Why can’t the news come in even intervals, instead of batching up all at once? So yes, the Senate Net Neutrality vote is coming up. Credit where it’s due: Kay Bailey Hutchison moved the ball forward on this, no doubt about it. Credit also to Marco Rubio making headlines with his strong support of the repeal . And Rubio is right: the whole thing is ridiculous. This regulation closes; it does not open the Internet. Which is why Obama is threatening a veto : can’t have the Congress undoing a regulatory power grab, can we? The representatives of the people, what do they know? Don’t forget to tell your Senators, especially if they’re Democrats or Scott Brown, to vote for the repeal! Remember the Dick Durbin Internet Sales Tax, the one I said could lead to a national sales tax in the form of the Canadian HST (combination Provincial Sales Tax and national Goods and Services Tax)? Well, Durbin has brought Lamar Alexander and Mike Enzi into the picture, and they have a new plan. Essentially they want to create an interstate compact that, well, harmonizes (*cough* HST *cough*) sales tax systems for all states involved. The simplified system will then be collectable across state lines. Further, the plan exempts businesses with less than $500,000 in remote sales. So while this turns Durbin’s talk about ‘fairness’ into a lie, it does show at least a willingness to ease the burden on small business. To be honest, I don’t know what to think of the bill itself yet. I’m going to watch, and read, and make a decision as I gather more information. Oddly enough, as that group of Senators tries to increase interstate taxation, Joe Lieberman and Dick Blumenthal want to reduce it . I imagine the goal here is to help Connecticut telecommuters dodge New York taxes. Works for me. Remember the left trying to silence AT&T? Turns out the Media Reform crowd isn’t all that adverse to big money . Yes, we need to end the Universal Service Fund, not reform it into a different kind of handout. Heritage takes on the topic . Even lefty CWA says the AT&T/T-Mobile deal will create jobs . CWA jobs. So when the Media Reform crowd says otherwise… oops, too late for that lie. AT&T seems to think the deal’s delayed, as the LTE network plans are now for 2013 . Ah, government, saving us from that most frightening of things: more competition for Sprint Nextel to deal with.
Read the original here:
Tech at Night: Stopping Net Neutrality in the Senate, National Sales Tax plan, CWA backs up AT&T
South Korea has Net Neutrality activists in an uproar as, guess what? The government is considering asking a high-bandwidth Internet service to pay its fair share for the government-subsidized Internet in the country. Just more proof that when the radicals say “Net Neutrality,” they really mean “free stuff paid for by the taxpayers.” The radical left’s push for freeloading continues in America too, as Public Knowledge insanely campaigns against 4G wireless Internet . Why? Because providers are making you pay for what you use. Clearly, paying for what you use, according to the principles of freedom of enterprise, is unacceptable to any committed socialist. I’m with Fred Thompson on the Dick Durbin Internet Sales Tax idea : “Dems proposing new internet sales tax. Great idea. Can’t let those billionaires get away with buying untaxed Beanie Babies on eBay.” It’s a punitive idea by losers in the marketplace envious of the success of others, yes, like eBay. Norway engages in panicked censorship for the children of course . This is why we give power to government sparingly, and only when the downsides are far less than the upsides. The potential of abuse with good intentions is always there. But sometimes power grabs are denied. Ignore the bit about ripping CDs, but the UK government is canceling plans to implement their own version of the PROTECT IP law . PROTECT IP is a bill in the Senate that would implement a national Internet blacklist, where the government would effectively hijack domain names of alleged copyright infringers. Such plans of national censorship naturally always spread beyond their original plans. Ask Australia, where the national Internet blacklist quickly spread to cover criticism of the list itself. With Sprint apparently jumping from Clearwire to LightSquared, and now Clearwire itself announcing plans to switch from WiMAX to LTE , it looks like LTE has won the day when it comes to 4G wireless in America. Whether Public Knowledge likes it or not. How about some FCC, as usual? The FCC seems to be playing games with the numbers it puts out , which matters because the FCC’s numbers become the pretext for more regulation. Now the claim is that people have options, but they just don’t know what it is they really want, so they’re picking the “wrong” options. Clearly, then, the solution is more regulation to try to force people into buying Internet services they otherwise wouldn’t, eh? Also note that even as the FCC makes these claims, it’s slipped in a change to its estimated ratio between advertised, theoretical maximum Internet service speeds, and the actual ones delivered in practice, with all the physical limits involved. In 2009 they said real was half of theoretical , but now they’re saying it’s up to 80% . In just two years, implausibly enough! Makes you wonder what other numbers are being… tweaked to suit their need to justify new regulation at any given moment. Greg Walden has his own criticism of the FCC as well , focusing on the fact that the FCC’s failure to follow good, legal processes “weakens the FCC’s credibility.” He’s right when he says “it still has a ways to go” on process, and of course on transparency. Meanwhile, Seton Motley has an important warning when it comes to legislation . The Obama FCC will grab any power it thinks it can manage, and then try for more on the off chance it’ll stick (like Net Neutrality) . Therefore any laws relating to the FCC, such as bills on incentive auctions of spectrum, must be written in a way that constrains, not enables, the FCC. It’s an excellent point, and I hope members of Congress are reading.
Read more here:
Tech at Night: Radicals want free stuff, UK rejects its own PROTECT IP, FDT on Internet Sales Tax, FCC games
Ah, Claire McCaskill. Her not particularly active Twitter account said this week that she wants to be careful about regulation of privacy online, lest those regulations cause us all to have “less access to amazing stuff.” True statement I think. Too bad she refused to stick to her guns on the radical left’s key policy, Net Neutrality. On that issue, McCaskill told MyDD government regulation could cause “an open and free exchange of information” and that she would be “happy to wage” the fight to regulate. Not sure how to reconcile these two positions except that when the radical left tugs on Claire McCaskill’s leash, she jumps, regardless of what’s good for America or for Missouri. How good is the 4G LTE wireless technology that the public really needs AT&T to deploy? The technology that AT&T needs T-Mobile’s spectrum to roll out properly? testing already puts it 7 times faster than the current stuff and 4 times the theoretical cap of my current wired line. So good that Clearwire may switch from WiMAX to LTE . This is great technology. I want, as McCaskill pointed out when not under the thumb of radicals, “access to amazing stuff.” I want government out of this. Government isn’t even all powerful. It can’t always achieve its intended aims. As I’ve pointed out before in this space, the UK is learning that lesson when it comes to so-called superinjunctions meant to protect the rich and famous from having their lives gossiped about in the press. The global Internet is ruining that plan. Sadly, California wants to learn that lesson next and drive innovation out of state or overseas.
See the article here:
Tech at Night: Claire McCaskill on a Net Neutrality leash, 4G LTE is amazing stuff, Internet censorship doesn’t work
It’s the calm before the storm. House Republicans have taken every ordinary measure to work with the President and get the regulatory excesses under control. The administration has refused though, and now the House is preparing to get tough. This buildup applies not just to the FCC, but also to the EPA and other runaway parts of the executive, but here I’m focused on the FCC. I’ve covered earlier efforts recently in this space, but now it continues as Fred Upton and Cliff Stearns are getting bipartisan support for continuing pressure on the FCC , increasing oversight into the area of public safety communications. As someone who has encouraged the assignment of spectrum for public safety, I think greater oversight into what equipment would be used on that spectrum can only help. If we’re not going to use market forces to assign the spectrum, we’d sure better ensure market forces are brought in where they are needed: buying that equipment. Unlike spectrum licensing, phones do have more than one source. There’s a preacher out there saying Net Neutrality is “wicked.” Apart from that loaded language though, even Hillicon Valley admits he’s using the kind of common sense arguments that drove the Net Neutrality repeal vote in the House. Of course, the other issue gradually building up strength is the AT&T/T-Mobile deal, and specifically the regulatory fight over it. AT&T is making the case that with the deal, many more Americans will have access to 4G wireless Internet than without. This makes sense because without the combined spectrum, AT&T won’t have enough to deploy LTE to compete effectively with Verizon. Without the combined capital investments, T-Mobile may not be able to deploy a true 4G technology at all. So yes, this acquisition would increase, not decrease, competition going forward. Government must stay out of the way.
See the original post here:
Tech at Night: FCC, AT&T
In the fast-paced, highly-competitive market of wireless phone and Internet access, this announcement stands out. The wireless carrier with the second-most subscribers, AT&T, is to acquire the number four carrier, T-Mobile USA. Some would say that this is a grave threat to competitiveness, risks reducing competition and increasing prices on everyone, and so should be stopped by the benevolent masters of the Obama administration. I disagree. This is a young and vibrant market, with many competitors already out there, and more yet to come . The acquisition of a lagging company by the #2 company only puts pressure on the #1 firm, Verizon Wireless. Not only that, but existing regulations are plenty strong, and will almost surely result in resources being made available to lesser firms, reshaping the market without reducing choice. Yes, it looks like T-Mobile USA was on the way down. While it was the number four wireless carrier in America last quarter , it was also the top carrier to lose subscribers in 2010Q4. Verizon added 1.1 million, AT&T gained 2.8 million, and Sprint gained 1.1 million as well, but T-Mobile lost 23,000 net subscribers. Even #5 MetroPCS grew much better, adding 290,000 of its own, and MetroPCS made less than a quarter of the revenue to begin with. And it seems unlikely that T-Mobile was going to be able to catch up without a true 4G plan in the wings. T-Mobile’s ads can say all they want that HSPA+ is “4G”, but people have ways of noticing that T-Mobile’s “4G” just can’t compete with true 4G offerings like Verizon’s, Sprint/Clearwire’s, and even MetroPCS’s. Yes, the company you may never have heard of is gradually rolling out its own LTE service centered around larger metro areas, not surprising given the company’s name. So of the top firms, #1, #3, #5, and #8 have 4G going today. #6 and #7 have announced definite plans to deploy 4G. Who’s that leave? #2 AT&T and #4 T-Mobile, the two companies who have been advertising the limited HSPA+ upgrade as 4G, even when it’s better described as an upgraded 3G. These are the two companies greatest at risk of falling behind technologically, while at the same time happening to use the same technology now (though at different frequencies; that’s the only thing that keeps an unlocked iPhone from running on T-Mobile at full 3G speed). If we don’t let these two firms merge, then what we’d risk seeing over time is both of them falling off. Better to let the two of them combine resources to compete better with Verizon and Sprint/Clearwire (yes, the #3 and #8 firms share the same WiMax 4G network), than to risk losing both. Sure, it seems unlikely looking at the numbers that AT&T would collapse, but consider factors like AT&T losing iPhone exclusivity, and the influx of true 4G phones hitting Verizon and Sprint, and that could change quickly. One would think that a big company like AT&T would be able to deploy 4G service. The company has previously talked about going 4G with LTE, and seems likely to do so in the future, but at this time there is nothing happening. Instead, AT&T seems content to upgrade its backhaul (the key Internet connections made to every wireless tower, which dictate how well it can serve its customers, and which got overloaded in the early days of the iPhone), waiting until it’s ready before offering true 4G. One imagines that adding T-Mobile’s resources could only help with that plan. It’s also been a huge point of contention between Verizon and AT&T that Verizon’s “map of coverage” is larger according to some metrics. If AT&T gets a rapid expansion into areas that T-Mobile covers that AT&T does not, then suddenly the race between the top two becomes that much closer, that much more competitive, and therefore that much better for customers. And besides, there’s a lot more to the world of wireless carriers than the big guys we see on television. The country is loaded with regional carriers that serve many people just fine. They get a phone, often free, and they can do what they want: make calls, send texts, get on Facebook and Twitter. It would be a mistake to declare the market non-competitive just because those of us with more specialized needs (national coverage, high-speed data) lose T-Mobile as an option, “only” being left with Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, MetroPCS, US Cellular, Clearwire, probably more I’m not thinking of, and any other firms that enter the market later such as LightSquared. Some monopoly situation there, eh? Let the merger happen. Let AT&T sell off redundant spectrum of T-Mobile’s that it no longer needs, let AT&T sell off redundant towers in areas that AT&T already covers well, two things the government can already demand AT&T do without blocking the deal, and the market will have a sudden opening for someone else to join in or even expand. In the end, life goes on and we’ll still see fierce competition in this market. Oh, were you worried about data caps? Then stop digging a hole of regulation and order the FCC to take its hands off of wireless ISPs, silly!
Read the original:
There is no need to block an AT&T acquisition of T-Mobile
