[opendtv] Re: And now he's confusing kids
- From: "Craig Birkmaier" <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> (Redacted sender "brewmastercraig" for DMARC)
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2018 07:58:24 -0400
I hope John responds, but some of Bert’s statements here are beyond absurd...
On Sep 21, 2018, at 9:58 PM, Manfredi (US), Albert E
<albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
John Shutt wrote:
If the internet stayed with your Title II treatment of internet
access, we'd still have at best 64K ISDN home service that was
billed by the minute.
That's crap, John. But at least, you're focusing on the link, as opposed to
trying to confuse the argument by talking about web sites. As the crook of a
Chairman keeps doing, over and over again. Either too ignorant to understand
his job, or too crooked to be up front. (You do remember how he has kept
trying to distract attention, saying that the FB and Twitters are what should
really be regulated, from way back, right? Typical of a crook, honestly. It's
not his job to regulate telecom users! Never has been!)
The Chairman NEVER said that “The FB and Twitters” should be regulated. Go back
and read the statement he made in advance of the Congressional hearings. He did
suggest that Congress should look at the issues.
The story is very clear.
1. You are talking about charging now, not about mandating neutrality wrt
information. The telcos never billed by the minute for your Title II analog
dialup line, right? So, what leads to believe they would for telco broadband?
The telcos billed by the minute for many services.
Regional intrastate long distance - typically to areas adjacent to the
“unlimited” local service.
Long Distance services.
Now all calls within the U.S. are “unlimited.”
What changed?
2. The telcos developed ADSL, to compete against the cableco DOCSIS broadband
offerings. There was never any by-the-minute chanrging for ADSL. And ADSL was
also Title II. Funny how the telcos develooped it anyway, eh?
ADSL was not title II Bert it was delivered over the existing copper wire plant
where it worked - typically within 5000 feet of the Central Office. In order to
reach more customers the telcos had to deploy fiber to neighborhood risers,
which then connected to the copper last mile. And now the telcos are selling a
VOIP/Data digital bundle, eliminating the analog service entirely
What is funny is how the telcos overbuilt cable systems in many markets, like
where you live, to compete with MVPD bundles, VOIP and ISP service.
3. ISDN fell out of favor by the mid 1990s, when analog modems reached 57.6
Kbaud. So ISDN was out of contention long before the broadband era. ISDN is
irrelevant. The telcos knew it was too slow. That's why they developed BISDN
first, then ADSL, which would run over voice grade twisted pair.
Yup. I think John was simply trying to make the point that the Telcos had
almost no incentive to deploy advanced technologies under Title II regulation.
With DEREGULATION we have seen the massive investment n wireless, which brought
us real competition for voice and data.
The reality is that the telcos developed and deployed ADSL as an interim
service where the deployment of FTTH was not economically viable.
4. The telcos dragged their heels to deploy ADSL. Why? Because the FCC was
telling the telcos they had to share their lines with ILECs, but made no
similar claims for the cableco broadband. After this unbundling requirement
was taken away, suddenly the telcos got in the broadband business. That was
2002 or so, while the cablcos had been playing the game from very late 1990s
to 2000.
Thank you for making the case here Bert. Title II regulation has been a huge
disservice to the public. It makes services more expensive and discourages
innovation and competition.
I would think you would understand by now that Obama’s Title II Net Neutrality
decision was designed to entrench the “cable monopoly” not to encourage
competition...
The only discussion here is about increasing speed, and NOTHING to do with
neutrality. In fact, the telcos had only dragged their heels because of this
ADSL unbundling requirement. At the time, the telcos had neutrality in their
DNA. They weren't offering any umbillical walled garden TV service.
At the time they were developing FIOS and other FTTH technologies. After the
ILEC decision was reversed everything changed.
So, your assertion is unfounded. And has nothing to do with net neutrality,
John. It makes NO SENSE to be championing the cause of non-neutrality, as you
are still doing. None. It's anti-business and against the people's interests.
As bad as championing the repeal of free speech.
Nobody is championing the cause of Non-Neutrality Bert. It was Obama and
Wheeler who used the canard of “Net Neutrality” in their aborted attempt to
introduce government regulation to the Internet.
And please stop trying to convince us that neutrality was in the DNA of the
telcos, or any other service regulated by the FCC. The only thing that was
neutral was the mandate to interconnect all phones. For nearly a century the
telcos and legions of local, state and federal regulators managed a lucrative
monopoly that cost us a BUNDLE!
Regards
Craig
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at
FreeLists.org
- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
unsubscribe in the subject line.
Other related posts: