Monday, January 23, 2017

FirstNet and Net Neutrality, Why Chairman Ajit Pai is a good thing!

Let me explain, in layman’s terms, why Ajit Pai leading the FCC (Federal Communication Commission) is a big thing. Simply, Net Neutrality is essentially another way of nationalizing the Internet – that means making the Internet government owned and run. It would be like having the government operate and run our highway systems across the entire world. Don’t know how many people have driven the federal highways in Pennsylvania, but the government hasn’t done a very good job. Or, it’s like the federal government running your healthcare and we all know how that went.

A lot of pundits were of the belief that the Internet should be free. Free access, free content delivery, free voice calls, etc… That sounds all good and wonderful, but unless the government all of a sudden designed, deployed, and maintains their own network for all Americans, then that would be feasible thus making the “Internet” free. We all know the taxpayers would fund it though, thus nothing is free. But, we all know the government doesn’t own such a network, so the go-around is to nationalize, or lay siege too, the commercial networks and call it their own – better yet they call it “Net Neutrality”. This is why Net Neutrality is no good. It's the "Imminent Domain of Broadband" of the Internet from the carriers. The whole reason you and I can communicate today is because of the creativity of the commercial carriers and market demand. Why anyone would think that the government would do any better than good ole American ingenuity is beyond me?

You see the big issue is the big name “Net Neutrality”. The meaning of the word gets lost in translation, thus making it hard for the common person to understand, let alone want to understand. It’s simply an easy way to allow the Internet in the United States to get nationalized because nobody will take the time to understand it – come to think of it this may be plan-by-design from the government, or the past FCC Board. The only thing is that we live in a Democratic Republic based on individual freedoms, freedoms for you and me,and freedoms for you and me to own property – like the carriers owning their own network. Unless we live in a communist or socialist society the term “Net Neutrality” is bad. I mean how would you like it if the government came in and seized your business then gave all your products for free to the public? That’s essentially what Net Neutrality does to the carriers. Why would a carrier ever want to build another product for our benefit?

The whole reason we even have the Internet is because of our rights to own our own business and sell goods, exactly what the carriers did. But what happens when you make a product that everyone likes, thus they start crying foul when they can’t get it for the price they want? This is why we have big arguments about Net Neutrality. If the Federal Government wants to provide “Internet” like services to every American, then it needs to get off its ass and create its own network instead of trying to steal it from private business. But, that won’t happen. Why? Because the Federal Government doesn’t have the means other than through the taxpayer to fund such a “want”. If the government is saying that it is a “need”, then there is a way and it involves the Public Safety Broadband Network or FirstNet.

The Public Safety Broadband Network is the first opportunity the government has to take a stake in ownership of its own telecommunications infrastructure – an infrastructure that will support all its needs. Balanced through a Public Private Partnership the Federal Government, and the State, can have ownership in a privatized broadband solution that enables for a combined approach to a national infrastructure of towers, backhaul, fiber and control centers that can enable access to everyone, every business and every agency. The solution is not a government funded solution, and it does not require the government operated network, it’s a balance between the Public and Private markets. In essence, it would be a private tollway system to the Internet whereas the government and private industry get to reap the benefits of revenue, while at the same time employing Americans, reducing taxpayer funding, boosting the economy, all while creating a prioritized-hardened platform that commercial and government business can expand beyond their current access footprint.

So NO, we don’t want “Net Neutrality”, this is the point that Ajit Pai was trying to make when he was the lone NAY vote on the past FCC Board for Net Neutrality. Hope that helps.



But who am I other than…




Just some guy and a blog….



No comments:

Moto

Words to Live By: “Here’s to the crazy ones, the misfits, the rebels, the troublemakers, the round pegs in the square holes… The ones who see things differently — they’re not fond of rules… You can quote them, disagree with them, glorify or vilify them, but the only thing you can’t do is ignore them because they change things… They push the human race forward, and while some may see them as the crazy ones, we see genius, because the ones who are crazy enough to think that they can change the world, are the ones who do.” (Steve Jobs)