[governance] Fwd: [IP] Re Ted Cruz just called net neutrality "Obamacare for the internet" and that's bad news for everyone

Mon Nov 10 21:15:51 EST 2014

Prof Faulhaber has it exactly right.

--- Forwarded message ---
From: "Dave Farber via ip" <ip at listbox.com>
Date: November 11, 2014 6:18:21 AM
Subject: [IP] Re Ted Cruz just called net neutrality "Obamacare for the 
internet" and that's bad news for everyone
To: "ip" <ip at listbox.com>

I agree. djf
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Faulhaber, Gerald" <faulhabe at 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 at 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 <http://www.whitehouse.gov/net-neutrality> 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
<http://www.techpolicydaily.com/communications/shifting-alliances-itu/> and
here <http://www.techpolicydaily.com/communications/net-neutrality-laws/>.

*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
<http://www.aei.org/publication/g7-broadband-dynamics-policy-affects-broadband-quality-powerhouse-nations/?utm_source=event&utm_medium=paramount&utm_campaign=bennett>
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*

*From:* farber at gmail.com [mailto:farber at gmail.com] *On Behalf Of *Dave
Farber
*Sent:* Monday, November 10, 2014 1:59 PM
*To:* Faulhaber, Gerald
*Subject:* Fwd: [Dewayne-Net] Ted Cruz just called net neutrality
"Obamacare for the internet" and that's bad news for everyone

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Dewayne Hendricks" <dewayne at warpspeed.com>
Date: Nov 10, 2014 9:36 AM
Subject: [Dewayne-Net] Ted Cruz just called net neutrality "Obamacare for
the internet" and that's bad news for everyone
To: "Multiple recipients of Dewayne-Net" <dewayne-net at warpspeed.com>
Cc:

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
>

Republicans just dominated Democrats in the midterm elections, and by all
popular accounts Obama may become one of the lamest lame ducks in history —
the GOP simply hates the guy and it seems unlikely he's going to get
anything meaningful done before he leaves office. So we're now entering the
presidential "say whatever you want" phase, marked today by the president's
strong new stance on rigorous net neutrality regulation. Republican
leadership was quick to respond:

This is an insanely cynical tactic that should worry all citizens
regardless of political stripe, and it's coming from the guys at the top;
Ted Cruz (R-TX) is a powerful member of the GOP in the Senate and a
potential presidential candidate for 2016. Republicans just took over
Congress and hold the keys to policymaking for at least the next two years.
If the best they can continue to come up with is repeating "Obama is bad!"
the internet is in serious trouble.

Net neutrality is obviously nothing like Obamacare, but Cruz and his
colleagues have already demonstrated they either don't understand what
internet freedom means or they're willing to spread mendacious propaganda
about it to help their friends at Verizon, Comcast, and other monopolistic
ISPs.

Washington is mired in partisanship. Since 2008, the electorate has been
subjected to an endless rhetorical tug-of-war between the GOP and Obama,
who has become a remarkable manifestation of Republican fears projected on
the national stage. Unfortunately, that means even rational policies that
ought to be uncontroversial can become tainted by mere association with the
president. If Cruz's comments today are a sneak peak at Republican
opposition to net neutrality for the next two years, we'll be in for a
rough ride.

[snip]

Dewayne-Net RSS Feed: <http://dewaynenet.wordpress.com/feed/>

-------------------------------------------

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20141111/4f7477f8/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t