[178578] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Keith Medcalf)
Sat Feb 28 18:51:19 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2015 16:51:11 -0700
In-Reply-To: <54F21735.9070608@invaluement.com>
From: "Keith Medcalf" <kmedcalf@dessus.com>
To: "Rob McEwen" <rob@invaluement.com>,
"nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
Except for the fact that the FCC decided that they wanted to give up Title =
II regulation of the internet because they were paid to do so by the teleph=
ants, they would have alwAYS had this power.
The people who were bribed are simply dead and the current crop of "officia=
ls" (they are not representatives -- they are elected officials) do not fee=
l obligated by the bribes accepted by their corrupt predecessors.
---
Theory is when you know everything but nothing works. Practice is when eve=
rything works but no one knows why. Sometimes theory and practice are comb=
ined: nothing works and no one knows why.
>-----Original Message-----
>From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Rob McEwen
>Sent: Saturday, 28 February, 2015 12:30
>To: nanog@nanog.org
>Subject: Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality
>
>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.
>
>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.
>
>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.
>
>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.
>
>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)
>
>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!)"
>
>--
>Rob McEwen
