Joe Rogan Experience No. 1064 with Jessica Rosenworcel of the FCC

Hello!
I'm a brand new Ham novice. Just wanted to share with the forums that Jessica Rosenworcel, one of the 5 seats on the Federal Communications Comission was a guest of the Joe Rogan Experience podcast. She was co-guest alongside Eddie. They talk mostly Net Neutrality (she opposed the net neutrality ban). They also talk some politics, current affairs, etc.). It is interesting that by the end of the podcast she did weigh in her that certain "less used parts" of the electrical spectrum could be put to more use, creating secondary and tertiary rights which could be useful for "making our phones more powerful". Does that mean cutting into part of the spectrum reserved for Hams?
Jump to the 1:17:00 mark to hear her.
Heres Podcast on itunes
https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/the-joe-rogan-experience/id360084272?mt=2&i=1000399925443
Here's the Youtube Link


73's

 

A note: For some reason on itunes, the discussion of using more of the spectrum is on 1:17:00 . On Youtube its about 10 mins earlier at about the 1:08:00 mark. This due to the fact that the podcast has ads and the youtube version they jump right into the conversation. Just listen around the 1 hour mark.

 

Like LISTENING to paint dry!

 

Alas, Jessica Rosenworcel - a former Congressional aide - always seems to advocate whatever is in the best interests of her big corporate booster: Google (now Alphabet). This is the reason she constantly pushed the "net neutrality" regulations, which weren't "neutral" at all. Those regulations, which were written by a Google lobbyist who was hired into the FCC, started out by prohibiting ISPs from doing things they were not doing in the first place... and then, in the later fine print, subjected ISPs to heavy regulation and Google itself to none. The regulations also prohibited ISPs from offering services which might give aspiring Google competitors a leg up, or from interfering with Google's practice of spying on Internet users without their consent and then using that information to target advertising at them. On spectrum, she is not amateurs' friend; she'd gladly rip spectrum away from hams to give it to one of Google's pet radio projects, such as "Project Loon" (which supposedly delivers broadband via unmanned zeppelin-like craft). Of the current Commissioners, I believe that Carr (who has had a lot of contact with hams in his time at the Commission) and Pai (who grew up in a rural area where hams do a lot of public service) will be the most friendly to hams' interests.

 

How could anyone listen to that blast of ignorance?

 

Right as I get interested in microwave bands, poof, they'll snatch it up to make my cellphone 'faster'.

At least transverters will be cheaper

 

Net Neutrality is good for the United States. Remember that Ajit Pai was literally a lawyer for Comcast. You comment back when your ISP is charging you extra to access certain websites.

 

Net Neutrality took effect 12 June 15 where would one find a list of the problems with the internet for all the years prior to that date corrected by Net Neutrality as well as the list of ISP's who prior to that date were "charging you extra to access certain websites "?

Net Neutrality=government takeover of the internet.

 

This is incorrect. First of all, Pai worked for Verizon, not Comcast. Secondly, this is a normal part of a telecommunications lawyer's career path and in no way weds anyone to that employer for the rest of his or her career. Ajit Pai spent two years - at the very beginning of his long career - as a lawyer for Verizon. He then moved into private practice and from there into public service, where he has spent the vast majority of his career (including a stint as counsel for the FCC). By contrast, Tom Wheeler - Pai's predecessor as Chairman who imposed the so-called "neutrality" regulations - spent most of his career as a telecom lobbyist, working first as CEO of NCTA (of which Comcast is the largest member) and then as CEO of CTIA (the cell phone trade association which is trying to take spectrum away from hams for use by its members). So, if any FCC Chairman could have been accused of working for Verizon OR Comcast, it would have been Wheeler, not Pai.

Also, as I mention above, "net neutrality" is merely a feel-good slogan which lobbyists for Google, Netflix, Facebook, and other monopoly Internet edge providers have been using to promote harmful regulation of the Internet. No ISP has ever charged extra for access to "certain Web sites" or was ever considering doing so; this was merely a scare story ginned up by those lobbyists. And the regulations, since they were put into effect in 2015, have slowed Internet speeds; raised bills; blocked the creation of new competitive ISPs; stalled the deployment of broadband to rural areas; and prevented ISPs from selling necessary services to startup companies that wished to challenge those monopolists. Pai listened to consumers, ISPs (many of whom, like me, are hard working professionals who deliver service via wireless), and the innovators who had been hampered by the regulations - which violated 47 USC 230(b) and 47 USC 23o(f) and were facing a Supreme Court challenge as a result. The results have already begun to show.... Investors are considering investing in broadband again. I expect that, within a few years, everyone will learn from this "experiment" that government regulation of the Net is a bad thing, and that - as stated in the above Federal laws - we must not regulate it. Especially with regulations that are bought and paid for large, monopolistic corporations as the 2015 regulations were.

 

It's Big Brother Watching!!!

 

'Ok Fred, now you're a yaga yaga
Ok Fred, bully for you
Ok Fred, now you're a yaga yaga
I wanna be one too



Ok Fred, now I'm a yaga yaga
Ok Fred, what do I do?
Ok Fred, now I'm a yaga yaga
I am just like you.'

...

Errol Dunkley – O.k. Fred

 

Say; what's the resonant frequency of that tinfoil horn antenna? ;-)

 

No matter what the government (at any level) tries to take over and regulate they ruin and it doesn't matter which political party it is from.

 

If net neutrality serves no purpose because Internet service providers ("ISPs") were not planning to charge extra for access to certain sites, then where is the harm in the FCC's rules? If the rules had no effect on the conduct of existing ISPs, how could these rules slow Internet speeds, block the creation of new ISPs, or stall the deployment of broadband access to rural areas?

I'm also unclear how 47 U.S. Code § 230 prohibits the FCC's net neutrality rules. I've read this statute; it seems to establish a federal preference for Internet users to use technology to control objectionable content such as obscenity or stalking. It does not seem to prohibit the FCC from regulating arguably monopolistic practices by ISPs.