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

[Dan Linder]

Today I received this response back from the honorable Ms. Fischers
office.  The first paragraphs recapped the history the Net Neutrality
discussion has taken, then this single paragraph is her response:

> The Internet should not be regulated like a public utility. That is
> why I joined eight of my colleagues from the Senate Commerce,
> Science, and Transportation Committee, the Committee with
> jurisdiction over the FCC, in calling on Chairman Wheeler to refrain
> from regulating the Internet by reclassifying consumer broadband
> services under Title II.

(Her full response is copied below my signature line.)

>From this I have two questions:
1: To simply state "The Internet should not be regulated like a public
utility." without listing her reasoning or guidance seems rather terse.
2: She ends her letter with "It is an honor to represent Nebraska in the
U.S. Senate".  For those of you who are so inclined, I would suggest you
write (or call!) her yourself and either confirm or refute her stance as
representative of those of us in Nebraska.

Thanks again for your time, I now return you to your regularly scheduled
geek discussions.

Dan

=== begin response ===
January 23, 2015


Dear Dan,

Thank you for contacting me about net neutrality. I appreciate hearing from
you.

On November 20, 2011, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) adopted
its Open Internet Order. The Order established rules to govern the network
management practices of broadband Internet access providers. It was
intended to maintain network neutrality by establishing rules ensuring
transparency, no blocking, and no unreasonable discrimination.

In Verizon Communications Inc. v. the Federal Communications Commission,
Verizon challenged the Order arguing that the FCC does not have the
necessary authority over broadband services to promulgate these rules. On
January 14, 2014, the D.C. Court of Appeals invalidated portions of the
Order. Specifically, the Court struck down the rules prohibiting blocking
and discrimination but maintained the rule that requires disclosure of
Internet traffic management policies. In response to the court’s decision,
FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler has indicated he will propose new rules on net
neutrality.

On November 10, 2014, President Obama called on the FCC to regulate
Internet service providers under a Title II public-utility style regulatory
framework. Despite the president’s recommendation, the FCC is an
independent agency free from influence by the Obama Administration.

The Internet should not be regulated like a public utility. That is why I
joined eight of my colleagues from the Senate Commerce, Science, and
Transportation Committee, the Committee with jurisdiction over the FCC, in
calling on Chairman Wheeler to refrain from regulating the Internet by
reclassifying consumer broadband services under Title II.

Again, thank you for contacting my office. It is an honor to represent
Nebraska in the U.S. Senate, and I appreciate hearing your views. If you
have additional questions or concerns, please visit my website at
www.fischer.senate.gov.

Sincerely,


Deb Fischer
United States Senator
=== end response ===


On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 9:24 PM, Dan Linder <dan at linder.org> wrote:

> 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
>
> --
> ***************** ************* *********** ******* ***** *** **
> "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"
>     (Who can watch the watchmen?)
>     -- from the Satires of Juvenal
> "I do not fear computers, I fear the lack of them."
>     -- Isaac Asimov (Author)
> ** *** ***** ******* *********** ************* *****************
>



-- 
***************** ************* *********** ******* ***** *** **
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"
    (Who can watch the watchmen?)
    -- from the Satires of Juvenal
"I do not fear computers, I fear the lack of them."
    -- Isaac Asimov (Author)
** *** ***** ******* *********** ************* *****************