[Note: This comment comes from Dave Farber’s IP List. DLH]
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: “Farooq Butt” <farooq@farooqbutt.com>
Date: Nov 10, 2014 5:26 PM
Subject: Re: [IP] Re Ted Cruz just called net neutrality “Obamacare for the internet” and that’s bad news for everyone
To: “Dave Farber” <dave@farber.net>
You are right! Think brer rabbit. Telcos have arsenals of lawyers who can expertly shape archaic legislation. Becoming the “landline monopolies” of today in exchange for a little monitoring sounds like a great deal.
On Nov 10, 2014 6:48 PM, “Dave Farber via ip” <ip@listbox.com> wrote:
I agree. djf
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: “Faulhaber, Gerald” <faulhabe@wharton.upenn.edu>
Date: Nov 10, 2014 1:51 PM
Subject: RE: [Dewayne-Net] Ted Cruz just called net neutrality “Obamacare for the internet” and that’s bad news for everyone
To: “Dave Farber” <dave@farber.net>
Cc:Being on the same side of an argument as Ted Cruz is quite disturbing, I admit;-) But I find the Obama NN announcement to be very wrong, on several levels: i) he shouldn’t be telling an independent agency what to do; ii) he is specifically stating his preference for Title II rather than Section 706 for no apparent reason; (iii) he seems to have no understanding of the “dead hand of regulation” and how it can stultify the Internet, and iv) he is giving succor to nations like China, Russia, etc. that also want to regulate the Internet and will see any US action in that direction as a good excuse to do so.
Here’s some statements from AEI economists on the Obama NN announcement. Very critical of the announcement (no surprise there), but rather more measured than Cruz:
The Obama administration just announced its support for Title II reclassification of the Internet. While President Obama acknowledged the independence of the FCC in his controversial statement, his call for reclassification is a noteworthy intervention in ongoing rulemaking procedures. AEI’s scholars share their thoughts on the announcement’s implications for ISPs and consumers alike.
Jeffrey Eisenach:
The Federal Communications Commission was created to be an independent regulatory agency, above and beyond the reach of crass politics. The White House’s decision to intervene in an ongoing rulemaking makes a mockery of any sense of independence or impartiality. A legitimate case can be made that a decision as large, and as lacking in statutory basis, as the FCC’s intervention in the net neutrality matter is correctly a matter for politicians, not bureaucrats. To the extent that is the case, however, there is only one legitimate route, and it starts in the Congress, not the White House. If the FCC bows to pressure from the White House on this issue, the agency’s reputation will suffer a terrible stain.
Bret Swanson:
The Internet in the US has thrived almost beyond imagination under a multi-decade, bipartisan stance of policy restraint. Imposing Title II telephone regulations on the wildly successful US Internet would be a historic economic blunder.
Roslyn Layton:
During the President’s official visit to China today, the White House issued a statement from the President saying that he supports government regulation of the Internet by reclassifying broadband under Title II of the Telecommunications Act of 1934. This announcement follows on the heels of the ITU Plenipotentiary meeting, where Chinese member Houlin Zhao has been elected the new Secretary. This statement is not only a terrible message for the US, but for the rest of world. Indeed, foreign authoritarian governments have been looking for justification to monitor networks and users under the guise of net neutrality and the “Open Internet.” Obama’s announcement could not be a better present to the leaders of China, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. Read my articles about this here and here.
Daniel Lyons:
Title II reclassification would impose upon a vibrant Internet a legal regime designed in the 1930s to control the old AT&T monopoly. Indeed, the proposed ban on paid prioritization is more stringent than the obligations we once shackled on Ma Bell. The White House’s proposal to homogenize broadband Internet access is inconsistent with an increasingly diverse marketplace and would deprive Americans of countless innovative business models currently proliferating worldwide. Individualized bargaining allows for experimentation and testing of potentially more efficient business models that could get consumers the content and services that they need better than existing practices. Broadband policies turn upon a host of highly technical issues, in both fixed and wireless markets, that cannot be reduced to political sound bytes. This is why these policy decisions are firmly vested in the hands of an independent agency with the technical expertise to understand the nuances of these policies, insulated from the very political pressure that the White House is attempting to bring to bear on the Commission. There are numerous potentially pro-consumer alternatives to one-size-fits-all broadband access. Whatever rules the Commission ultimately adopts should allow for innovation that provides consumers with the services they desire online, wherever that innovation occurs in the Internet ecosystem.
Richard Bennett:
Overall broadband quality in the United States is better than broadband quality in all comparable nations thanks to the facilities-based competition model that we’ve followed since the Clinton Administration. President Obama’s desire to abandon our home-grown policy framework in favor of the approach used in the worst-performing nations such as Italy and France amounts to snatching defeat out of the jaws of victory and compromises the FCC’s legal independence. It’s unfortunate that the White House refuses to put the well-being of the American people above the wishes of misguided and poorly informed activists.
Mark Jamison:
The Administration’s announcing how it wants the Federal Communications Commission to decide on Title II regulation of the Internet does not bode well for broadband in the US. The FCC is an independent agency for a reason, namely to keep politics at arm’s length from critical infrastructure investment. Studies over the past 20 years have confirmed what Congress knew 80 years ago when it developed the agency: Politicians like to expropriate the value of infrastructure for their own political ends, and this hurts customers by scaring off investment. An independent agency is intended to stand between politics and investment by regulating under the law through a fact-oriented, transparent process. Whether the Internet has utility and common carriage features that merit Title II treatment is an issue for Congress or for the FCC, deciding under its statutory authority and subject to judicial review.”
Professor Emeritus Gerald Faulhaber
Business Economics and Public Policy Dept.
Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania
Professor Emeritus, Law School
University of Pennsylvania
Ted Cruz just called net neutrality “Obamacare for the internet” and that’s bad news for everyone
Obamacare is bad, so this must be bad, right?
By T.C. Sottek
Nov 10 2014
<http://www.theverge.com/2014/11/10/7186433/what-senator-ted-cruz-just-said-should-scare-anyone-who-wants>
Dewayne-Net Archives 