Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

[Miles Fidelman <mfidelman () meetinghouse net>]

I'm pretty sure you're wrong about that.  Back when we were building the 
ARPANET, and then Telenet, there were several FCC decisions that made it 
very clear that leased lines were regulated under Title II, "value added 
networks" built from those networks were not regulated.  I'm pretty sure 
this was part of the "computer inquiries," the first of which dates back 
to the 1960s, but I forget which one.

As soon as AT&T realized that there was real money to be made, they 
tried very hard to get the VANs regulate and tariffed (actually, they 
tried to get them shut down) and abortively tried launching X.25 
services of their own.

Miles Fidelman



Keith Medcalf wrote:
> You are forgetting that the Internet and ISPs where originally common carriers and the FCC at the behest of the 
> government decided to de-regulate so that they could raid, arrest, charge, fine and torture ISPs if their customers 
> visited websites the governement did not like, sent email the government did not like, or posted to web forums 
> something that the government did not like.
>
> Contrast that with things which remained common carriers (wireline telephone) 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 everything works but no one knows why.  
> Sometimes theory and practice are combined:  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§8.  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


--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.   .... Yogi Berra