Replacing Title II with an updated version with similar goals would probably fix that. [e.g. Move the government out of the rate/price control aspects but retain the lack of discrimination requirements]
At which point, it probably makes sense for the USF to be funded by ISPs as well as phone providers. However, the fee structure would need to be altered to not run off what is basically a long distance call tax.
The FCC doesn't have the power to do that, however. Congress would need to fix it. Shall we begin praying for miracles?
I don't think it'll take a miracle. I think that is in fact what we will eventually get: legislation that imposes a neutrality requirement, but with loopholes for QoS and traffic shaping. That's probably not even overtly the wrong thing, although I do think it will drive even more investment out of wireline.
I think you have more faith in Congress than I then. I fully expect the ISPs to manage to buy someone off to make the QoS & traffic shaping loopholes big enough for a lobbyist to sail his new yacht through. ;)
"Unfortunately, as Netflix is not determined to be a 'critical service' under Title II 2.0, we are forced to ask for additional funds so that we may meet our QoS guarantees for Hospitals, Police, and other life saving services. You don't really value saving lives beneath your entertainment, do you? You'd be a terrible person if you did..."
If that is the case, it is going to be Netflix + Google + Token support from other tech companies vs. all of the ISPs. The ISPs are only pulling this stunt with video services and I doubt the other tech companies are going to throw a ton of money to help "other people".
I'm not sure the tech side would win that fight which is what makes me uncomfortable.
I don't think it's just a matter of cash. Google actually spends more on lobbying than either AT&T or Verizon: http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?indexType=s&showYea.... And the numbers aren't of the magnitude people assume: the top spenders are single-digit millions with the exception of the Chamber of Commerce.
You need a certain minimum amount of money, but after that it's more about ideology and jobs. The tech industry has plenty of money, but it's ideology is not easy to fit into a traditional classification, and it doesn't create that many jobs per dollar of revenue.
AT&T is very effective at lobbying because they can go up to a Republican and say: "look, the internet companies want to revive this FDR-era regulation! Also, we create thousands of jobs for ordinary Americans like utility pole maintenance workers." Per dollar of lobbying expenditure, that's a much more compelling message than: "{something about openness} and also we create a few jobs most people in your district don't have the education to get and most of these jobs are in California anyway."
The reason people "assume" it is expensive is because realistically, even small groups of average citizens, cannot afford to pay for a lobbying effort on things that matter to them.
I never said the process requires ridiculous amounts of money. I just pointed out I fully expect the process to result in rather large loopholes that are in the ISP's favor.
Ah well, it seems we more or less agree, so I probably should stop pestering you. ;)
As far as the USF goes it is already being spent on broadband: http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/connecting-america
At which point, it probably makes sense for the USF to be funded by ISPs as well as phone providers. However, the fee structure would need to be altered to not run off what is basically a long distance call tax.
The FCC doesn't have the power to do that, however. Congress would need to fix it. Shall we begin praying for miracles?