[178544] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Lamar Owen)
Sat Feb 28 12:06:20 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2015 12:06:01 -0500
From: Lamar Owen <lowen@pari.edu>
To: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAORNjyoEZCTtYZbkJF0CQDGGLND=TNJ_=-a=t8niAUg4PLKEbA@mail.gmail.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On 02/27/2015 02:14 PM, Jim Richardson wrote:
> From 47CFR=A78.5b
> (b) A person engaged in the provision of mobile broadband Internet
> access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not block
> consumers from accessing lawful Web sites, subject to reasonable
> network management; nor shall such person block applications that
> compete with the provider's voice or video telephony services, subject
> to reasonable network management.
>
> What's a "lawful" web site?
That would likely be determined on a case-by-case basis during=20
Commission review of a complaint, I would imagine, with each FCC=20
document related to each case becoming part of the collection of=20
precedent (whether said document is a NAL, NOV, or R&O would be somewhat=20
immaterial). The obvious answer is 'a website that has no illegal=20
content' but once something is brought to a hearing, what is 'obvious'=20
doesn't really matter.
If you want to read about the types of rationale that can be used to=20
determine terms like 'lawful' in this context, search through=20
Enforcement Bureau actions relating to 47CFR=A773.3999 "Enforcement of=20
18 U.S.C. 1464 (restrictions on the transmission of obscene and indecent=20
material)." For more technical considerations, you might find the=20
collection of precedent on what satisfies 47CFR=A773.1300, 1350, and 1400=
=20
to be more interesting reading, if you're into this sort of arcana.
