[olug] [OT/Political] Letter to representative regarding ISPs and "Common Carrier" status.

[Lou Duchez]

In a lot of ways this reminds me of the Telecommunications Reform Act of 
1996.  A big argument in favor of the TRA was: according to existing 
regulations covering telecommunications, telecom providers were not 
making enough money to research, innovate, and upgrade; allow telecom 
companies to raise rates and they will be able to offer a host of new 
services to consumers.  There had even been plans to lay fiber cable to 
residences the way copper cable is standard now.  Well, as soon as the 
TRA was passed, the telecom providers all suddenly changed their tune 
about the upgraded services, so they walked away being able to raise 
rates on consumers while giving them nothing in return.  Relaxed 
regulations win again!

Over the past 20 years, the Internet has become central to American 
life, not just for those of us in technical fields, but to virtually 
every type of business and to private citizens.  The telecom giants have 
not demonstrated sufficient good faith for us to simply trust that 
they'll offer quality, affordable service unless legally obligated to.  
I can't fault them for being profit-driven -- that's kind of the point 
of business -- but I also recognize the nature of the beast is to have 
little commitment to anyone else's prosperity.


> I apologize in advance if this is too political but most of us have some
> interest in our Internet connectivity so I thought this was a worthy post
> to the group.  What follows is what I posted to Facebook, Google+, and sent
> to her contacts page.  Feel free to discuss, or use it (in whole or in
> part) to contact your representatives. - Dan
>
>
> Hon. Fischer,
>
> Today (Jan 15) I saw your comments regarding President Obamas suggestion
> that Internet Service Providers should be classified as "Common Carriers"
> under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934.
>
> As a Republican myself I don't favor government intervention, in this case
> speaking as a professional computer engineer and long-time user of "high
> speed Internet" I must disagree and I am in strong favor of the
> reclassification. Here are my reasons why:
>
> 1: In 1992, various Bells filed applications with the FCC for something
> called "video dialtone." To pay for these net networks, the phone companies
> lobbied state governments for financial incentives to upgrade their
> fiber-optic plants. These show up on our bills in various forms but usually
> amount to $4-5 per month per customer. In the following 23 years, this
> increase to their revenue has not gone toward the promised roll-out
> high-speed data connections to homes or working to provide broadband
> connections to the rural areas. Instead, it went toward higher profit
> margins, and additional work to squeeze out any other competition. I'm sure
> there are some examples they will pull up, but they have used the
> classification to their advantage too. See "
> http://arstechnica.com/…/fcc-urged-to-investigate-verizons…/
> <http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/01/fcc-urged-to-investigate-verizons-two-faced-statements-on-utility-rules/>
> "
>
> 2: With the boom of the Internet and cellular phones throughout the 90's
> and early 2000s, many of these providers claimed they needed to get special
> treatment and "due to the excessive cost" they needed breaks and guarantees
> from city and state governments. These guarantees became laws, and most if
> not all of them gave them the legal standing to be the only (ONLY!)
> provider of Internet services in the areas they claimed to service. When
> cities got wise to these monopolistic practices and attempted to setup
> their own "public utility" for Internet access to their citizens, these
> companies filed lawsuits and went on extensive lobbying efforts to force
> the cities to give up these plans. Thankfully some cities have fought their
> way through and have rolled out some wildly successful networks. For
> instance, Chattanooga TN has a 1GB package for $69/month! My Cox provider
> provides me 1/40th the speed for the same price, or I can pay $150/month
> for only 1/10th the speed. Google has rolled out similar successful
> networks in other cities, and the incumbents immediately found that it
> *WAS* possible to slash their broadband prices. See "
> http://www.cnet.com/…/googles-fiber-effect-fuel-for-a-broa…/
> <http://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnet.com%2Fnews%2Fgoogles-fiber-effect-fuel-for-a-broadband-explosion%2F&h=lAQG9YeBy&enc=AZO9jIBx5AwcvxXJh-CtQKfBn4kHmzKkgpIgTkwBh4Tnaj4t1_Jq7PfJApQH02g_Sb1nrQL8s4j-6PkyeUxq3h1udZP1oBqeIbePpV5LQuLdoh143QvVckSCEEmx1MM53mht8srzoCosVLlQpvryziB3pmc6k9bn1arMd8krbK3wQw&s=1>
> "
>
> All I see when I look at the broadband market is a lot of incumbent players
> which have been sitting on their collective rear-ends taking in my money
> and not following through on the promises they made 20 years ago.
>
> Your campaign quote said you were a "hardworking leader" - show them what
> hardworking is, and that you'll take the stance for the hardworking public
> so we can get what we've paid for all these years.
>
> Thank you for your time.
>
> Dan Linder
>