On Fri, March 13, 2015 5:18 am, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
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.
That would only make sense if _some sort of_ FCC regulations were
necessary. As it stands, these are regulations to address a non-problem.
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.
Non sequitur.
[snip]
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.
Actually they pre-date the cold war by about 20 years. They were
enacted during that exciting time between the 2 world wars when
government was believed to be able to right wrongs and mold society
through administration by technocratic "experts". A belief now seen
to be hopelessly hubristic and naive.
Usually no one listens to people who "don't understand what it is
they are asking for"-- i.e. the low-information voter. Why start now?
Getting a different set of lobbyists and sacking the faux researchers
would
be a good start.
Or maybe sacking the current administration that pressured the FCC
to act would be a good start. Certainly sack it before it can stack the
federal courts and regulatory bodies anymore.
Dan.