Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

[Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>]

To the best of my knowledge, yes.

Owen

> On Feb 27, 2015, at 15:08 , Michael Hallgren <m.hallgren () free fr> wrote:
>
> Le 27/02/2015 23:19, Owen DeLong a écrit :
> > Any website which does not violate the law.
> >
> > In other words, if a lawful takedown order
>
> So, subject to legal control rather than simply administrative. Right?
>
> mh
>
> > has been applied to a website, this code can’t be used to force an ISP to provide illegal access to said site.
> >
> > Owen
> >
> > > On Feb 27, 2015, at 11:14 , Jim Richardson <weaselkeeper () gmail com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > From 47CFR§8.5b
> > > (b) A person engaged in the provision of mobile broadband Internet
> > > access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not block
> > > consumers from accessing lawful Web sites, subject to reasonable
> > > network management; nor shall such person block applications that
> > > compete with the provider's voice or video telephony services, subject
> > > to reasonable network management.
> > >
> > > What's a "lawful" web site?
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 10:28 AM, Lamar Owen <lowen () pari edu> wrote:
> > > > On 02/27/2015 01:19 PM, Rob McEwen wrote:
> > > > > We're solving an almost non-existing problem.. by over-empowering an
> > > > > already out of control US government, with powers that we can't even begin
> > > > > to understand the extend of how they could be abused... to "fix" an industry
> > > > > that has done amazingly good things for consumers in recent years.
> > > > You really should read 47CFR§8.  It won't take you more than an hour or so,
> > > > as it's only about 8 pages.
> > > >
> > > > The procedure for filing a complaint is pretty interesting, and requires the
> > > > complainant to do some pretty involved things. (47CFR§8.14 for the complaint
> > > > procedure, 47CFR§8.13 for the requirements for the pleading, etc).  Note
> > > > that the definitions found in 47CFR§8.11(a) and (b) are pretty specific in
> > > > who is actually covered by 'net neutrality.'