Slashdot Mirror

The actual FCC rule about whether captions are required for streaming depends on two things: when the content originally aired on TV and when the device displaying them was built/updated (so that devices that were built before the rules don't apply). It's actually pretty fair.

http://www.fcc.gov/guides/capt...

The lawsuit was basically an attempt by lawyers to apply the ADA (Americans With Disabilities Act) to Internet closed captions to argue that those reasonable FCC rules aren't enough, and they should "get money" from companies that are really trying as hard as they can to follow the actual rules...

Another problem are price controls.

Often the local franchise authority (set up by the city or state or county) sets prices for services.

If the price is set too low, then the cable company can't legally charge enough to pay for the infrastructure to reach certain customers, even if those customers are willing to pay more to get service.

There are better ways than censorship. Bomb detecting equipment. I always thought smoke detectors are the answer to someone yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater. Check the sensors instead of immediately panicking?

Technology doesn't cure everything.

And in many cases, what people here claim is censorship is merely an application of common sense and manners.

I don't see an ugly woman or man and feel compelled to rush up to them and tell them they are ugly.

You just cannot go to extremes in defense of free speech. It's like any other pure ideology, because you end up at a point where you expect your right to free speech trumps someone else's right to free speech.

Note: there was an exact case of this. An amateur radio operator some years ago was broadcasting opinions and other stuff on Amateur radio frequencies. He would intentionally interfere with others on what he considered "his" frequency. If you were near "his" frequency when he exercised his freedom of speech, He'd interrupt your communications and tell you to move. If you didn't, you'd be jammed.

http://www.fcc.gov/document/us...

http://ve7kfm.com/k1man.html

http://www.eham.net/articles/9...

http://forums.qrz.com/showthre...

So for as hypothetical as that whole pile of stupidity sounds, where your freedom trumps everyone else's freedom, it has happened.

The tl;dr summary is that This guy insisted upon his freedom to do several illegal things, at the same time purposely denying others their own right to do perfectly legal things.

It's the end game, where the only person allowed to speak is the biggest, loudest asshole in the room who then won't allow you to speak.

The section I quoted defines "Broadband Internet access sevice". What you're talking about is irrelevant for the purposes of this rule.

What the 25 Mbps / 3 Mbps defines is not "broadband" but "advanced telecommunications capability". See the actual rule (actually "Broadband Progress Report and Notice of Inquiry"):

http://www.fcc.gov/document/fc...

http://www.fcc.gov/guides/unde...

The access charge is not mandated by the FCC and the universal service charge is not required to be passed on to you (telcos do it because the FCC can't stop them.)

So... stop lying, basically.
=Smidge=

In it, Pai clearly says why he opposed the plan to regulate the Internet under title II of the telecommunications. Quoting:

"But if this Order manages to survive judicial review, these will be the consequences: higher broadband prices, slower speeds, less broadband deployment, less innovation, and fewer options for American consumers. To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, President Obama’s plan to regulate the Internet isn’t the solution to a problem. His plan is the problem.

In short, because this Order imposes intrusive government regulations that won’t work to solve a problem that doesn’t exist using legal authority the FCC doesn’t have, I dissent."

The cheerleaders of "net neutrality" have become the cheerleaders of regulation of the Internet-- the most incredible invention and display of the power of free-market capitalism. I say this from someone who started at 300baud modems and now have 50Mbps. Compare that to the "speed and efficiency" of the post office, or the DMV, which is managed by the idiots in Washington.

Section 255 of Title II applies to Internet providers now, as does section 225 of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA):

http://www.fcc.gov/guides/tele...

http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedi...

These rules have such unbelievable broad statements as:

"Accessibility and usability must be assessed for individual products and services. Accessibility features that can be incorporated into the design of products or services with very little or no difficulty or expense must be put in each and every product or service."

"...require network architecture to be designed in a way that does not hinder access by people with disabilities. Network architecture covers the public switched telephone network, and includes hardware or software databases associated with routing telecommunications services."

"Telecommunications service providers and equipment manufacturers must provide the FCC with the name and contact information of the person (or persons) in their companies who are authorized to resolve accessibility complaints."

"Each common carrier providing telephone voice transmission services shall, not later than 3 years after July 26, 1990, provide in compliance with the regulations prescribed under this section, throughout the area in which it offers service, telecommunications relay services"

"The term "telecommunications relay services" means telephone transmission services that provide the ability for an individual who has a hearing impairment or speech impairment to engage in communication by wire or radio with a hearing individual in a manner that is functionally equivalent to the ability of an individual who does not have a hearing impairment or speech impairment to communicate using voice communication services by wire or radio. Such term includes services that enable two-way communication between an individual who uses a TDD or other nonvoice terminal device and an individual who does not use such a device."

Many news stories have been published about how ADA was exploited by scammers to extort money out of bricks-and-mortar businesses. Now these scams are coming to the ISP biz.

http://www.adaabuse.com/

Section 255 of Title II applies to Internet providers now, as does section 225 of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA):

http://www.fcc.gov/guides/tele...

http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedi...

These rules have such unbelievable broad statements as:

"Accessibility and usability must be assessed for individual products and services. Accessibility features that can be incorporated into the design of products or services with very little or no difficulty or expense must be put in each and every product or service."

"...require network architecture to be designed in a way that does not hinder access by people with disabilities. Network architecture covers the public switched telephone network, and includes hardware or software databases associated with routing telecommunications services."

"Telecommunications service providers and equipment manufacturers must provide the FCC with the name and contact information of the person (or persons) in their companies who are authorized to resolve accessibility complaints."

"Each common carrier providing telephone voice transmission services shall, not later than 3 years after July 26, 1990, provide in compliance with the regulations prescribed under this section, throughout the area in which it offers service, telecommunications relay services"

"The term "telecommunications relay services" means telephone transmission services that provide the ability for an individual who has a hearing impairment or speech impairment to engage in communication by wire or radio with a hearing individual in a manner that is functionally equivalent to the ability of an individual who does not have a hearing impairment or speech impairment to communicate using voice communication services by wire or radio. Such term includes services that enable two-way communication between an individual who uses a TDD or other nonvoice terminal device and an individual who does not use such a device."

Many news stories have been published about how ADA was exploited by scammers to extort money out of bricks-and-mortar businesses. Now these scams are coming to the ISP biz.

http://www.adaabuse.com/

Sure. And here's what a couple of minutes on Google had to say:

FCC ADOPTS STRONG, SUSTAINABLE RULES TO PROTECT THE OPEN INTERNET

Admittedly, it was an unusual move to block access to the regulations before the vote. But they're no secret now.

ISPs deal with this in some legitimate ways like throttling (deprioritizing bittorrent packets so that they're first to drop when congestion occurs or policing the endpoints to a maximum throughput rate) and some not-so-legitimate ways (injecting connection reset packets to disrupt sessions).

Sounds like a strawman to me. No one (except perhaps the anti-NN folks, like yourself) has proposed that throttling excessive usage goes against the tenets of NN. What NN does argue, however, is that throttling *based on endpoint* is not kosher - mainly because it provides a strong negative incentive to customer quality.

From the FCC Commission Document ( http://www.fcc.gov/document/fc... ):

No Throttling: broadband providers may not impair or degrade lawful Internet traffic on the basis of content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices.

Don't confuse last-mile congestion issues (that you raise, and are legitimate) with throttling the interconnects. In your example, the BT excessive user should expect to hit monthly caps (which are not covered by NN) or overall throughput caps, especially during peak times. That's all (again referring to Commission Document) considered:

Reasonable Network Management: For the purposes of the rules, other than paid prioritization, an ISP may engage in reasonable network management. This recognizes the need of broadband providers to manage the technical and engineering aspects of their networks.

you mean THESE rules, that have been available for quite some time now?:

http://www.fcc.gov/document/fc...

That is the summary. What we don't yet have are the details.

Wrong. Hasn't been released yet: http://www.fcc.gov/blog/proces... The order is 300+ pages, not 5

you mean THESE rules, that have been available for quite some time now?:

http://www.fcc.gov/document/fc...

Put it this way, Obama can't fire Wheeler without just cause.

He does not need to fire him — he just hired him in the first place. FCC is part of the Executive branch and the commissioners are appointed by the President.

Do you not think, full agreement with the President is one of the job-requirements for the Chairman? It better be, or else the President is not doing his job...

Use of a stingray then arguably becomes a violation of 47 U.S.C. Section 333, prohibiting the causing of interference with radio communications.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/U...

https://www.fcc.gov/encycloped...

Actually, the FCC basically wrote the lawsuit with all it's work on the internet being an information service or an enhanced service prior to 96. I doubt the FCC will have to wait until republicans get in power before having to toss the title 2 regulation over the internet.

It is important to note, the FCC has never until recently held any position that the internet was anything other than a title 1 enhanced or information service. Even the brief period of time in the 90's when it became a title 2 classification due to court action that was overturned on appeal, they wrote legal briefs and filed them with the courts proclaiming the mistake in title 2 classification.

Here are a few notable quotes from one of the reports I have have been looking at.

i]t
certainly was not Congress's intent in enacting the supposedly pro-competitive, deregulatory 1996 Act to extend the burdens of current Title II regulation to Internet services, which historically have been excluded from regulation."

and

Senators Ashcroft, Ford, John F. Kerry, Abraham and Wyden emphasize that "[n]othing in the 1996 Act or its legislative history suggests that Congress intended to alter
the current classification of Internet and other information services or to expand traditional telephone regulation to new and advanced services." 75 Like Senator McCain, they state: "Rather than expand regulation to new service providers, a critical goal of the 1996 Act was to diminish regulatory burdens as competition grew."

http://transition.fcc.gov/Bure...

As much as something needed to be done about the state of internet, I don't think the FCC's move was the right thing and I'm pretty sure it will not pass the court's especially seeing how they are bragging about doing it to get around a failed court challenge to something previously. I can't see the courts siding with the FCC if there is any ambiguity at all.

Nah, he's just not looking at the right set of rules. Those rules are the ones that allow exclusive access to a larger area in which a portion may be profitable on the condition of them serving the unprofitable areas equally as well. It also includes rules concerning municipal provided broadband competing with those monopolies in particular 2 states, Tennessee and North Carolina.

http://www.fcc.gov/document/fc...

in combination with page 4 of this

http://www.fcc.gov/document/fc...

makes it clear that exclusive access is no longer allowed. This means that I can run in and saturate the profitable areas with my offerings making comcast or whoever else either lose money in general or raise their rates to avoid doing so

Ensures fair access to poles and conduits under Section 224, which would boost the deployment of new broadband networks

Nah, he's just not looking at the right set of rules. Those rules are the ones that allow exclusive access to a larger area in which a portion may be profitable on the condition of them serving the unprofitable areas equally as well. It also includes rules concerning municipal provided broadband competing with those monopolies in particular 2 states, Tennessee and North Carolina.

http://www.fcc.gov/document/fc...

in combination with page 4 of this

http://www.fcc.gov/document/fc...

makes it clear that exclusive access is no longer allowed. This means that I can run in and saturate the profitable areas with my offerings making comcast or whoever else either lose money in general or raise their rates to avoid doing so

Ensures fair access to poles and conduits under Section 224, which would boost the deployment of new broadband networks

HEH... I'm laughing with you on this.

I typed that from my phone. It was march of 1998 not 88. This is my fault as I used 98 in the first reference but later lapsed with the incorrect 1988.

  It's a PDF

http://transition.fcc.gov/Bure...

Here are a few highlights

Senators Ashcroft, Ford, John F. Kerry, Abraham and Wyden emphasize that
"[n]othing in the 1996 Act or its legislative history suggests that Congress intended to alter
the current classification of Internet and other information services or to expand traditional
telephone regulation to new and advanced services."
75
Like
Senator McCain, they state:
"Rather than expand regulation to new service providers, a critical goal of the 1996 Act was
to diminish regulatory burdens as competition grew

And I'm not sure if this is separating the two quotes because preview sucks it all into one.

We
find, however, that in defining
"telecommunications" and "information services," Congress built upon the MFJ and the
Commission's prior deregulatory actions in
Computer II
. After
careful consideration of the
statutory language and its legislative history, we affirm our prior findings that the categories
of "telecommunications service" and "information service" in the 1996 Act are mutually
exclusive.
77
Under
this interpretation, an entity offering a simple, transparent transmission
path, without the capability of providing enhanced functionality, offers
âoetelecommunications.â By
contrast, when an entity offers transmission incorporating the
âoecapability for generating, acquiring, storing, transforming, processing, retrieving, utilizing,
or making available information,â it does not offer telecommunications.
Rather,
it offers an
"information service" even though it uses telecommunications to do so.
We
believe that
this reading of the statute is most consistent with the 1996 Act's text, its legislative history,
and its procompetitive, deregulatory goals

cause this isn't over yet...

Instead of the usual there greddy bullshit why don't you read the bill ? I did and it is not what you think. It has serious flaws which will cost all of us big time in money and freedom. Dont believe me here is the bill: https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_pub...

The ruling by the FCC http://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-adopts-strong-sustainable-rules-protect-open-internet doesn't classify "the Internet" as a Title II common carrier under the Communications Act. It re-classifies "broadband Internet access service" as a telecommunications service under Title II (i.e., as a common carrier). If Comcast or Verizon builds their own walled garden service through which they do not provide a broadband Internet access service, then this particular ruling would not apply to that service. But if they provide high-speed transit for Internet traffic between their customers and the Internet, then this service must operate as a common carrier under the new rules.

Common carriers exist in all transport industries, including pipelines, trucking, busing, shipping, public airlines, public railroads, etc. The fact that they are a "common carrier" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_carrier has many legal ramifications, including the fact that they are regulated, and regulations typically say that they cannot discriminate (refuse service) in certain ways. For instance, the FCC has determined that the common carriers that are broadband Internet access services shouldn't be discriminating based on the origin of traffic (e.g., Verizon shouldn't be treating NetFlix traffic any differently than Verizon's own video streaming service traffic). It is the service they provide that makes them a common carrier, not their infrastructure.

FedEx, for example, as a shipping company is a common carrier. They use a lot of their own infrastructure, and they may even use the USPS for last mile delivery. But the package delivery service they provide is a common carrier service. They provide different classes of service, but within a given class they can't prioritize one customer's packages over another's. Southwest Airlines is a common carrier. They use their own planes and personnel to provide transportation services to the public. The public may use their own vehicles to get to the airport, and they may use a private car service on the far end to get to their hotel, but the portion of their trip that goes on Southwest Airlines planes is provided by a common carrier service. You can find many more examples of common carriers using Google.

I am posting this bill and I ask that all of you who think its great read it before spouting off out of ignorance. I am halfway through it and have serious reservations about this in fact I am saying congress needs to reign in the FCC for doing this. https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_pub...

http://www.fcc.gov/document/pr... Have fun

I don't have time to vet it while I'm working, but someone posted this on another site. Maybe this will help?

http://www.fcc.gov/document/protecting-and-promoting-open-internet-nprm

Probably once they get them on their site..

They already have the key parts of it there, for someone who would actually look instead of be spoon fed by an entertainment network:

http://www.fcc.gov/document/fc...

Oh look, yet another low information voter!

8 pages of regulations, 299+ pages of responses to the comments that were left on the FCCs website.

Let me help you with your ignorance problem.

https://twitter.com/GigiBSohnF...

http://transition.fcc.gov/Dail...

Actually, I led the fight to continue to disallow encryption on the Amateur bands just last year. I evangelized a lot of people to comment in opposition, and even dragged a reluctant ARRL into commenting when their original intent was not to do so. You'll notice that I am cited in the FCC ruling. It was only proposed to allow it for emergency communications, anyway.

You already have many different radio services where encryption is allowed. The shared, self-regulating nature of Amateur Radio makes encryption a disaster, as does the international nature. You can't self-regulate when you can't understand their communications. Nobody wants to see dxpeditions and HF communicators in general treated as spies by various nations, more than they already are.

We're perfectly happy with how useful Amateur Radio is, and it is not denial. Use the Internet and other services when you need encryption.

If you had done a bit of research, or DEITY$ forbid, read the very thread you are posting on, you'd know that what you are parroting is disingenuous drivel.

It's 8 pages of regulations. The bulk of the document is responding to the millions of FCC comments as they are required to do by law.

https://twitter.com/GigiBSohnF...

http://transition.fcc.gov/Dail...

Also, the text of the ICC/USF was 751 pages, so as regulatory documents go, this one isn't anything special.

But, by all means, keep on being a useful idiot.

Question for everyone: what are those rules?

Common Carriers Title II rules are on page 35 to 137 (102 pages long) of the linked PDF. The FCC currently classifies ISPs under Title I (first 35 pages of the same PDF), they vote tomorrow on whether or not the next 102 pages in the same Act should apply to ISPs.

Actually I do know what they are about to do. The FCC released a 4 page summary of what the regulations were going to accomplish earlier this month. Just because you have no idea what's going on doesn't mean the rest of us are as uninformed.

http://transition.fcc.gov/Dail...

The devil is in the details.

Remember the summary "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like your health plan, you can keep your health plan."?

Actually I do know what they are about to do. The FCC released a 4 page summary of what the regulations were going to accomplish earlier this month. Just because you have no idea what's going on doesn't mean the rest of us are as uninformed.

http://transition.fcc.gov/Dail...

considering the deal was likely in the works long before there was even a hint of the threat of internet regulation.

There has been the threat of internet regulation since at least the FCC Open Internet Order 2010 which was signed into law in December 2010.

There has been the hint of regulation since at least 2005, when the FCC released a poilicy statement establishing four principles of the open internet.

No, it will not change the application of the law. Sorry for such a late response. Here is the doc I was referencing (PDF warning)

They specifically state things like

39. In addressing the difficult interpretation issues posed by the conflicting positions, we start by observing that the 1996 Act effected landmark changes in a variety of areas of communications policy. We recognize that the interpretation presented by Senator Stevens would serve the goal of eliminating distinctions that result in different regulatory
treatment for firms that arguably provide similar functionalities based on whether firms provide "telecommunications" or "information services." We find, however, that in defining "telecommunications" and "information services," Congress built upon the MFJ and the Commission's prior deregulatory actions in Computer II. After careful consideration of the
statutory language and its legislative history, we affirm our prior findings that the categories of "telecommunications service" and "information service" in the 1996 Act are mutually exclusive. 77 Under this interpretation, an entity offering a simple, transparent transmission path, without the capability of providing enhanced functionality, offers âoetelecommunications.â By contrast, when an entity offers transmission incorporating the
âoecapability for generating, acquiring, storing, transforming, processing, retrieving, utilizing, or making available information,â it does not offer telecommunications. Rather,
it offers an "information service" even though it uses telecommunications to do so. We believe that this reading of the statute is most consistent with the 1996 Act's text, its legislative history, and its procompetitive, deregulatory goals.

And

45. In addition, in considering the statutory history of the 1996 Act, we note that at the time the statute was enacted, the Computer II framework had been in place for
sixteen years. Under that framework, a broad variety of enhanced services were free from regulatory oversight, and enhanced services saw exponential growth. 95 Accordingly,
a decision by Congress to overturn Computer II, and subject those services to regulatory constraints by creating an expanded "telecommunications service" category incorporating
enhanced services, would have effected a major change in the regulatory treatment of those services. While we would have implemented such a major change if Congress had required
it, our review leads us to conclude that the legislative history does not demonstrate an intent by Congress to do so. 96 As
a result, looking at the statute and the legislative history as a
whole, we conclude that Congress intended the 1996 Act to maintain the Computer II framework.

IT gives a pretty competent and detailed analysis of why congress never intended the internet to be regulated as a common carrier. The law would need to be changed in order to change the status and have it survive a court ruling.

#1) It creates an artificial crisis by changing the definition. Now there is a 'problem' that must be solved. #2) The FCC is only authorized to intervene in the market by determining broadband is not "being deployed to all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion". The FCC now has the excuse to do whatever they want. #3) CAF II money is being release shortly - $10,800,000,000 to the incumbent telephone carriers to build 10/1Mb service, a minimal hurdle most will meet by changing the service plan from 10M/768k up to 10M/1M and pocketing 10.8M. #4) Solve the 'crisis' by creating CAF III by collecting and distributing way more than the 10.8 billion pittance they just wasted. Think I'm making this up? Just read Commissioner Pai's response: http://www.fcc.gov/article/doc...

We subsidized something, it turns out it certainly wasn't broadband.

That's correct, it was never intended to be. The Universal Service Fund that you pay for each month with your phone bill in the US was created specifically to ensure that all Americans had some form of narrowband voice communications. It was designed as a tax on "the many" to ensure that "the few" who lived in remote or unpopulated areas would not be left out because it was simply economically infeasible to run a phone line 15 miles outside of town to serve a farmhouse with three people in it.

Most of that money goes to the major telcos to support broad rural areas, but a disproportionate amount of the spending goes to small ultra-rural telcos with tiny populations where telephone service would simply not exist were it not massively subsidized. It's a "cost plus" subsidy that nobody is going to get rich off of, but does provide prop up many of the smaller telcos in the US that otherwise wouldn't survive. Regardless of how you feel about this, just remember that USF was never supposed to do anything for broadband.

Nope. The key to part 15 is that you have no regulatory protection from interference with your unlicensed device. That is what the 'must accept interference' statement means.

If you have no regulatory protection, then there is absolutely no requirement that I don't interfere with your device, since such a requirement would be by definition regulatory protection.

If there is no requirement that I don't interefere with your unlicensed device, but there is a requirement that I don't create harmful intereference, what is the only possible explanation? That I can't interfere with licensed operations.

The 'above comments' incorrectly make the assumption that because there are some requirements on the 5GHz band for frequency hopping, etc that must be so that WiFi devices do not interfere with each other. That is not the case. The requirements are there so you don't sit on one frequency and cause interference to weather and military radar (licensed operations).

The FCC does give a damn and is currently seeking comments http://www.fcc.gov/document/cgb-seeks-comment-call-blocking-letter-attorneys-general on telcos blocking robo calls.

The telcos tried blaming it on their status as common carriers ... so the FTC jumped in http://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/advocacy_documents/ftc-staff-comment-federal-communications-commission-public-notice-da-14-1700-regarding-issues/150127fcccomment.pdf with their legal opinion that common carriers are allowed to block robo calls.

This plague is 100% on the telcos wanting the money and 0% on government.

• Pay a fine of $2 million to the U.S. Treasury;
• Commit an additional $3 million over the next three years to address the problem of rural call completion on a company and industry-wide basis;
• Appoint a Rural Call Completion Ombudsman within Verizon to centralize analysis of rural call completion problems;
• Develop a system to automatically identify customer complaints that may be related to rural call completion issues;
• Limit its use of intermediate providers, i.e., telecommunications providers between the Verizon network and the local rural provider, that are often the source of call completion problems;
• Monitor its call answer rates to individual rural areas and conduct an investigation when rates to an area fall below a set threshold in any month;
• Host industry workshops and sponsor an academic study on methods to detect and resolve rural call completion problems;
• Provide quarterly summaries of its investigations to the FCC and meet periodically with Commission staff to identify lessons learned; and
• Prepare a report to be publicly filed with the Commission at the end of the three-year compliance period.

Well, any municipal rights would be endowed by the state as they are political subdivisions of the state. There is no constitutional amendment or provision specifically for the municipalities.

I'm not sure why you are going off with the rest of your comment. It's meaningless to that point. And I did say that local control is better.

As was set into rule and demonstrated in Wickard v. Filburn, a substantial effect on interstate commerce is all that is needed for the feds to assume control or power to regulate via the commerce clause. Arguing whether that is proper or not is another thing though. Anyways, it will take an act of congress to place this under fed regulation as the FCC has already declared it wasn't in the ways they want to consider it today. Fortunately, it appears congress is willing to regulate it. But this is all besides the point that the US constitution does not have any provisions for municipality rights.

Indeed they do. And as someone who lives in that section of town, I would really like to have an option overpriced crappy cable and dialup 2.0 (DSL). And you know what? That isn't going to happen with the way things are setup now, is it?

Then your best bet is to petition your local government to increase the demands on the providers. Without it, your options will be the same until they degrade to the point they are abandoned and you have less. Well, maybe not your specific area but the reasons you have those options is likely because it's expensive to reach you meaning without a lockin, it isn't profitable to service large portions of towns.

I think you've got that backwards in many cities. What I see is the Fios being rolled out in the wealthy neighborhoods, typically rich suburban ones, while the inner cities are screwed.

But even if you were correct, why the heck would anyone want a monopoly system?

A necessary evil that forces companies to spend money where it wouldn't otherwise be profitable. If the option is to service 2 miles from the business (where the CO was located) district and screw everyone else like DSL did for the longest of time, or to force them to instal signal boosters and/or fiber to remote locations to run multiplexers from as to service the entire town which would you take? There is a lot of cable wire extending signal out to the edge of town, even more to reach outside the city limits. It gets expensive when the number of drops coming from them decrease. How would you like your only option to be satellite?

Where do you get this? Companies being mandated to serve low income neighborhoods? Do you see Verizon rolling out Fios in your low income neighborhoods? No? Me either.

In fact, with the exception of Google deploying FTTH in St Louis, do you see any low income neighborhoods with state of the art connectivity?

No, you don't and neither do I.

Telephone and cable is mandated to low income areas. The entire idea of FIOS being deployed there is what will happen if these technologies did not previously have a monopoly and were forced to service them because of that. That was the entire point behind why they existed. The only think that would change that would be to require them to roll out equal access in these areas and without exclusive access to the profitable areas, the unprofitable ones will likely stop it altogether.

Let's see, began a broadband only ISP back in 1999, co-founded an industry, non-profit trade group in 2004, acted as an industry spokesperson in the MuniWireless space for a couple of years - so, you thinking that I only rely on SlashDot comments is pretty funny.

IF any of that is true, you should start acting like you have a clue then. Seriously, what you have said so far is lacking on so many levels.

Has it occurred to you that government regulation built what was at one time considered to be the gold standard in telecommunications worldwide?

Sure. And as I said, I'm not against regulation. I am however against power grabs by government agency without any laws supporting it's move and without an act of congress to support it. Hell, even the FCC under Bill Clinton's administration came to the conclusion that the internet is an information service and nothing in the law allows them to regulate it under title II.

Oh and these loons seem to share my concerns over this power grab for what its worth.

And now look at where we are, we glorify asking if you can hear me now.

Well, can you hear me?

Interestin

So, what you just admitted is that the FCC does have jurisdiction in this matter. Thank you.

I never said they do not have jurisdiction in this matter. I said they have no legal standing to reclassify it and the FCC ignored it until the courts thrust it onto them.

Now if you'd like to make the case that Chairman Wheeler needs to go to the NPRM process, I don't know if you've been under a rock for the last year or so but the FCC has received record breaking amounts of comments on this subject.

There is no process in law that allows the FCC to change a classification without input from congress.

Really? So in cases of emergencies, say a Katrina or a Sandy, we don't need no stinking regulations?

You could possibly make the case that internet connectivity isn't crucial but voice communications are used to call police, fire and for medical help - in other words, critical infrastructure.

Please stop taking crap out of context in order to make some point that couldn't otherwise stand in the light of day. Just because someone sends smoke signals does not mean all fires are now regulated by the FCC.

That explicitly means that the FCC also has the power to reverse that decision.

Actually, no it does not. For a detailed reason, read this FCC report to congress during the clinton years. In it, they discuss the ability to regulate the internet under title II and come to the conclusion that congress specifically intended the internet to be an information service. They even cite legislative history in doing so.

Bullshit. The SCOTUS ruled that the FCC does have that authority and you just admitted that.

The authority to regulate under title I as in information service. Please pay attention.

I would agree that Title II isn't exactly tailored for the job, it's a holdover from the past. And to be quite frank with you, I would have loved to see Congress step up to the plate and do something for the American people for a change - but that's not what's happening here. Since Congress isn't going to do it, the FCC should impose Title II and then fix what doesn't work, even if that means having the courts argue over what works and doesn't. What we can see here is that Congress isn't fixing the problem, they are making it a lot worse.

What? Congress is stepping up to the plate right now. This entire conversation is about a bill being introduced and unlike with Harry Reid in charge of the senate, amendments and crap will be allowed. But here is some opinions on the matter you might want to consider too.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/...

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/...

Of course those links go to an extreme right wing organization so take it with a grain of salt..

Instead, we're handing control over one of our most critical pieces of infrastructure to monopolies who survive by using the public right of way as well as spectrum owned by the American people. I maintain that if any American wants access to that right of way, they have every bit as much right to do so as any large company.

I agree, so lets get an act of congress that give access to those right of ways.

Further, if the voters in any municipality vote to roll out their own network, no one should be able to take that right away form them - unless you want to make a case that the local people shouldn't have that right of self-determination. Personally, I'd love to hear you make that argument.

Obligations is my argume

Exclusive franchises for cable companies have been prohibited by the FCC..

The Communications Act authorizes local franchising authorities to grant one or more franchises within their jurisdiction. However, a local franchising authority may not grant an exclusive franchise, and may not unreasonably withhold its consent for new service.

Yeah, keep believing this. Tell us what the ratio of street addresses in the US that are served by two (or more) cable companies versus just one ?

Pro-Tip: Just because the law says something doesn't mean people (or governments) will do what it says.

You simply do not know what you are talking about. Even as long ago as the Clinton administration the FCC has only ever classified it as an information service.

This PDF explains it better and more accurate than I am willing to invest time and effort in. Now granted, it is prepared by a bunch of industry insiders but it is references and to date I have found no one claiming anything in it of material fact is incorrect, misleading, or false.

Exclusive franchises for cable companies have been prohibited by the FCC..

The Communications Act authorizes local franchising authorities to grant one or more franchises within their jurisdiction. However, a local franchising authority may not grant an exclusive franchise, and may not unreasonably withhold its consent for new service.

http://www.fcc.gov/contact-us

SEC. 333. [47 U.C.S. 333] WILLFUL OR MALICIOUS INTERFERENCE.

"No person shall willfully or maliciously interfere with or cause interference to any radio communications of any station licensed or authorized by or under this Act or operated by the United States Government"

The real problem with cable companies is not that they "bundle" to create fixed service packages - it is that they are effective monopolies providing an essential service, that escape any meaningful regulation that such a model absolutely requires for to protect the interests of the public. As long as this situation persists any service pricing scheme is going to gouge the customers for Internet access as well as TV access.

The weakness of regulation is nicely conveyed by the the FCC itself:

Your local franchising authority - the city, county or other governmental organization authorized by your state to regulate cable television service - legally may (but is not required to) regulate the rate your cable TV provider can charge for "basic" cable service. The rates you pay for other cable programming and services, such as expanded cable channel packages, premium movie channels and pay-per-view sports events, are set by your cable TV provider.

So no regulation by any government body for "non basic services". And "basic service" regulation is entirely optional, and left piecemeal to lower levels of government where it is always ineffective in exercising oversight for national corporations which practice cartel-like collusion to protect their margins and market share.

Operation on 2.5Ghz is authorized by part 15 of the FCC rules.

Who is talking about 2.5GHz?

Within part 15, there are a number of subparts, including subpart 5:

        If a Part 15 transmitter does cause interference to authorized radio communications,
even if the transmitter complies with all of the technical standards and equipment
authorization requirements in the FCC rules, then its operator will will be required to cease
operation, at least until the interference problem is corrected.

http://transition.fcc.gov/Bure...

So nice of you to leave off the very next sentence: "Part 15 transmitters receive no regulatory protection from interference."

Hello,

The proceeding number for this case is RM-1737, so if you're interested in leaving a comment on it, the URL is http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/uploa....

Regards,

Aryeh Goretsky