[178579] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Keith Medcalf)
Sat Feb 28 18:57:41 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2015 16:57:35 -0700
In-Reply-To: <5C25A66F-D7C3-4C15-A794-CBF52928E564@delong.com>
From: "Keith Medcalf" <kmedcalf@dessus.com>
To: "Owen DeLong" <owen@delong.com>,
"Lamar Owen" <lowen@pari.edu>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
You are forgetting that the Internet and ISPs where originally common carri=
ers and the FCC at the behest of the government decided to de-regulate so t=
hat they could raid, arrest, charge, fine and torture ISPs if their custome=
rs visited websites the governement did not like, sent email the government=
did not like, or posted to web forums something that the government did no=
t like.
Contrast that with things which remained common carriers (wireline telephon=
e) wherein the carrier is not responsible for what the customer does using =
their telephone.
---
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 Owen DeLong
>Sent: Saturday, 28 February, 2015 14:02
>To: Lamar Owen
>Cc: nanog@nanog.org
>Subject: Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality
>
>>> 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.
>>>
>> 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...
>
>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'm 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're above
>temper tantrums, then look at Verizon's 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 "You must be this tall to ride" process, for lack of a better
>term. However, that's 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
