance his “irrational vendetta” against the Net Neutrality rules the FCC put in place during the Obama administration.
“The easily verifiable truth is that wireless-industry investments peaked in 2013, as carriers completed the bulk of 4G LTE deployments,” the Free Press letter reads. “Both that peak, and the ongoing decline from it, predate the entire proceeding that led to the 2015 reclassification of broadband as a lightly regulated Title II service. What’s more, this is by no means the only years-long downturn for the wireless sector: Such periods of slower spending are natural — and, in the recent past, have likewise occurred outside of recessions.”
The Free Press letter includes detailed analysis that proves that this fluctuating trend is part of a larger pattern of investment that has nothing to do with the rules the FCC adopted to prevent internet-access providers from blocking, throttling or otherwise discriminating against the online communications of internet users. The letter also notes that many previous agency reports on wireless competition specifically caution against misinterpretation of short-term investment data. Yet the draft of Pai’s report provides no such historical context — and no warnings about investment patterns.
Free Press Policy Director Matt Wood made the following statement:
“Since coming into office with the Trump administration, Pai has repeatedly lied about the state of broadband investment since the 2015 open-internet rules came into effect. He’s trying to paint a picture of decline and dysfunction to justify destroying the protections that internet users need.
“The real investment numbers tell a completely different story. Our letter to Chairman Pai restores the context about wireless investment that his draft report tries to hide, and in the process we restore information that Pai quite literally would erase from the historical record if he could get away with it.
“The FCC — and wireless carriers too — used to acknowledge basic truths about investment. Over the long haul — and since the 2015 Open Internet Order — broadband investment has been on the rise. But there are fluctuations from year to year, and from one company to another, because different carriers are on different upgrade paths.
“You don’t have to take our word for it: Our letter cites AT&T’s own comments on wireless investment, explaining that ‘there is no reason to expect capital expenditures to increase by the same amount year after year’ because carriers ‘make significant expenditures to upgrade and expand their networks in one year ... and then focus the next year on signing up customers and integrating those new facilities into their existing networks.’ In other words, according to AT&T itself, ‘Minor variations from year to year ... should not be surprising.’
“Wireless investment has been trending downwards since 2013, after most of the big carriers finished their 4G buildouts. It should start to tick back up again soon as carriers head into the next-generation 5G network buildouts in earnest. None of this has anything to do with the FCC’s decision in 2015 to treat broadband as a Title II service. It’s just the way the business works. Chairman Pai is either ignorant of that reality, or trying to fool you. We suspect it’s the latter.
“Broadband investment after Title II is doing just fine, but it’s never been true that every company or every sector spends more and more money every single year. In fact, as technology improves, carriers can sometimes spend less while getting better results for their money. Our letter describes the cyclical nature of wireless investment, and it also shows that prior FCC chairmen — Republicans and Democrats alike — issued annual reports that rightly recognized this truth. Those reports duly cautioned that simple aggregate investment totals and changes from year to year should not be over-interpreted by analysts and policymakers.
“Chairman Pai ignores this wisdom in his determination to misuse and cherry-pick data suiting his predetermined positions. He seems content to parrot the hysteria and faulty research of phone and cable lobbyists and their paid-for analysts. Unlike Pai, the real numbers don’t lie, and they paint a picture of a healthy and growing broadband sector since the rules were put in place.
“In this most recent report, Pai is up to the same old tricks. He’s deliberately obscured the facts and ignored the findings contained in prior reports, which routinely found extended periods of declining investment in years before the 2015 Open Internet Order vote. This year’s report should do the same or better — instead of pretending there’s some unusual decline and then attempting to pin it on Title II.”
The Unpopular Truth
Showing posts with label Net Neutrality. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Net Neutrality. Show all posts
Friday, September 22, 2017
Saturday, July 22, 2017
FCC Plan to Scuttle Open Internet Rule 'Disastrous' For the Future of the Internet, Experts Say
Washington, D.C. - July 22, 2017 (The Ponder News) -- The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) urged the FCC to keep in place net neutrality rules, which are essential to prevent cable companies like Comcast and Verizon from controlling, censoring, and discriminating against their subscribers’ favorite Internet content.
In comments submitted today, EFF came out strongly in opposition to the FCC’s plan to reverse the agency’s 2015 open Internet rules, which were designed to guarantee that service providers treat everyone’s content equally. The reversal would send a clear signal that those providers can engage in data discrimination, such as blocking websites, slowing down Internet speeds for certain content—known as throttling—and charging subscribers fees to access movies, social media, and other entertainment content over “fast lanes.” Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T supply Internet service to millions of Americans, many of whom have no other alternatives for high-speed access. Given the lack of competition, the potential for abuse is very real.
EFF’s comments join those of many other user advocates, leading computer engineers, entrepreneurs, faith communities, libraries, educators, tech giants, and start-ups that are fighting for a free and open Internet. Last week those players gave the Internet a taste of what a world without net neutrality would look like by temporarily blocking and throttling their content. Such scenarios aren’t merely possible—they are likely, EFF said in its comments. Internet service providers (ISPs) have already demonstrated that they are willing to discriminate against competitors and block content for their own benefit, while harming the Internet experience of users.
“ISPs have incentives to shape Internet traffic and the FCC knows full well of instances where consumers have been harmed. AT&T blocked data sent by Apple’s FaceTime software, Comcast has interfered with Internet traffic generated by certain applications, and ISPs have rerouted users’ web searches to websites they didn’t request or expect,” said EFF Senior Staff Attorney Mitch Stoltz. “These are just some examples of ISPs controlling our Internet experience. Users pay them to connect to the Internet, not decide for them what they can see and do there.”
Nearly 200 computer scientists, network engineers, and Internet professionals also submitted comments today highlighting deep flaws in the FCC’s technical description of how the Internet works. The FCC is attempting to pass off its incorrect technical analysis to justify its plan to reclassify ISPs so they are not subject to net neutrality rules. The engineers’ submission—signed by such experts as Vint Cerf, co-designer of the Internet’s fundamental protocols; Mitch Kapor, a personal computer industry pioneer and EFF co-founder; and programmer Sarah Allen, who led the team that created Flash video—sets the record straight about how the Internet works and how rolling back net neutrality would have disastrous effects on Internet innovation.
“We are concerned that the FCC (or at least Chairman Pai and the authors of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking) appears to lack a fundamental understanding of what the Internet’s technology promises to provide, how the Internet actually works, which entities in the Internet ecosystem provide which services, and what the similarities and differences are between the Internet and other telecommunications systems the FCC regulates as telecommunications services,” the letter said.
“It is clear to us that if the FCC were to reclassify broadband access service providers as information services, and thereby put the bright-line, light-touch rules from the Open Internet Order in jeopardy, the result could be a disastrous decrease in the overall value of the Internet.”
In comments submitted today, EFF came out strongly in opposition to the FCC’s plan to reverse the agency’s 2015 open Internet rules, which were designed to guarantee that service providers treat everyone’s content equally. The reversal would send a clear signal that those providers can engage in data discrimination, such as blocking websites, slowing down Internet speeds for certain content—known as throttling—and charging subscribers fees to access movies, social media, and other entertainment content over “fast lanes.” Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T supply Internet service to millions of Americans, many of whom have no other alternatives for high-speed access. Given the lack of competition, the potential for abuse is very real.
EFF’s comments join those of many other user advocates, leading computer engineers, entrepreneurs, faith communities, libraries, educators, tech giants, and start-ups that are fighting for a free and open Internet. Last week those players gave the Internet a taste of what a world without net neutrality would look like by temporarily blocking and throttling their content. Such scenarios aren’t merely possible—they are likely, EFF said in its comments. Internet service providers (ISPs) have already demonstrated that they are willing to discriminate against competitors and block content for their own benefit, while harming the Internet experience of users.
“ISPs have incentives to shape Internet traffic and the FCC knows full well of instances where consumers have been harmed. AT&T blocked data sent by Apple’s FaceTime software, Comcast has interfered with Internet traffic generated by certain applications, and ISPs have rerouted users’ web searches to websites they didn’t request or expect,” said EFF Senior Staff Attorney Mitch Stoltz. “These are just some examples of ISPs controlling our Internet experience. Users pay them to connect to the Internet, not decide for them what they can see and do there.”
Nearly 200 computer scientists, network engineers, and Internet professionals also submitted comments today highlighting deep flaws in the FCC’s technical description of how the Internet works. The FCC is attempting to pass off its incorrect technical analysis to justify its plan to reclassify ISPs so they are not subject to net neutrality rules. The engineers’ submission—signed by such experts as Vint Cerf, co-designer of the Internet’s fundamental protocols; Mitch Kapor, a personal computer industry pioneer and EFF co-founder; and programmer Sarah Allen, who led the team that created Flash video—sets the record straight about how the Internet works and how rolling back net neutrality would have disastrous effects on Internet innovation.
“We are concerned that the FCC (or at least Chairman Pai and the authors of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking) appears to lack a fundamental understanding of what the Internet’s technology promises to provide, how the Internet actually works, which entities in the Internet ecosystem provide which services, and what the similarities and differences are between the Internet and other telecommunications systems the FCC regulates as telecommunications services,” the letter said.
“It is clear to us that if the FCC were to reclassify broadband access service providers as information services, and thereby put the bright-line, light-touch rules from the Open Internet Order in jeopardy, the result could be a disastrous decrease in the overall value of the Internet.”
Monday, July 17, 2017
Net Neutrality: Be Informed
In keeping with the reason I created this news blog, I am including information about Net Neutrality, which is coming to the forefront, once again, as an issue worth take note of. If you are going to form an opinion for or against Net Neutrality, then it is best to get all the information you can find. This should get you started:
The FCC Needs Your Quality Comments About Net Neutrality Today
TechDirt.com
July 17, 2017
Today is the deadline for the first round of the FCC's comment period on its attempt to roll back the 2015 open internet "net neutrality" rules. The deadline is partly meaningless, because there's a second comment period that is technically to respond to earlier comments -- but allows you to just file more comments. However, it is still important to make your voice heard no matter which side you're on. We'll be posting our own comments later today, but first, we wanted to share Mike Godwin's thoughtful discussion on why you should comment and why you should provide a thoughtful, careful "quality" comment, which he first posted to the R-Street blog, but which is being cross posted here.
Read more...
Net Neutrality Is A Poor Solution To The Wrong Problem
Forbes
July 16, 2017
It appears likely the Federal Communications Commission is going to modify its stance on net neutrality, issuing new rules that will allow some actions opposed by advocates of net neutrality. At the simplest level, the forthcoming rules supposedly will allow internet service providers to accept payment from content providers for faster delivery and potentially even allow throttling or complete denial of access. This is progress. Net neutrality is bad policy and would be unnecessary if the FCC addressed the real problem: local governments overcharging for their right-of-way.
Read more...
Doyle Supports Net Neutrality
Mike Doyle (D-PA, 14th)
July 12, 2017
“The American People have spoken out loud and clear in support of Net Neutrality - more than 6.5 million people have filed comments with the FCC so far this year. They support the current Net Neutrality rules, which protect consumers, small businesses, and edge providers looking to provide innovative and competitive new services. They deserve to have their views respected by the federal government.
Read more...
FCC chair Ajit Pai explains why he wants to scrap net neutrality
PBS Newshour
April 27, 2017
A political fight is brewing about access to the Internet. The new head of the FCC, the Federal Communications Commission, wants to clear away regulations about who controls and polices the flow of content on the Internet.
Read more...
Am I The Only Techie Against Net Neutrality?
Forbes
MAY 14, 2014
If you watch the news, it seems just about everyone is in favor of “Net Neutrality” legislation. Despite being a tech-addicted entrepreneur, I am not. No, I am not a paid shill for the cable industry. I am no fan of Comcast or any other ISP I’ve ever had the "pleasure" of dealing with. I’m skeptical of large corporations generally and dislike the fact that in this debate I appear to be on their side. While I have no problem with net neutrality as a principle or concept, I have serious concerns about Net Neutrality as legislation or public policy. And since a false dichotomy is being perpetuated by the media in regards to this matter, I feel an obligation to put forth a third point of view. In taking this stand, I realize I may be the only techie, if I can aspire to that label, opposed to Net Neutrality and that I open myself to accusations of killing the dreams of young entrepreneurs, wrecking free speech, and destroying the Internet. Nevertheless, here are three reasons I’m against Net Neutrality legislation.
Read more...
Major tech firms urge U.S. to retain net neutrality rules
Reuters
July 17, 2017
A group representing major technology firms including Alphabet Inc (GOOGL.O) and Facebook Inc (FB.O) urged the U.S. Federal Communications Commission on Monday to abandon plans to reverse the landmark 2015 rules barring internet service providers from blocking or slowing consumer access to web content.
Read more...
I wsas unable to find a song against Net Neutrality, or I would have included it here as well. Enjoy!
The FCC Needs Your Quality Comments About Net Neutrality Today
TechDirt.com
July 17, 2017
Today is the deadline for the first round of the FCC's comment period on its attempt to roll back the 2015 open internet "net neutrality" rules. The deadline is partly meaningless, because there's a second comment period that is technically to respond to earlier comments -- but allows you to just file more comments. However, it is still important to make your voice heard no matter which side you're on. We'll be posting our own comments later today, but first, we wanted to share Mike Godwin's thoughtful discussion on why you should comment and why you should provide a thoughtful, careful "quality" comment, which he first posted to the R-Street blog, but which is being cross posted here.
Read more...
Net Neutrality Is A Poor Solution To The Wrong Problem
Forbes
July 16, 2017
It appears likely the Federal Communications Commission is going to modify its stance on net neutrality, issuing new rules that will allow some actions opposed by advocates of net neutrality. At the simplest level, the forthcoming rules supposedly will allow internet service providers to accept payment from content providers for faster delivery and potentially even allow throttling or complete denial of access. This is progress. Net neutrality is bad policy and would be unnecessary if the FCC addressed the real problem: local governments overcharging for their right-of-way.
Read more...
Doyle Supports Net Neutrality
Mike Doyle (D-PA, 14th)
July 12, 2017
“The American People have spoken out loud and clear in support of Net Neutrality - more than 6.5 million people have filed comments with the FCC so far this year. They support the current Net Neutrality rules, which protect consumers, small businesses, and edge providers looking to provide innovative and competitive new services. They deserve to have their views respected by the federal government.
Read more...
FCC chair Ajit Pai explains why he wants to scrap net neutrality
PBS Newshour
April 27, 2017
A political fight is brewing about access to the Internet. The new head of the FCC, the Federal Communications Commission, wants to clear away regulations about who controls and polices the flow of content on the Internet.
Read more...
Am I The Only Techie Against Net Neutrality?
Forbes
MAY 14, 2014
If you watch the news, it seems just about everyone is in favor of “Net Neutrality” legislation. Despite being a tech-addicted entrepreneur, I am not. No, I am not a paid shill for the cable industry. I am no fan of Comcast or any other ISP I’ve ever had the "pleasure" of dealing with. I’m skeptical of large corporations generally and dislike the fact that in this debate I appear to be on their side. While I have no problem with net neutrality as a principle or concept, I have serious concerns about Net Neutrality as legislation or public policy. And since a false dichotomy is being perpetuated by the media in regards to this matter, I feel an obligation to put forth a third point of view. In taking this stand, I realize I may be the only techie, if I can aspire to that label, opposed to Net Neutrality and that I open myself to accusations of killing the dreams of young entrepreneurs, wrecking free speech, and destroying the Internet. Nevertheless, here are three reasons I’m against Net Neutrality legislation.
Read more...
Major tech firms urge U.S. to retain net neutrality rules
Reuters
July 17, 2017
A group representing major technology firms including Alphabet Inc (GOOGL.O) and Facebook Inc (FB.O) urged the U.S. Federal Communications Commission on Monday to abandon plans to reverse the landmark 2015 rules barring internet service providers from blocking or slowing consumer access to web content.
Read more...
I wsas unable to find a song against Net Neutrality, or I would have included it here as well. Enjoy!
Saturday, June 18, 2016
Legal Aid, Cuba, Net Neutrality, Weapons, GOP Agenda
On June 16, 2016, Rep. Matt Salmon (R-AZ, 5th) announced the tenth bill in his 2016 Shrink our Spending Initiative to highlight and cut wasteful taxpayer-funded programs. Upon introduction of his latest bill to eliminate the duplicative and wasteful Legal Services Corporation, he said, “Legal Aid services are a very common mechanism to assist our society’s poor who need legal representation. But these programs are funded at the state and local level, and connected directly to the people they serve. The Legal Services Corporation was chartered to be a federal variant, but in recent years it has been abused as a way to line the pockets of wealthy, well-connected lawyers who use its funds to lobby for new government programs, and then sue to expand them. And let’s not even mention the bogus charges for booze and travel. Let’s give the taxpayer a break and put an end to this waste.”
===
The Senate Appropriations Committee approved an amendment to the Senate Financial Services Appropriations bill that would allow travel to Cuba.
===
The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals just issued its long-awaited decision striking down the FCC’s network neutrality rule. This is the second time in four years that this court struck down the FCC’s attempt to adopt a network neutrality rule. It is now legal for AT&T or Verizon to block Slate, your blog, or any other site. You can read more about this by clicking HERE
===
Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA, 28th), the Ranking Member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, sent a letter to President Obama urging the Administration take a small step to help prevent future attacks like the Orlando massacre. Schiff encourages the Administration to consider providing F.B.I. agents with the discretion to place a tag on someone who had been under a terror investigation that would generate a hit when they go to purchase a weapon. Schiff also reiterated his support for “No Fly No Buy” legislation to prevent known or suspected terrorists from purchasing firearms or explosives.
===
House Republicans Unveil Bold Agenda to Restore Balance of Powers, Reassert Congress' Unique Constitutional Role. Check out "A Better Way" by clicking HERE
===
The Senate Appropriations Committee approved an amendment to the Senate Financial Services Appropriations bill that would allow travel to Cuba.
===
The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals just issued its long-awaited decision striking down the FCC’s network neutrality rule. This is the second time in four years that this court struck down the FCC’s attempt to adopt a network neutrality rule. It is now legal for AT&T or Verizon to block Slate, your blog, or any other site. You can read more about this by clicking HERE
===
Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA, 28th), the Ranking Member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, sent a letter to President Obama urging the Administration take a small step to help prevent future attacks like the Orlando massacre. Schiff encourages the Administration to consider providing F.B.I. agents with the discretion to place a tag on someone who had been under a terror investigation that would generate a hit when they go to purchase a weapon. Schiff also reiterated his support for “No Fly No Buy” legislation to prevent known or suspected terrorists from purchasing firearms or explosives.
===
House Republicans Unveil Bold Agenda to Restore Balance of Powers, Reassert Congress' Unique Constitutional Role. Check out "A Better Way" by clicking HERE
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)