On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 1:45 PM, Michel Py
<michel(_at_)arneill-py(_dot_)sacramento(_dot_)ca(_dot_)us> wrote:
Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote :
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.
Precisely. New source of revenue, each side gets a piece of the pie.
Not necessarily. My advice to the participants is to stop paying their
current lobbyists after this fiasco and replace them. They will spend just
as much money as before but at least they are not creating a moral hazard
problem where it is better for their advisers to give bad advice that
creates more demand for the services they provide.
But yes, when I saw the document, I thought to myself 'retirement fund'.
NO .. The lawyers can¹t plan that far ahead it more boats, european
vacations, kids college funds. Have you have never been to a Federal
Communications Bar Association Annual Dinner right? Aka the Prom? Let me
tell you? BIG party. Fills up the famous ballroom at the Washington Hilton
in Dupont circle in all of those movies and the White House press corps
dinner.
That said. Where was ISOC in all of this? Did they ever file here? NOPE!
Could ISOC have been greeted at the FCC with open arms? YES! Ask those
questions.