[opendtv] Re: B&C: President Fleshes Out Infrastructure Plan
- From: Craig Birkmaier <brewmastercraig@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2018 07:36:07 -0500
On Feb 12, 2018, at 3:50 PM, Manfredi, Albert E <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
So once again, push comes to shove, in spite of the predictably idiotic
rhetoric from the extremist yahoos (including within this FCC), public funds
have to be expended to expand the coverage of broadband. And more
importantly, once again, in spite of the predictably idiotic rhetoric from
those same yahoos, Title II doesn't even play a part in any of this. Not
credibly. Not except in the formula-speak:
You are the one that is not credible Bert.
Title II has a lot to do with this, as it burdens the cost of everything it
touches. The most important part of the President’s infrastructure proposal is
to reduce the cost of, and delays caused by regulation - to reduce the time to
move from proposal to construction form an average of ten years to two years.
Consider this Bert. Where would we be today if it took ten years for the now
deregulated telcos to introduce new wireless technologies? Instead of starting
to deploy 5G by the end of this decade we would be talking about 2028-29.
Heavy handed Title II regulation adds delays as regulators at every level exact
their pounds of flesh - Federal, State AND Local.
The last sentence in this paragraph tells us the real story:
"ACA applauds President Donald J. Trump for proposing an infrastructure plan
that includes spending $50 billion to enhance infrastructure, including
broadband, in rural areas," said American Cable Association president Matt
Polka. "Ensuring all Americans have access to high-performance broadband is
important and requires government engagement at many levels. For instance,
the enactment of the recent tax law and the existing programs run by the FCC
help. And, it is essential that government focus on removing the many
barriers that discourage private investment in broadband.
The Pai Net Neutrality order is one of the most important elements of reducing
the enormous costs and unnecessary delays in deploying new infrastructure.
Thank you, ex-entertainment providers and now telecom plus entertainment
providers. With Title II in place for your telecom role, you made about all
the progress you could rationalize economically. Now, with or without Title
II, you need public funds to expand to places where the revenues don't make a
business case.
Uhhhhhh Bert.
Ever hear of the Universal Service Fund. You have been paying for rural
telephony for your ENTIRE LIFE. Unfortunatelyt, thanks to Title II and
regulatory morass, a large percentage of this money has NOT BEEN SPENT for
rural infrastructure, but rather to reduce the cost of infrastructure for which
there IS an existing business case.
This is what happens when you create regulated monopolies and everyone feasts
off of the monopoly...
Please make that clear to the formula-thinking extremists that have infested
the FCC? Whether you like the responsibilities that come with providing
telecom service or not, those responsibilities do not appear to be the
make-or-break decision point, for expansion of service. What you are saying
appears to be, with no stipulations in respect to Title II, "Please give us
taxpayer contributions and we will expand our coverage to areas where the
business case isn't."
Thank you Captain Obvious. This has been the basis of Title II based telecom
regulatory policy for nearly a CENTURY.
Unfortunately, once the rural telephone networks were built the USF money
started leaking into other projects - just think of it as a corporate/political
slush fund.
The current FCC Chairman goes off, half-cocked, on the basis of pure
demagoguery, spouting his familiar slogans, even when they clearly don't
apply.
Speaking of spouting off. THis is really getting monotonous and boring.
In this ridiculously partisan climate, where morons on both sides find it
difficult to think, the extremist yahoos at the FCC seem pleased with this WH
initiative, and the lefties are (at least so far) silent. And yet, if
anything is true, it is that the WH plan is much as Obama would do.
Sorry Bert, but you are drinking the progressive Koolaid.
The Obama administration expanded regulation in every way possible, often
illegally. The Title II Net Neutrality decision was rather tame compared to
other areas that add cost to infrastructure projects. Fortunately, the Feds and
the FCC do jot get to control most of the infrastructure money the President is
proposing. The money goes to the states in block grants. So you can rest
assured that most of this money will not flow to your state, but rather to red
states that still need rural broadband infrastructure, where it may actually be
spent wisely.
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: