<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html"/>
</head>
<body>
<div style="color: black;">
<p style="margin: 0 0 1em 0; color: black;">Prof Faulhaber has it exactly
right. <br></p>
<p style="margin: 0 0 1em 0; color: black;">--- Forwarded message ---<br>
From: "Dave Farber via ip" <ip@listbox.com><br>
Date: November 11, 2014 6:18:21 AM<br>
Subject: [IP] Re Ted Cruz just called net neutrality
"Obamacare for the internet" and that's bad news for everyone<br>
To: "ip" <ip@listbox.com></p>
<p style="margin: 0 0 1em 0; color: black;">I agree. djf<br>
---------- Forwarded message ----------<br>
From: "Faulhaber, Gerald" <faulhabe@wharton.upenn.edu><br>
Date: Nov 10, 2014 1:51 PM<br>
Subject: RE: [Dewayne-Net] Ted Cruz just called net neutrality "Obamacare<br>
for the internet" and that's bad news for everyone<br>
To: "Dave Farber" <dave@farber.net><br>
Cc:</p>
<p style="margin: 0 0 1em 0; color: black;"> Being on the same side of an
argument as Ted Cruz is quite disturbing, I<br>
admit;-) But I find the Obama NN announcement to be very wrong, on
several<br>
levels: i) he shouldn't be telling an independent agency what to do; ii) he<br>
is specifically stating his preference for Title II rather than Section 706<br>
for no apparent reason; (iii) he seems to have no understanding of the<br>
"dead hand of regulation" and how it can stultify the Internet, and iv) he<br>
is giving succor to nations like China, Russia, etc. that also want to<br>
regulate the Internet and will see any US action in that direction as a<br>
good excuse to do so.<br><br></p>
<p style="margin: 0 0 1em 0; color: black;">Here's some statements from AEI
economists on the Obama NN announcement.<br>
Very critical of the announcement (no surprise there), but rather more<br>
measured than Cruz:<br><br></p>
<p style="margin: 0 0 1em 0; color: black;">The Obama administration just
announced its support for Title II<br>
reclassification of the Internet. While President Obama acknowledged the<br>
independence of the FCC in his controversial statement, his call for<br>
reclassification is a noteworthy intervention in ongoing rulemaking<br>
procedures. AEI’s scholars share their thoughts on the announcement’s<br>
implications for ISPs and consumers alike.</p>
<p style="margin: 0 0 1em 0; color: black;">*Jeffrey Eisenach:*</p>
<p style="margin: 0 0 1em 0; color: black;">The Federal Communications
Commission was created to be an independent<br>
regulatory agency, above and beyond the reach of crass politics. The White<br>
House’s decision to intervene in an ongoing rulemaking makes a mockery of<br>
any sense of independence or impartiality. A legitimate case can be made<br>
that a decision as large, and as lacking in statutory basis, as the FCC’s<br>
intervention in the net neutrality matter is correctly a matter for<br>
politicians, not bureaucrats. To the extent that is the case,
however,<br>
there is only one legitimate route, and it starts in the Congress, not the<br>
White House. If the FCC bows to pressure from the White House on this<br>
issue, the agency’s reputation will suffer a terrible stain.</p>
<p style="margin: 0 0 1em 0; color: black;">*Bret Swanson:*</p>
<p style="margin: 0 0 1em 0; color: black;">The Internet in the US has
thrived almost beyond imagination under a<br>
multi-decade, bipartisan stance of policy restraint. Imposing Title II<br>
telephone regulations on the wildly successful US Internet would be a<br>
historic economic blunder.</p>
<p style="margin: 0 0 1em 0; color: black;">*Roslyn Layton:*</p>
<p style="margin: 0 0 1em 0; color: black;">During the President’s official
visit to China today, the White House<br>
issued a statement <<a
href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/net-neutrality">http://www.whitehouse.gov/net-neutrality</a>>
from the<br>
President saying that he supports government regulation of the Internet by<br>
reclassifying broadband under Title II of the Telecommunications Act of<br>
1934. This announcement follows on the heels of the ITU
Plenipotentiary<br>
meeting, where Chinese member Houlin Zhao has been elected the new<br>
Secretary. This statement is not only a terrible message for the US,
but<br>
for the rest of world. Indeed, foreign authoritarian governments have been<br>
looking for justification to monitor networks and users under the guise of<br>
net neutrality and the “Open Internet.” Obama’s announcement could not be a<br>
better present to the leaders of China, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. Read my<br>
articles about this here<br>
<<a
href="http://www.techpolicydaily.com/communications/shifting-alliances-itu/">http://www.techpolicydaily.com/communications/shifting-alliances-itu/</a>>
and<br>
here <<a
href="http://www.techpolicydaily.com/communications/net-neutrality-laws/">http://www.techpolicydaily.com/communications/net-neutrality-laws/</a>>.</p>
<p style="margin: 0 0 1em 0; color: black;">*Daniel Lyons:*</p>
<p style="margin: 0 0 1em 0; color: black;">Title II reclassification would
impose upon a vibrant Internet a legal<br>
regime designed in the 1930s to control the old AT&T monopoly. Indeed,
the<br>
proposed ban on paid prioritization is more stringent than the obligations<br>
we once shackled on Ma Bell. The White House’s proposal to homogenize<br>
broadband Internet access is inconsistent with an increasingly diverse<br>
marketplace and would deprive Americans of countless innovative business<br>
models currently proliferating worldwide. Individualized bargaining allows<br>
for experimentation and testing of potentially more efficient business<br>
models that could get consumers the content and services that they need<br>
better than existing practices. Broadband policies turn upon a host of<br>
highly technical issues, in both fixed and wireless markets, that cannot be<br>
reduced to political sound bytes. This is why these policy decisions are<br>
firmly vested in the hands of an independent agency with the technical<br>
expertise to understand the nuances of these policies, insulated from the<br>
very political pressure that the White House is attempting to bring to bear<br>
on the Commission. There are numerous potentially pro-consumer alternatives<br>
to one-size-fits-all broadband access. Whatever rules the Commission<br>
ultimately adopts should allow for innovation that provides consumers with<br>
the services they desire online, wherever that innovation occurs in the<br>
Internet ecosystem.</p>
<p style="margin: 0 0 1em 0; color: black;">*Richard Bennett:*</p>
<p style="margin: 0 0 1em 0; color: black;">Overall broadband quality in
the United States is better than broadband<br>
quality in all comparable nations<br>
<<a
href="http://www.aei.org/publication/g7-broadband-dynamics-policy-affects-broadband-quality-powerhouse-nations/?utm_source=event&utm_medium=paramount&utm_campaign=bennett">http://www.aei.org/publication/g7-broadband-dynamics-policy-affects-broadband-quality-powerhouse-nations/?utm_source=event&utm_medium=paramount&utm_campaign=bennett</a>><br>
thanks to the facilities-based competition model that we’ve followed since<br>
the Clinton Administration. President Obama’s desire to abandon our<br>
home-grown policy framework in favor of the approach used in the<br>
worst-performing nations such as Italy and France amounts to snatching<br>
defeat out of the jaws of victory and compromises the FCC’s legal<br>
independence. It’s unfortunate that the White House refuses to put the<br>
well-being of the American people above the wishes of misguided and poorly<br>
informed activists.</p>
<p style="margin: 0 0 1em 0; color: black;">*Mark Jamison:*</p>
<p style="margin: 0 0 1em 0; color: black;">The Administration’s announcing
how it wants the Federal Communications<br>
Commission to decide on Title II regulation of the Internet does not bode<br>
well for broadband in the US. The FCC is an independent agency for a<br>
reason, namely to keep politics at arm’s length from critical<br>
infrastructure investment. Studies over the past 20 years have confirmed<br>
what Congress knew 80 years ago when it developed the agency: Politicians<br>
like to expropriate the value of infrastructure for their own political<br>
ends, and this hurts customers by scaring off investment. An independent<br>
agency is intended to stand between politics and investment by regulating<br>
under the law through a fact-oriented, transparent process. Whether the<br>
Internet has utility and common carriage features that merit Title II<br>
treatment is an issue for Congress or for the FCC, deciding under its<br>
statutory authority and subject to judicial review."<br><br><br><br></p>
<p style="margin: 0 0 1em 0; color: black;">Professor Emeritus Gerald
Faulhaber</p>
<p style="margin: 0 0 1em 0; color: black;">Business Economics and Public
Policy Dept.</p>
<p style="margin: 0 0 1em 0; color: black;">Wharton School, University of
Pennsylvania</p>
<p style="margin: 0 0 1em 0; color: black;">*Professor Emeritus, Law
School*</p>
<p style="margin: 0 0 1em 0; color: black;">*University of
Pennsylvania*<br><br></p>
<p style="margin: 0 0 1em 0; color: black;">*From:* farber@gmail.com
[mailto:farber@gmail.com] *On Behalf Of *Dave<br>
Farber<br>
*Sent:* Monday, November 10, 2014 1:59 PM<br>
*To:* Faulhaber, Gerald<br>
*Subject:* Fwd: [Dewayne-Net] Ted Cruz just called net neutrality<br>
"Obamacare for the internet" and that's bad news for everyone<br><br></p>
<p style="margin: 0 0 1em 0; color: black;">---------- Forwarded message
----------<br>
From: "Dewayne Hendricks" <dewayne@warpspeed.com><br>
Date: Nov 10, 2014 9:36 AM<br>
Subject: [Dewayne-Net] Ted Cruz just called net neutrality "Obamacare for<br>
the internet" and that's bad news for everyone<br>
To: "Multiple recipients of Dewayne-Net" <dewayne-net@warpspeed.com><br>
Cc:</p>
<p style="margin: 0 0 1em 0; color: black;">Ted Cruz just called net
neutrality "Obamacare for the internet" and that's<br>
bad news for everyone<br>
Obamacare is bad, so this must be bad, right?<br>
By T.C. Sottek<br>
Nov 10 2014<br>
<<br>
<a
href="http://www.theverge.com/2014/11/10/7186433/what-senator-ted-cruz-just-said-should-scare-anyone-who-wants">http://www.theverge.com/2014/11/10/7186433/what-senator-ted-cruz-just-said-should-scare-anyone-who-wants</a><br>
></p>
<p style="margin: 0 0 1em 0; color: black;">Republicans just dominated
Democrats in the midterm elections, and by all<br>
popular accounts Obama may become one of the lamest lame ducks in history —<br>
the GOP simply hates the guy and it seems unlikely he's going to get<br>
anything meaningful done before he leaves office. So we're now entering the<br>
presidential "say whatever you want" phase, marked today by the president's<br>
strong new stance on rigorous net neutrality regulation. Republican<br>
leadership was quick to respond:</p>
<p style="margin: 0 0 1em 0; color: black;">This is an insanely cynical
tactic that should worry all citizens<br>
regardless of political stripe, and it's coming from the guys at the top;<br>
Ted Cruz (R-TX) is a powerful member of the GOP in the Senate and a<br>
potential presidential candidate for 2016. Republicans just took over<br>
Congress and hold the keys to policymaking for at least the next two years.<br>
If the best they can continue to come up with is repeating "Obama is bad!"<br>
the internet is in serious trouble.</p>
<p style="margin: 0 0 1em 0; color: black;">Net neutrality is obviously
nothing like Obamacare, but Cruz and his<br>
colleagues have already demonstrated they either don't understand what<br>
internet freedom means or they're willing to spread mendacious propaganda<br>
about it to help their friends at Verizon, Comcast, and other monopolistic<br>
ISPs.</p>
<p style="margin: 0 0 1em 0; color: black;">Washington is mired in
partisanship. Since 2008, the electorate has been<br>
subjected to an endless rhetorical tug-of-war between the GOP and Obama,<br>
who has become a remarkable manifestation of Republican fears projected on<br>
the national stage. Unfortunately, that means even rational policies that<br>
ought to be uncontroversial can become tainted by mere association with the<br>
president. If Cruz's comments today are a sneak peak at Republican<br>
opposition to net neutrality for the next two years, we'll be in for a<br>
rough ride.</p>
<p style="margin: 0 0 1em 0; color: black;">[snip]</p>
<p style="margin: 0 0 1em 0; color: black;">Dewayne-Net RSS Feed: <<a
href="http://dewaynenet.wordpress.com/feed/">http://dewaynenet.wordpress.com/feed/</a>><br><br></p>
<p
style="margin: 0 0 1em 0; color: black;">-------------------------------------------</p>
</div>
</body>
</html>