[178552] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Lamar Owen)
Sat Feb 28 13:48:18 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2015 13:48:12 -0500
From: Lamar Owen <lowen@pari.edu>
To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <54F0CC4E.101@invaluement.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On 02/27/2015 02:58 PM, Rob McEwen wrote:
> On 2/27/2015 1:28 PM, Lamar Owen wrote:
>> You really should read 47CFR=A78. It won't take you more than an hour=
=20
>> or so, as it's only about 8 pages.=20
>
> The bigger picture is (a) HOW they got this authority--self-defining=20
> it in, and (b) the potential abuse and 4th amendment violations, not=20
> just today's "foot in the door" details!
How they got the authority is through the Communications Act of 1934, as=20
passed and amended by our elected representatives in Congress, with the=20
approval of our elected President. The largest amendments are from=20
1996, as I recall. The specific citations are 47 U.S.C. secs. 151, 152,=20
153, 154, 201, 218, 230, 251, 254, 256, 257, 301, 303, 304, 307, 309,=20
316, 332, 403, 503, 522, 536, 548, and 1302 (that list is from the=20
Authority section of =A78 itself, and will be elaborated upon in the R&O,=
=20
likely with multiple paragraphs explaining why each of those enumerated=20
sections of 47 USC apply here. Commission R&O's will typically spend a=20
bit of time on the history of each relevant section, and it wouldn't=20
surprise me in the least to see the Telecom Act of 1996 quoted there.).
It will be interesting to see how the judiciary responds, or how=20
Congress responds, for that matter, as Congress could always amend the=20
Communications Act of 1934 again (subject to Executive approval, of=20
course). In any case, the Report and Order will give us a lot more=20
information on why the regulations read the way they do, and on how this=20
authority is said to derive from the portions of the USC as passed by=20
Congress (and signed by the President). And at that point things could=20
get really interesting. Our govermental system of checks and balances=20
at work.
> In the same way, I don't like the BASIS for this authority... and what=20
> it potentially means in the long term... besides what they state that=20
> they intend to do with this new authority they've appointed themselves=20
> in the short term.
>
Had some people not apparently taken advantage of the situation as it=20
existed before the proceeding in docket 14-28, it's likely no regulatory=20
actions would have been initiated.
I'm not cheerleading by any means; I would much prefer less regulation=20
than more in almost every situation; but the simple fact is that people=20
do tend to abuse the lack of regulations long enough for regulatory=20
agencies to take notice, and then everyone loses when regulations come.
As an extreme example of how onerous regulations could be, if the=20
Commission were to decide to decree that all ISP's have to use ATM cells=20
instead of variable length IP packets on the last mile, they actually do=20
have the regulatory authority to set that standard (they did exactly=20
this for AM Stereo in the 80's, for IBOC HD Radio, and then the ATSC DTV=20
standard (it was even an unfunded mandate in that case), not to mention=20
the standards set in =A768 for equipment connected to the public switched=
=20
telephone network, etc). The FCC even auctioned off spectrum already in=20
use by =A715 wireless microphones and amended =A715 making those wireless=
=20
mics (in the 700MHz range) illegal to use, even though many are still=20
out there. So it could be very much worse; this new section is one of=20
the shortest sections of 47CFR I've ever read. Much, much, simpler and=20
shorter than my bread and butter in 47CFR=A7=A711, 73, and 101.
Reading the R&O once it is released will be very interesting, at least=20
in my opinion, since we'll get a glimpse into the rationale and the=20
thought processes that went into each paragraph and subparagraph of this=20
new section in 47CFR. I'm most interested in the rationale behind the=20
pleading requirements, like requiring complainants to serve the=20
complaint by hand delivery on the named defendant, requiring the=20
complainant to serve two copies on the Market Disputes Resolution=20
Division of the EB, etc. This seems to be a pretty high bar to filing=20
a complaint; it's not like you can just fill out a form on the FCC=20
website to report your ISP for violating 47CFR=A78. Heh, part of the=20
rationale might be the fact that they got over 2 million filings on this=20
docket......
