[178562] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Sat Feb 28 16:26:58 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <54F21735.9070608@invaluement.com>
Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2015 13:21:41 -0800
To: Rob McEwen <rob@invaluement.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
> On Feb 28, 2015, at 11:29 , Rob McEwen <rob@invaluement.com> wrote:
>=20
> On 2/28/2015 1:48 PM, Lamar Owen wrote:
>>> The bigger picture is (a) HOW they got this authority--self-defining =
it in, and (b) the potential abuse and 4th amendment violations, not =
just today's "foot in the door" details!
>> How they got the authority is through the Communications Act of 1934, =
as passed and amended by our elected representatives in Congress, with =
the approval of our elected President.
>=20
> For roughly two decades of having a widely-publicly-used Internet, =
nobody realized that they already had this authority... until suddenly =
just now... we were just too stupid to see the obvious all those years, =
right? And how nice that the people who decided that this authority =
suddenly existed, are the ones who voted themselves that authority =
(referring to the vote on Thursday), and will be wielding that =
authority.
Actually, many people realized they had the authority, including, but =
not limited to the FCC, the incumbent Telco/Cablecos, and Congress. To =
the credit of the commission, they tried very hard to find ways not to =
use such heavy handed authority to prevent the current abuses by the =
Telco/Cablecos, but each of their major efforts was thwarted by lawsuits =
from those same Telcos and Cablecos.
Now, you want to cry foul because, faced with essentially no other way =
to stop the current string of abuses, the FCC has chosen to use the one =
and only authority it has that will stand up in court? That=92s absurd. =
The commissioners didn=92t suddenly realize this authority existed, they =
have been trying to avoid using it in such a heavy handed manner until =
the organizations they were trying to regulate essentially left them no =
other choice.
> Nobody has refuted my statement that their stated intentions for use =
of this authority, and their long term application of that authority, =
could be frighteningly different. What they say they will do for now... =
and what they COULD do in the future if this power grab stands--without =
anything more than another one of their little votes amongst =
themselves--could be very very different.
Sure=85 Not the least of which is FCC commissioner appointments are not =
lifetime appointments and even if they were, they wouldn=92t live =
forever, so you=92re going to have a different commission at some point =
in the future. That=92s also true of Congress, the supreme court (and =
don=92t get me started on some of their gaffs, such as Plessey V. =
Ferguson, Citizens United, Hobby Lobby, etc.). This isn=92t a power =
grab. It=92s a very judicious exercise of power they=92ve had for a long =
time which they waited as long as possible to exercise. If you don=92t =
like this, then the people to blame are not the commissioners, but the =
incumbent telcos and cablecos that brought this on themselves by =
blocking every attempt at more gentle regulation.
> FOR PERSPECTIVE... CONSIDER THIS HYPOTHETICAL: Suppose that the EPA =
was given a statutory power to monitor air quality (which is likely =
true, right)... decades later, a group of EPA officials have a little =
vote amongst themselves and they decide that they now define the air =
INSIDE your house is also covered by those same regulations and =
monitoring directives for outside air. Therefore, to carry out their =
task of monitoring the air inside your home, they conduct random =
warrent-less raids inside your homes, thus violating your 4th amendment =
rights. If the CO2 levels are too high (because someone likes to smoke), =
that person then gets fined, or their house gets bulldozed, etc. When =
asked about how they get that authority, someone like Lamar Owen points =
out that Congress gave them this authority in such-in-such clean air act =
past so many decades ago.
First of all, congress can=92t exceed the authority of the fourth =
amendment, so that wouldn=92t fly and you know it. The constitution =
overrides congress, not the other way around. Nothing in the FCC ruling =
that I=92ve seen seems to have any fourth amendment (or any other =
portion of the bill of rights) implications as near as I can tell, even =
with the (bizarre and absurd) extensions recently granted by the supreme =
court in Citizens United. What, exactly, is it that you find so =
objectionable in the actual ruling? (Please cite CFR section or quote =
the objectionable pieces in your response). What horrible consequences =
is it that you think can come from further FCC interpretation or =
application of this ruling?
> I know that hypothetical example is even more preposterous than this =
net neutrality ruling... but probably not that much more! (in BOTH =
cases, the power grab involves an intrusion upon privately-owned space.. =
using a statute that was originally intended for public space)
Yes=85 Quite a bit more given that your example is completely =
preposterous _AND_ unconstitutional, whereas this net neutrality ruling =
is simply the next step in an ongoing battle between consumers+content =
providers vs. the broadband oligopolies with the FCC (for once) siding =
with the consumer.
> But the bigger picture isn't what the FCC STATES that they will do =
now.. it is what unelected FCC officials could do, with LITTLE =
accountability, in the future. Arguing for/against this power grab... =
only based on what they say they will do for now, is very naive. Future =
generations may ask us, "why didn't you stop this?" When we answer, =
"well, it wasn't implemented as badly when it first started". They'll =
reply, "but you should have checked to see how far this could go once =
that power grab was allowed (or ignored!)=94
FCC officials (as you call them) are political appointees. They do have =
accountability in that if the executive administration doesn=92t like =
what they do, they=92re out. Their regulatory authority is limited to =
that authority granted to them by congress.
If future generations are going to judge us for federal power grabs, I=92m=
betting this won=92t be the one they pick. First, I don=92t see this as =
a power grab. Second, even if it were such a thing, it so starkly pales =
in comparison to the actions of DHS, BATFE, TSA, NSA, FBI, et. al. under =
the auspices of the USAPATRIOT act and supreme court rulings like =
Citizens United that I cannot imagine it will even make it onto their =
radar screen.
Owen
