On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 3:16 AM, Michel Py <
michel(_at_)arneill-py(_dot_)sacramento(_dot_)ca(_dot_)us> wrote:
http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2015/db0312/FCC-15-24A1.pdf
Because of two or three large ISPs who thought they could bend Net
Neutrality and have it their way, and because many smaller ones thought
that they had to choose between the lesser of two evils, here we are. Large
ISP was so greedy that small ISP reluctantly agreed to create yet another
bureaucratic monster, as the only survivable alternative.
I think the lobbyists and lawyers who opposed the first set of FCC
regulations deserve the blame. They have not served their clients well. It
really behoves the management which engaged them to reconsider the strategy
they followed and the assumptions on which it was based before they throw
any more money at them.
Nobody disputed the fact that the FCC has authority to regulate the
telephone network under Title 2. Nor is the fact that the telephone network
has been effectively absorbed by IP based systems. It follows that existing
legislation grants the FCC the authority to regulate the Internet under
Title 2.
Going to court to dispute the particular authority under which the FCC has
proposed regulations when they obviously have authority that you are going
to find far more onerous is a strategy that is more to the interests of the
lawyers and lobbyists than their clients. Their new 'product' they are
offering being to help relieve their client of a few more tens of millions
for litigation, lobbying and spurious 'research' fighting the title II
regulations.
The only mystery here is why the administration chose Internet regulation
to be the topic on which they insisted a stand be taken rather than one of
the other dozens of issues where it is rather easier to understand what the
regulations should be. Public pressure certainly played a major role but
this is a lame duck administration and thus largely insulated from public
pressure if it chooses.
From what I hear, the behavior of the lobbyists and their paid
'researchers' was a major factor. We have seen their modus operandi on this
list. Apparently their approach on the hill was very similar. Rude bullying
and deceitful is never a good combination.
The current state of play is that in the US the Internet is now being
regulated under legislation which dates back to the cold war. The
administration has all the leverage. If the industry wants to change that
situation it would do best to recognize that public opinion is on the
administration's side even if they don't understand what it is they are
asking for.
Getting a different set of lobbyists and sacking the faux researchers would
be a good start.