Tom also outlined the following stark warning delivered not just for America but for our at home John Milton Brigade:
"Overturning the Open Internet rule would also jeopardize the legal underpinnings of the
broadband privacy rules, and indeed Republicans have targeted the recent privacy order for
repeal. But in today's interconnected world, the absence of FCC regulation does not necessarily
mean there is no regulation. Rather, it simply creates a vacuum that will be filled by other rulemakers
in other countries.
In the absence of FCC privacy rules - and with the recent court case raising serious questions
about the FTC's authority to impose privacy requirements on the non-common carrier businesses
of common carriers - US carriers could find could find themselves unable to qualify for the
Commerce Department's Privacy Shield Framework for their ISP businesses. The result would
be the regulation of American businesses under the privacy rules of the European Union."
I see - the European Union and accordingly the Digital Single Market?
Well, when the US recognizes the importance of these matters, and the OFCOM and the UK Government does not, then should we not all take note?
However when these ISP's Tom refers too and the JMB talk about the ideology of free trade, what they are really referring to is the Darwinian concept of the "survival of the fittest: The Law of the Jungle." We all know the consequences that technical inequality is currently generating and focusing our minds. But clearly these ISP's are merely engaged in positioning for the adoption of their preferred technical standards. What the JMB have failed to grasp is that these ISP's shall fall into line and adopt the prevailing technical standard once the industry settles on one. It is a connectivity self-interest thing.
Finally Tom states:
"Access to the network is what the new economy is built on, and it must not be taken away. The
vigilance Lincoln spoke of means we must be alert to name-only, so-called Net Neutrality policies that actually retreat from the protections that exist today.
The open Internet is the most powerful engine for innovation, economic growth and job creation in the world today. The opportunities before us are limitless. As we choose our path forward, we need to remember how we got here. We got here with smart government, not absent government. We got here with a government that was pro-competition, not pro-incumbent. We got here thanks to policies rooted in reality, not ideology. Most important, we got here because of the genius of America's inventors and entrepreneurs and an open platform that allowed them to execute their ideas without having to ask for permission."
So what permission shall we need to seek from OFCOM in the Global Spectrum Sharing and Spectrum Monitoring era?
I confess that, I have been remiss in not citing Laurence Strickland in person more often. His leadership was not without merit. His own comprehensive account of the performance of the NTIA under his leadership is outlined in the speech he delivered to the Hudson Institute, on the 16th December 2016: "The 5G Wireless Future and the Role of the Federal Government.".
I shall merely cite his parting thoughts here:
"As I conclude, let me leave you with some final thoughts about what we have learned over the last eight years as well as some issues that I believe need additional attention in the immediate and near term if we are to ensure that 5G and all spectrum based technologies reach their true potential.
First, there is no longer any question that spectrum sharing has to be a major part of the solution. And the only way sharing will work is by maintaining and even extending collaborative and cooperative processes and relationships that bring all affected stakeholders together, including the FCC and NTIA and the spectrum user community including federal and non-federal users.
Second, as the airwaves become more congested, we need to develop and enforce minimal technical rules to protect against unauthorized harmful interference. Automated enforcement approaches make a lot of sense but will require increased investment to develop interference analysis tools. I also believe we are going to have to finally address the performance characteristics of spectrum receivers. Otherwise, you can limit the ability to effectively use all available spectrum. And we must take advantage of new opportunities such as 5G to build enforcement tools into the technology.
Third, as a nation, and really even as a global spectrum community, we must continue to invest in research and development of technologies that will help us make the most effective and efficient use of spectrum. There are pieces in place, from expanded use of the Spectrum Relocation Fund, to the Wireless Spectrum R&D consortium to the National Science Foundation's Advanced Wireless Research Initiative. But I hope that collectively we will do even more.