[TriLUG] Net Neutrality again...

Thu Sep 7 15:30:21 EDT 2017

David,

I understand your points, specifically regarding executive agencies making
rules.

I think Charles just beat me to the punch, but here are my thoughts:

1) For expediency, Congress has decided that rather than tackling issues
individually that most folks can agree on, they should create agencies such
as the FCC and the IRS and give them broad authority and directives to
enforce.  This can be very frustrating (or infuriating) when the IRS
penalizes you based on one of their "rules" that is not in the United
States Code.

The FCC used their mandate to promote the adoption of broadband, *issued by
Congress, *to justify Network Neutrality rules.  The courts agreed with the
telecoms that this was overreach, but ONLY because the FCC does not have
the authority to regulate non-common carrier businesses.  Once the FCC used
their authority *given by Congress* to classify ISPs as Title II Common
Carriers, the courts sided with the FCC.

If Congress is unhappy with this sort of executive action, they can and
should do something about it by passing laws.

I (and most others) FULLY SUPPORT Congress passing laws that explicitly
address important issues rather than leaving it up to whomever is in charge
at the relevant regulatory agency.

2) regarding your point about it being irrelevant, I could not possibly
disagree more strongly.  I have 6Mb DSL at my house just South of Chapel
Hill.  In addition to being slow, it is horribly unreliable, but AT&T will
not fix it.  My neighbors across the street have 768Kb DSL (yes, that's
Kilobits). But I guess we could switch to a competitor, right?  But no!
Because TWC/Charter has deemed it too expensive to serve our area, and AT&T
would rather serve us out of a VRAD that's over 3 miles away than the one
that's 3/4 mile away.  The neighborhood behind us has Charter, and they go
right past our road.

3) this is not a solution in search of a problem.  Network Neutrality
regulations, like most regulations, were passed specifically because they
were needed to address egregious behavior that had already happened, and
would continue to happen if not addressed.  Perhaps lighter-touch
regulation would be warranted if we actually had a competitive market in
the US for broadband, but we certainly do not.

The only dramatic improvements we've seen in the last 3 years are do to the
fear Google has put into Charter/Comcast/Verizon/AT&T by offering a good
product at a competitive price.  When the major cable companies refuse to
compete with one another and DSL/VDSL can't go past 24Mbps, you have a de
facto monopoly.  AT&T, Comcast, Charter, et al fight hard to keep that
monopoly, as seen when they recently sued the cities of Nashville and
Louisville over their one-touch makeready ordinances (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Touch_Make_Ready#Legal_Challenges) that
gave a competitor, Google Fiber, quicker access to the utility pole
infrastructure that they took billions of dollars of tax-payer dollars to
help build.

As to conservatives being silenced... thoughtful, realistic conservative
voices, *like mine*, are accepted on the Internet and elsewhere because I
try my best to make arguments that are backed by research and that can be
measured.
"Conservatives" can expect to be shunned when they deny climate science and
claim that any government regulations are bad.  Everything cannot be solved
by a free market, especially when a competitive and free market does not
exist.

Would you fight for the rights of the 6 and 8 year olds to work?  Isn't the
government taking away their freedoms?  That's an extreme example, but
before labor laws, those kids were working.

_________________________________
Wesley S. Garrison
Network Engineer
Xitech Communications, Inc.
phone:  (919) 260-0803
fax:       (919) 932-5051
__________________________________
"Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from email."

On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 2:42 PM, David Burton via TriLUG <trilug at trilug.org>
wrote:

> The FCC's "net neutrality" rules are:
>
> 1. An example (one of many!) of executive overreach. In a representative
> democracy, the Executive Branch is not supposed to making up laws, by
> dictatorial fiat. National laws are *supposed* to be made by Congress,
> which (at least theoretically) answers to The People.
>
> 2. Increasingly irrelevant, as bandwidth/capacity increases. We're long
> past the fights over whether ISPs could block competitors' VoIP products.
>
> 3. A solution in search of a problem. Really, did you see anything get
> better or worse when the FCC imposed its "net neutrality" rules in 2015?
> What good did it do?
>
> Theoretically, net neutrality rules could prevent ISPs from downgrading the
> priority of packets from Vonage or porn sites, but the reality is that the
> VoIP wars are over, and all the major ISPs (except Google?) are in the porn
> distribution business themselves, anyhow, so that isn't likely to happen.
>
> It is so typical of government to address yesterday's problems, instead of
> tomorrow's. The FCC has built a Maginot Line, where the Panzers aren't
> going.
>
> The real problem isn't lack of neutrality toward bandwidth allocation by
> ISPs. The real problem is lack of neutrality toward information flow,
> through the new corporate information gatekeepers, like Google, Facebook &
> Wikipedia. Viewpoint censorship by those giant corporate entities is
> increasingly manipulating what you can find, and what you can learn.
>
> Conservatives used to be very hopeful that the plethora of new information
> sources would finally break the Left's long domination of the press. But as
> information gatekeepers consolidate their market positions, what is
> happening is that the Left's old censorship methods are simply being
> replaced by new ones.
>
> Liberals tend to take a very blasé attitude toward the problem, because it
> isn't their ox being gored, since the major viewpoint censors are all
> leftists.
>
> That might prove to be shortsighted. I expect that, in the long run, those
> corporations will prove to be more loyal to their bottom lines than their
> ideology. So the liberals who celebrate the crushing of conservative
> dissent may find themselves on the receiving end, as well, someday.
>
> https://stream.org/lefts-campaign-against-conservative-speech/
>
> http://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Conservatives-in-Tech-Say-
> They-re-More-Isolated-12173168.php
>
> https://www.facebook.com/help/community/question/?id=
> 10200248881692914&answer_id=10202976939492654
>
> https://web.archive.org/web/20160113104052/http://blogs.
> telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100020515/
> climategate-the-corruption-of-wikipedia/
>
> Dave
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 12:59 PM, Wes Garrison via TriLUG <
> trilug at trilug.org>
> wrote:
>
> > 2 points:
> > rage regulation => rate regulation
> > Freudian slip???
> >
> > Here is a list of ACTUAL NET NEUTRALITY violations; excellent examples of
> > why we need Net Neutrality rules codified by Congress.
> > https://www.freepress.net/blog/2017/04/25/net-
> neutrality-violations-brief-
> > history
> >
> > -Wes
> >
> > _________________________________
> > Wesley S. Garrison
> > Network Engineer
> > Xitech Communications, Inc.
> > phone:  (919) 260-0803
> > fax:       (919) 932-5051
> > __________________________________
> > "Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from email."
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 12:41 PM, John Vaughters via TriLUG <
> > trilug at trilug.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks Pete, that link was helpful, I actually forgot this rule went
> > > through. In my mind it had failed. I am not sure this rule affects
> things
> > > much at all, but I appreciate the heads up and I will definitely let my
> > > Senators and member of congress know my opinion on this topic.
> > > John Vaughters
> > >
> > >
> > >     On Thursday, September 7, 2017, 12:27:29 PM EDT, Pete Soper via
> > TriLUG
> > > <trilug at trilug.org> wrote:
> > >
> > >  Here's the first hit when I searched, so we can become a more informed
> > > electorate:
> > >
> > > https://www.theverge.com/2017/5/24/15685414/net-neutrality-
> > > fcc-nprm-explained
> > >
> > > -Pete
> > >
> > > On 09/07/2017 12:23 PM, Brian via TriLUG wrote:
> > > > As I understand it, Net Neutrality is on the books, and this is an
> > > > attempt to keep it from being repealed by the new administration.
> > > >
> > > > On 09/07/2017 12:16 PM, John Vaughters via TriLUG wrote:
> > > >> So is there a new push for net neutrality? or is this just to try to
> > > >> get it going again?
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>      On Thursday, September 7, 2017, 12:02:49 PM EDT, Brian via
> > > >> TriLUG <trilug at trilug.org> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>  Hi Folks,
> > > >>
> > > >> I don't know if others of you subscribe to FreePress.net, but I
> > managed
> > > >> to wind up subscribed, probably by way of submitting a form to send
> a
> > > >> letter to my senator.  Senator Thom Tills is against net neutrality,
> > by
> > > >> the way; if you are a North Carolina resident, please consider
> > > >> contacting his office to (politely) express your opposition.
> > > >>
> > > >> Anyway, I recently got a note from FreePress.net mentioning
> organizing
> > > >> in-district drop-ins, and wondered who in the TriLUG community might
> > > >> like to get involved to express their support for net neutrality in
> > the
> > > >> form of a short face-to-face with congressional staff in a local
> > > >> district office.
> > > >>
> > > >> Here's the link to a little info and a form to sign up as the
> > organizer
> > > >> of a drop-in event.
> > > >>
> > > >> https://act.demandprogress.org/sign/sign-up-host-team-
> > > internet/?source=freepress
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Regards,
> > > >> -Brian Henning
> > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > This message was sent to: John Vaughters <jvaughters04 at yahoo.com>
> > > To unsubscribe, send a blank message to trilug-leave at trilug.org from
> > that
> > > address.
> > > TriLUG mailing list : https://www.trilug.org/mailman/listinfo/trilug
> > > Unsubscribe or edit options on the web    : https://www.trilug.org/
> > > mailman/options/trilug/jvaughters04%40yahoo.com
> > > Welcome to TriLUG: http://trilug.org/welcome
> > > --
> > > This message was sent to: Wes <wes at xitechusa.com>
> > > To unsubscribe, send a blank message to trilug-leave at trilug.org from
> > that
> > > address.
> > > TriLUG mailing list : https://www.trilug.org/mailman/listinfo/trilug
> > > Unsubscribe or edit options on the web  : https://www.trilug.org/
> > > mailman/options/trilug/wes%40xitechusa.com
> > > Welcome to TriLUG: http://trilug.org/welcome
> > >
> > --
> > This message was sent to: Dave Burton <ncdave4life at gmail.com>
> > To unsubscribe, send a blank message to trilug-leave at trilug.org from
> that
> > address.
> > TriLUG mailing list : https://www.trilug.org/mailman/listinfo/trilug
> > Unsubscribe or edit options on the web  : https://www.trilug.org/
> > mailman/options/trilug/ncdave4life%40gmail.com
> > Welcome to TriLUG: http://trilug.org/welcome
> >
> --
> This message was sent to: Wes <wes at xitechusa.com>
> To unsubscribe, send a blank message to trilug-leave at trilug.org from that
> address.
> TriLUG mailing list : https://www.trilug.org/mailman/listinfo/trilug
> Unsubscribe or edit options on the web  : https://www.trilug.org/
> mailman/options/trilug/wes%40xitechusa.com
> Welcome to TriLUG: http://trilug.org/welcome
>