[178560] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Sat Feb 28 16:04:59 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <54F20D6C.9020809@pari.edu>
Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2015 13:01:47 -0800
To: Lamar Owen <lowen@pari.edu>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
>> In the same way, I don't like the BASIS for this authority... and =
what it potentially means in the long term... besides what they state =
that they intend to do with this new authority they've appointed =
themselves in the short term.
>>=20
> Had some people not apparently taken advantage of the situation as it =
existed before the proceeding in docket 14-28, it's likely no regulatory =
actions would have been initiated.
There seems to be a lot of forgotten history in this discussion=85
The FCC tried a light-weight low-touch form of open internet regulation.
$CABLECOs sued them and got it eliminated.
Then they tried a different light-weight low-touch form of open internet =
regulation.
$TELCOs sued them and got it eliminated.
They were left with two basic choices at that point:
1. Allow the $TELCO and $CABLECO abuses working against an =
open internet to continue, which, frankly
is what most of the more cynical among us expected, =
especially when Wheeler (who has traditionally been
a mouthpiece for the $CABLE_LOBBY) announced his initial =
fast-lane proposal.
2. Use real authority and real regulations that exist and =
make the internet subject to those regulations, which
appears to be what actually happened.
> I'm not cheerleading by any means; I would much prefer less regulation =
than more in almost every situation; but the simple fact is that people =
do tend to abuse the lack of regulations long enough for regulatory =
agencies to take notice, and then everyone loses when regulations come.
In this particular case, I think it is primarily =
$INCUMBENT_OLIGOPOLY_PROVIDERs which lose. As near as I can tell from =
what is in the actual regulations, everyone else pretty much wins. Yes, =
there are probably some tradeoffs and I=92m sure that the incumbents =
will attempt to find ways to make this as painful as possible for =
consumers while they throw their typical temper tantrums. (Think they=92re=
above temper tantrums, then look at Verizon=92s blog in morse code.)
> Reading the R&O once it is released will be very interesting, at least =
in my opinion, since we'll get a glimpse into the rationale and the =
thought processes that went into each paragraph and subparagraph of this =
new section in 47CFR. I'm most interested in the rationale behind the =
pleading requirements, like requiring complainants to serve the =
complaint by hand delivery on the named defendant, requiring the =
complainant to serve two copies on the Market Disputes Resolution =
Division of the EB, etc. This seems to be a pretty high bar to filing =
a complaint; it's not like you can just fill out a form on the FCC =
website to report your ISP for violating 47CFR=A78. Heh, part of the =
rationale might be the fact that they got over 2 million filings on this =
docket......
I suspect that they want to be able to take real complaints seriously =
and not waste resources on a large number of frivolous complaints. Since =
the intent is to primarily deal with the B2B interactions between =
content and service providers where one is abusing the other to the =
detriment of the end-users, I suspect all the intended players have the =
resources to comply with the filing requirements fairly easily, but it =
prevents every Tom, Dick, and Johnny with a web browser from becoming an =
expensive PITA. Sort of a =93You must be this tall to ride=94 process, =
for lack of a better term. However, that=92s pure speculation on my =
part, and
I agree reading the actual R&O will be interesting.
Overall, I think this may well be the first (mostly) functional =
regulatory process to occur in recent memory.
Owen
