Wheeler Defends Net Neutrality Proposal

[RV_]

Wheeler can say it so even the least savvy can get it. The country is behind Wheeler's proposal. The Cable lobby is out full force but Wheeler counters them truthfully and sticks to the facts.

 

Excerpt:

 

" Critics of Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler’s proposal for net neutrality rules have argued that it would impose heavy regulation of broadband service under an outdated regime that would have harmful results. On Tuesday, Wheeler continued countering such arguments.

 

“Yet, we hear the ISP surrogates running around talking about the end of the world” saying it’s old-fashioned monopoly utility regulation, which means the “end of Western civilization,” he said at a meeting of the National Association of Rural Utility Commissioners.

 

“But let me be real specific,” he said. “It does not contain rate regulation. It does not contain tariffing. It does not contain unbundling. Now, I think that’s the troika that defines utility regulation.” (He was referring to regulation of Internet service provider rates, the addition of taxes and tariffs and requiring the providers to “unbundle” or open their local delivery lines to competitors at wholesale prices.)

 

Tools for utility regulation are “absent from our activities,” Wheeler said.

 

“And so the attack is – let’s drag out this ill-informed, non-fact based statement” that the rules would impose utility regulation and thwart the Internet’s future, he later said.

 

“It just simply isn’t the facts,” he said."

 

That article is here: http://blogs.rollcall.com/technocrat/wheeler-defends-net-neutrality-proposal/?dcz=

 

[BooneDocks]

The country is behind Wheeler's proposal.

 

What is your factual basis for that statement?

 

The vast majority of the country does not know who Wheeler is and what is in the White House's proposal (the small cabal that really drafted the proposal and overruled the compromises Wheeler was trying to forge).

 

Not sure the likes of Mark Cuban are on board: Cuban says net neutrality will "f--- everything up." (His words, not mine.)

 

I feel we cannot begin to predict how the "Laws of Unintended Consequences" are going to kick in with this Government intrusion.

 

"The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help."

 

"We think we know what we want, but we can never really know until we've got it. And sometimes when we have, we discover we never really wanted it in the first place - but then it's too late.”

 

And for those who might view my post as political, this subject is now by its very nature political. Whether well intentioned or not, our internet is now on the doorstep of Government regulation that it has never had before as dictated to the FCC from the White House. Those are the political facts of the matter.

 

 

[skp51443]

Both sides in this argument have an agenda and both are not telling the truth about what their plans will do. Just because you keep yelling Net Neutrality doesn't mean much since again both sides have redefined the term to mean what they want. A pox on both their houses.

 

I'm all in favor of Net Neutrality as it was originally defined. I'm all in favor of the government enforcing Net Neutrality as originally defined.

 

Definition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality

 

A good article with some good links following it: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/02/fccs-latest-net-neutrality-proposal-pros-cons-and-question-marks

[RV_]

Just because you keep yelling Net Neutrality . . .

 

I'm all in favor of Net Neutrality as it was originally defined. I'm all in favor of the government enforcing Net Neutrality as originally defined.

 

Definition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality

 

A good article with some good links following it: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/02/fccs-latest-net-neutrality-proposal-pros-cons-and-question-marks

 

Ah the old attack the poster not the content opening. Since you are creating this view of my yelling, please do point me to anything I've posted about Net Neutrality that disagrees with that definition in your wiki quote. Or that you say you agree with as a personal position on it.

 

Thanks for using the link from the EFF, which was in agreement with what I have been making folks aware of. Here, from the EFF website you posted is some more of what I've been posting here that you refer to as yelling:

https://act.eff.org/action/net-neutrality-is-within-reach-now-keep-the-pressure-on-congress

Are they yelling? Hmm, sounded like some edumacating and public comments to representatives going on.

[RV_]

Boonedocks,

Thanks for weighing in with your source, an expert on technology by virtue of being an owner of a sports team and a businessman celebrity from Shark tank. But I agree, you and he need to weigh in against reclassifying the Internet as Class II telecommunications. You may use the link above from the EFF that I inked to in order to contact your representatives and tell them to stop Net Neutrality and the FCC. It's on the EFF website that Stan used as his source, an excellent source of Internet policy and opinion, here: https://act.eff.org/action/net-neutrality-is-within-reach-now-keep-the-pressure-on-congress

 

I agree with reclassification and FCC regulation. It appears the unbundling was taken out, which I wanted in, well, you can't have it all.

 

Are you against Americans exercising their rights in their own communities to vote for and allow a municipal Broadband system if they want one? Private and commercial or municipal? In other words allow competition rather than cable monopolies?

 

I'll let you read for yourself what actually happens in communities with "Munis"

http://www.localnetchoice.org/connections/wilson-greenlight-uploads-its-broadband-experience-to-the-country/

 

Can anyone tell me which exact parts of this they disagree with?

http://www.fcc.gov/document/chairman-wheeler-proposes-new-rules-protecting-open-internet

 

We have six days to comment. Pro or Con. make your voice heard.

[BooneDocks]

Boonedocks,

Thanks for weighing in with your source, an expert on technology by virtue of being an owner of a sports team and a businessman celebrity from Shark tank.

 

Mark Cuban's Broadcast.com had nothing to do with the internet or technology?

 

The part I worry about is the fcc.gov part -- where internet regulation is put under control of a bureaucracy that has been perhaps the most politicized one of the the past six years. What could possibly go wrong with regulation by an agency that is being tugged and pulled left and right by political parties? Reminder, this is the same agency that has taken how many years now to approve Gord's new broadband amp without any political considerations whatsoever?

[Jim & Alice]

Both sides in this argument have an agenda and both are not telling the truth about what their plans will do. Just because you keep yelling Net Neutrality doesn't mean much since again both sides have redefined the term to mean what they want. A pox on both their houses.

 

I'm all in favor of Net Neutrality as it was originally defined. I'm all in favor of the government enforcing Net Neutrality as originally defined.

 

Definition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality

 

A good article with some good links following it: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/02/fccs-latest-net-neutrality-proposal-pros-cons-and-question-marks

 

Stan, I have not yet formed an opinion on 'Net Neutrality'. I just read your links. The wiki is reasonable... but it mentions the obama administration will not release its plan until after the FCC vote. That does not inspire confidence. Any idea what is with that?

 

My current state of mind is ... no confidence either way. I do not trust Comcast, et al, and I do not trust the FCC. I like the wiki

stated goals.

 

Thanks,

Jim

[RV_]

Cuban was an opportunist who got very lucky at exactly the right time. Cuban did something similar to what Netflix actually did at a profit. Cuban did not have any of the dial up ISP companies add to his company's losses by using their monopoly to slow them down unless he paid more despite his already paying more to put . it never made a penny they just happened to be in the middle of the dot com boom from 1995 to 1999 when he and Wagner sold to Yahoo.

 

I contend that Cuban would have not only suffered insane losses, but that the ISP cable mafia "protection money" of their being able to beonline would have tipped them into oblivion. In fact, in any sane non dotcom bubble like today, Cuban would laugh his younger self out the door, as would Yahoo. here are excerpts from my source on Cuban. Correct anything he got wrong would you?

 

Excerpt:

 

"When Broadcast.com was taken public it had fewer than $7 million in revenues, $28 million in equity, and an accumulated deficit of of nearly $10 million dollars in its brief history. In reality, the company had little or no chance of achieving profitability in the foreseeable future. Nevertheless, the company IPOed at $18 in 1998 and before the market closed on its first day of trading, the stock had appreciated to $62 per share. Just like that, Cuban had a paper net worth of nearly $100 million; however, the much bigger hit was yet to come.

 

Jessie Livermore once said that the big money was made in the waiting, but Mr. Livermore never lived through the Internet bubble of the 1990s. The Internet bubble was a time when the big money was made by IPOing a dot com, then cashing in as many chips as possible before the air went out of the balloon.

 

To his credit, Mark Cuban recognized that fact and he wasted little time in locking in the counterfeit nature of his new Yahoo stock which had a market value in excess of $1 billion.

 

"In the wake of the Yahoo sale, Cuban had other things on his mind than Broadcast.com's fate. He and Wagner went to Goldman Sachs (GS) and had the investment bank structure a cllar — selling calls and buying puts on Yahoo stock — that locked in the value of their paper profits."

 

Just how crazy was the Internet bubble and the $5.7 billion valuation which was assigned to Broadcast.com? Netflix, which eventually leveraged Cuban's dream of streaming video into a profitable business, has retained earnings of $275 million as of its last balance sheet. NFLX trades at around 6.4 times its trailing revenues, with a forward PE multiple of around 44 times its current price — hardly a value proposition unless one compares those figures with the value assigned to Broadcast.com by Yahoo in 1999. Yahoo paid 57 times the trailing revenues for company with a negative PE outlook for the foreseeable future.

 

Conclusion

I doubt that Mark Cuban will be giving any value lectures to the students at Columbia Business School in the near future; however, he will likely go down in history as one of the world's greatest opportunists. Few men or women have ever gamed a system better than Mr. Cuban. He remains the consummate purveyor of the "Dot Com" model for creating wealth, and for that he deserves at least a modicum of credit."

 

Who is the author of that analysis?

 

About John Emerson

I have been of student of value investing since the mid 1990s. I have continued to read and study value theory on an ongoing basis. My investment philosophy most closely resembles Walter Schloss although I employ considerably less diversification. I also pattern my style after Buffett's early investment career when he was able to purchase shares of tiny companies.

 

The article with much more is here: http://www.gurufocus.com/news/138012/mark-cuban-and-broadcastcom-the-multibillion-dollar-coup

 

I was in Silicon Valley from December 1999 until June of 2000 doing an Internet start up as operations director for a baby boomer website that was started by an Intel exec and was ready for funding in January but the owner who was funding us procrastinated on our trip to Sand Hill Road saying we had plenty of time. Her company is still online but never got the infusion it needed from an initial round of funding.

 

I remember that time well and wrote about it in my Mar 2000 newsletter here: http://home.earthlink.net/~derekgore/rvroadiervfulltimingwhatisitreallylike/id32.html

[bigjim]

I don't know if the you was directed at you specifically, Derek. If he was being general he might have used people keep yelling instead of you. Why don't you just ask him here or by PM? For me, I never even clicked on it being specific. I was more interested in the basic comment about the subject.

[RV_]

No need, but thanks. Last time I tried to PM Stan he had me blocked. Perhaps you might try directing that at Stan, he wrote it, he can and could have clarified it already in private or in person. Let me ask you something Jim. You've stepped in like I misread things several times now and he person who wrote them was never addressed by you. So tell me, have you never asked the writer yourself, in private or in person.

 

In other words Jim, why weren't you asking Stan what he meant?

 

Boonedocks and I have disagreed before without getting personal on my part. We can discuss instead of cuss. If someone physically slapped me in front of you and I told him that violence is the last refuge etc. Would you come and tell me he meant it as a general slap it wasn't personal?

 

The point is really that we have always here tried to all live by a civil standard. Stan can always disagree and get me to engage or agree in a civil manner. Heck, many times we've agreed to disagree here.

 

Jim, I think Stan, and others here can stand up for themselves. I'd be happy to answer any questions about why the regulation of the Telcos by the FCC under these "harsh" regulatory rules have thrived and right now you can go to another carrier and they will cut your bill in half.

 

In most towns please show me one company competing with whoever has the local cable monopoly for that agreed upon city. For example, We have Suddenlink Cable here in Bossier including the Base, and Shreveport right next door has had both Time Warner and now I believe Comcast. And neither competes in each other's town monopoly on broadband. There is no fiber, and like several other states here the Cable lobby managed to get state legislature to reinforce their monopolies by not letting anyone in to compete that is a local start up. Certainly they don't want us to start up a municipal broadband and compete with that.

 

Yes, they, the cable companies will yell and scream, but they will survive competition just like Bell did where today we have cheer telephony thanks to the Title II regulation.

 

Unlike other developed countries that have broadband coast to coast which is much faster, and coast to coast, I don't think the cable monopoly should continue. they should be able to compete with any start up, municipal or private, in pricing, speed and coverage in rural areas. We have local areas here, my FIL's eight acres for example, that are in the city limits without cable or DSL. But the subdivisions being built around them all have Cable, broadband, or DSL. So what's best for Americans? Regulating that others can step in and connect the folks that the current cable and phone companies won't and claim is too expensive would be a good first step in my opinion.

 

Those are the issues at stake.

[RV_]

Jim,

the short version. I don't get personal with others until they get personal with me. It's like we taught in COP (Community Oriented Policing) That strategy is wwll remembered by the retired LEOs here, as it was the in thing for LEO training in the early to late 90s. We taught our folks to go in cool because they could always ratchet it up as needed. But going in hot makes it impossible to cool it back down. I respond that I either did not say it, or sorry it wasn't meant that way, just poor writing on my part. I've been called a troll here way back when someone was operating from a flawed premise in disagreeing with a fact I posted. Passion is great. Everyone knows the line between passion and personal attacks.

 

Now I am going to just go on trying to pass along the facts and help other SKPS here no matter how many other members want things to always go their way. And the tech toys and daily news I want to share with my friends here. No one can please everybody or be liked by everybody. I'm good with that.

And I'm really good at keeping an open mind. Just not so open my brains fall out.

[skp51443]

RV, Sorry you are feeling picked on. In the future you can assume that any post I make that is not addressed directly to you like this one is is not addressed to you. Sorry for the confusion as that was a generic "you" as others have suggested.

 

 

 

Stan, I have not yet formed an opinion on 'Net Neutrality'. I just read your links. The wiki is reasonable... but it mentions the obama administration will not release its plan until after the FCC vote. That does not inspire confidence. Any idea what is with that?

 

My current state of mind is ... no confidence either way. I do not trust Comcast, et al, and I do not trust the FCC. I like the wiki

stated goals.

 

Thanks,

Jim

 

One really doesn't need to form an opinion on Net Neutrality, it is a good thing which really needs to be enforced.

 

The power company doesn't charge different rates for power to your TV or stove, the water company doesn't hit you with a 10% surcharge for water used in the shower or throttle your lawn sprinkler to 25% of full flow so why should your internet provider be able to charge different amounts of money for bytes of data or choke off speeds based on where they are coming from or being used? That is what Net Neutrality started out as but it isn't what the political folks mean today.

 

The problem is that both political sides on this have redefined Net Neutrality to mean what they want and that isn't the classical definition of Net Neutrality. They are both using this as "another crisis that must be solved" to pursue their agendas and that is not in the best interests of anyone but themselves.

 

Hiding the contents of the FCC information is very similar to what was done for the Affordable Care Act, we have to pass it to see what is in it and we have to pass it now - there is no time to review the contents and discuss them in the public forum. The FCC rules are from the 1940 era if I recall correctly and are going to require massive modifications to even apply to the internet and bring along a lot of baggage that should be deleted. How well or badly that has been done we aren't allowed to know.

 

On the other side we have the same folks that brought us the "Satellite Home Viewer Protection Act" and this is a very similar situation.

 

So maybe that initial line needs fixed up a bit:

 

One really doesn't need to form an opinion on Net Neutrality, it is a good thing which really needs to be enforced but one does need to form an opinion on the current attempts to change the internet regardless of what they call them.

 

The solution is either a simple law or a simple FCC ruling (done right this time so a judge won't toss it) that simply states that there will be:

 

No Blocking: broadband providers may not block access to legal content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices.

 

No Throttling: broadband providers may not impair or degrade lawful Internet traffic on the basis of content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices.

 

No Paid Prioritization: broadband providers may not favor some lawful Internet traffic over other lawful traffic in exchange for consideration – in other words, no “fast lanes” – including fast lanes for affiliates.

 

 

[Jim & Alice]

 

The solution is either a simple law or a simple FCC ruling (done right this time so a judge won't toss it) that simply states that there will be:

 

No Blocking: broadband providers may not block access to legal content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices.

 

No Throttling: broadband providers may not impair or degrade lawful Internet traffic on the basis of content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices.

 

No Paid Prioritization: broadband providers may not favor some lawful Internet traffic over other lawful traffic in exchange for consideration – in other words, no “fast lanes” – including fast lanes for affiliates.

 

 

 

Stan, if FCC control could be held to just the above, sounds reasonable. But seems like the Agencies have a life of their own. It is not so much where the FCC starts... it where they go afterwards.

 

I appreciate you, and Derek, for sharing your knowledge on these issues.

Jim

[Scion Gypsy]

 

The power company doesn't charge different rates for power to your TV or stove, the water company doesn't hit you with a 10% surcharge for water used in the shower or throttle your lawn sprinkler to 25% of full flow so why should your internet provider be able to charge different amounts of money for bytes of data or choke off speeds based on where they are coming from or being used? That is what Net Neutrality started out as but it isn't what the political folks mean today.

 

 

 

Seems to me the power company charges you for the amount of kilowatts you use, the water utility for the amount of gallons consumed, etc...so why shouldn't internet providers be allowed to charge bases on the amount of data sent and received? You want the horsepower of a Ferrari you have to pay for that--you can't drink champagne on a beer budget.

 

I am most concerned that the Gov't will become involved in making decisions that infringe on our Constitutional rights. I don't want a government that decides to tip the scales one way or another because it feels a certain point of view needs to be emphasized or toned down.

[RV_]

Stan,

No problem.

 

Well stated. I would add that because Broadband is now a necessity for all Americans to engage in a now healthier economy, that communities whose citizens want their own utility Broadband be allowed to do it. and that anyone that wants to try competing commercially be allowed to do so.

 

Free enterprise means the best service, prices, speeds and reliability to the customers wins.

 

We could have made a case that the manufacturers of 8 tracks had such an investment that we needed to not allow a little company upstart compete with cassette tapes. and at least both of them kept BASF and other tape manufacturers that start in 8 tracks to stay in business and co exist with vinyl records.

 

What if the vinyl guys lobbied the state legislature to pass laws prohibiting the distribution of music on any recorded source except vinyl records?

 

Don already being done by the cable lobbies in state level lobbying.

 

Right now most of us not living in the top 25 markets have no choice for broadband, I don't. But when another wants to come in and compete with them they get local legislatures to regulate any and all competition out. That is regulation against local businesses, communities, and towns.

 

Guys just this time click on this link and see the states, marked in red, that are now prohibiting or hindering municipal broadband.

 

http://www.muninetworks.org/communitymap

 

Then read these regulations pushed by the cable good ol boys here in my state and at the bottom Texas!

 

http://www.muninetworks.org/content/community-broadband-preemption-map

 

Methinks the regulators to be worried about aren't working for us, and are in our own neighborhoods.

 

Competition needs to be allowed, and encouraged, period.

[skp51443]

Seems to me the power company charges you for the amount of kilowatts you use, the water utility for the amount of gallons consumed, etc...so why shouldn't internet providers be allowed to charge bases on the amount of data sent and received? You want the horsepower of a Ferrari you have to pay for that--you can't drink champagne on a beer budget.

 

I am most concerned that the Gov't will become involved in making decisions that infringe on our Constitutional rights. I don't want a government that decides to tip the scales one way or another because it feels a certain point of view needs to be emphasized or toned down.

 

 

That is not an issue here (my bolding above) charging based on speed or data caps is perfectly fine and has nothing to do with Net Neutrality.

 

Where the Net Neutrality comes in is when they charge one rate for bytes from Yahoo and a different rate for bytes from Google or slow one down compared to another.

[bigjim]

Derek it wasn't an accusation. It was more of a clarification. A long time ago ago I aquired a new motto, "Clearer is better." So that is my only motivation.

[RV_]

Jim,

I hear ya bud! Message received and understood. A long time ago I wrote:

 

I didn't worry about disagreeing with you for the reasons you stated, nor being read wrong. Or reading yours wrong. But if you read mine as I read yours and read any part wrong, based on reading into what you read, as you want to read the meaning, and not reading past experience in reading what was read, as the right read to what you read, and then I read anything wrong as well, reading mine would possibly result in my reading yours wrong, by reading too much into it. But if we read it right, can re-read it again to read into it what was written to be read in reading it in the first reading, right?

[Chalkie]

"Chairman Tom Wheeler and others have previewed select parts of the plan ahead of the vote."

 

332 pages and they have not read ahead of time what they are voting on?

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/02/24/commissioners-urge-delay-in-fcc-plan-to-regulate-every-nut-and-bolt-internet/

[Dave Sand]

"Chairman Tom Wheeler and others have previewed select parts of the plan ahead of the vote."

 

332 pages and they have not read ahead of time what they are voting on?

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/02/24/commissioners-urge-delay-in-fcc-plan-to-regulate-every-nut-and-bolt-internet/

 

I think "previewed" actually means "made pubic".

[Chalkie]

 

I think "previewed" actually means "made pubic".

 

Ah, yes, that could well be. I really don't understand the resistance to making the whole thing public and opening it for comments. It would be interesting to see how the post-release comments stacked up to the comments on which it is all supposed to be based.

[RV_]

From the NY Times

 

Excerpt:

 

"WASHINGTON — Senior Republicans conceded on Tuesday that the grueling fight with President Obama over the regulation of Internet service appears over, with the president and an army of Internet activists victorious.

 

The Federal Communications Commission is expected on Thursday to approve regulating Internet service like a public utility, prohibiting companies from paying for faster lanes on the Internet. While the two Democratic commissioners are negotiating over technical details, they are widely expected to side with the Democratic chairman, Tom Wheeler, against the two Republican commissioners.

 

And Republicans on Capitol Hill, who once criticized the plan as “Obamacare for the Internet,” now say they are unlikely to pass a legislative response that would undo perhaps the biggest policy shift since the Internet became a reality.

“We’re not going to get a signed bill that doesn’t have Democrats’ support,” said Senator John Thune, Republican of South Dakota and chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee. “This is an issue that needs to have bipartisan support.”

The whole results are here: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/25/technology/path-clears-for-net-neutrality-ahead-of-fcc-vote.html?emc=edit_th_20150225&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=36852580&_r=0

[Chalkie]

If anyone is interested, here is what the Wall Street Journal has to say on this topic.

 

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=The+net++neutrality+crack-up+holman+jenkins

[Bill Joyce]

If anyone is interested, here is what the Wall Street Journal has to say on this topic.

 

http://www.wsj.com/articles/holman-jenkins-the-net-neutrality-crack-up-1425080173

It is behind a pay wall, so I won't be reading it.

 

Sad that the WSJ is now owned by News Corp.

[Chalkie]

It is behind a pay wall, so I won't be reading it.

 

Sad that the WSJ is now owned by News Corp.

 

Interesting. I found the article via Google. I fixed the link so you can find the article and it is not behind the pay wall.