My academic post makes it
possible for countless hours of reading across the entire political, economic,
philosophical and social spectrum. I
recommend you avoid the common practice of seeking only content that confirms
preconceptions. My eclectic pursuit of
all sides to the story requires patience and tolerance for hyperbole and
deliberate mistruths.
Two
frequently used strategies drive me crazy.
A pox on all houses—left, right and central--where authors personalize a
dispute and perpetuate a mischaracterization of truth when they surely know
better.
I recently
read an extensive analysis about the refusal of Verizon Wireless in California
to waive its contractual right to throttle broadband bit transmission speeds of
first responders, including fire fighters.
The author and I share many conclusions, including the confirmation that
Verizon reserved the legal right to throttle subscribers who exceed a threshold
of data usage, despite having purchased an “unlimited” data plan. Additionally, the author and I agree that
Verizon did not violate any specific prohibition in the now reversed FCC 2015
Open Internet Order.
Not content
to make a convincing and thorough case, the author (I will not identify, or
vilify him) relied on two strategies I will not use. He singled out and maligned an individual who
had a major role in shaping the FCC’s 2015 document. Rather than agree to disagree, the author
deviated from substantive discourse and took several opportunities to criticize
the person and not her work product. How
does vilifying a person enhance and bolster the critic’s case?
The other
uncivil strategy involves the misrepresentation of a regulatory policy as more
intrusive, unnecessary, harmful and atavistic than what is true. In this case, the author misrepresented the FCC’s
common carrier, telecommunications service regulation applied to Internet
Service Providers as something appropriate only for “public utilities.” Surely this author knows wireless carriers,
including Verizon Wireless, trigger Title II, common carrier regulatory
oversight. This regulatory status does
not convert wireless carriers into public utilities, nor does it impose
burdensome regulatory duties.
The
Telecommunications Act of 1996 authorizes the FCC to streamline and forbear from
imposing most common carrier regulatory burdens when a market becomes
competitive. The FCC has largely
deregulated the wireless marketplace even as it continues to classify service
providers as common carriers. No one can
credibly assert that U.S. wireless carriers bear a costly regulatory burden that
has created major disincentives for these carriers to participate in billion
dollar spectrum auctions, or to invest billions more in infrastructure.
Characterizing
Title II regulation as unnecessary and so “old school” misrepresents the
nature, scope and burden of the flexibility the FCC has in applying this legislatively
mandated classification. The author
appears to have used this frequent mischaracterization to bolster his argument that
network neutrality regulation is unnecessary.
We could have civil and substantive discussion about whether and how the
FCC should regulate ISPs, including whether such oversight has any impact on public
safety and the broadband speed of first responders’ smartphones. As well, we could speculate whether the FCC
would have backed away from its initial streamlining of ISP regulatory
oversight. Instead, the author uses an
inappropriate public utility frame for the nature of the FCC’s previous
regulatory regime. He appears to imply
that any sort of common carrier regulation constitutes overreach, even as
wireless carriers have thrived under such status, without operating as public
utilities, or trying to characterize their regulatory burden as equal to that
borne by true public utilities, like electric companies.
The author
distracts his largely on point analysis with two uncivil tactics that have
become both common and inappropriate.
