FCC Boss Calls For Net Neutrality (T, VZ, CMCSA, GOOG)

[Dave Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

> From: "David P. Reed" <dpreed () reed com>
> Date: September 19, 2009 16:45:14 EDT
> To: dave () farber net
> Cc: ip <ip () v2 listbox com>
> Subject: Re: [IP] FCC Boss Calls For Net Neutrality (T, VZ, CMCSA,  
> GOOG)

> I understand Glass is a smal businessman.   What I don't understand  
> is why he argues that small businesses are the target of this rule,  
> or that small businesses should be given the right to read contents  
> of packets and discriminate based on content.
>
> As far as I know, package delivery services do fine without opening  
> boxes, even when they are one-person bicycle couriers.  That's what  
> is meant by non-discriminatory service.
>
> And taxicabs are required as a condition of their license by a city  
> to carry anyone, regardless of race or sex.
>
> ISPs operate (no matter what the scale) based on licenses from  
> government.  Even Brett's ISP does.
>
> I really like small businesses.  That doesn't mean they shouldn't  
> have to follow *any* rules.
>
> (and the slam of Google is really weird.  Google isn't even an ISP.)
>
>
> On 09/19/2009 03:52 PM, Dave Farber wrote:
> > Begin forwarded message:
> >
> > > From: Brett Glass <brett () lariat net>
> > > Date: September 18, 2009 21:13:09 EDT
> > > To: dave () farber net, ip <ip () v2 listbox com>
> > > Subject: Re: [IP] FCC Boss Calls For Net Neutrality (T, VZ, CMCSA,  
> > > GOOG)
> >
> > > Dave, and everyone:
> > >
> > > I certainly hope that this is not so, because it would be  
> > > particularly ill timed. Currently, the FCC is involved in a  
> > > lawsuit in which its previous attempt to enforce "network  
> > > neutrality" -- without properly implementing regulations -- is  
> > > being challenged. What's more, in the same lawsuit, the  
> > > Commission's authority to promulgate any such regulations is  
> > > likewise being challenged.
> > >
> > > I hope that the Chairman did not feel compelled to take hasty,  
> > > unwise action by the remarks of several members of Congress at a  
> > > hearing this week. (See
> > >
> > > http://www.c-span.org/Watch/Media/2009/09/17/HP/R/23259/FCC+Begins+Work+on+Expanding+Broadband+Services.aspx
> > >
> > > -- in particular the opening remarks -- for their comments.) Not  
> > > only is "network neutrality" a buzzphrase with agreed-upon  
> > > definition; it is also an agenda which favors certain large  
> > > corporations with large lobbying budgets (e.g. Google) over small  
> > > American businesses. The thousands of small, independent,  
> > > competitive ISPs which provide citizens with broadband choice, and  
> > > cover areas which larger providers will not cover, would very  
> > > likely be a thing of the past should such regulation be imposed.  
> > > (It has already scared away investors, depriving my company and  
> > > others like it of the capital we need to build out our network to  
> > > reach unserved rural areas.) "Network neutrality" regulation would  
> > > do great service to those corporations but great harm to the  
> > > public at large.
> > >
> > > --Brett Glass
> > Archives        



-------------------------------------------
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com