RE: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

["Keith Medcalf" <kmedcalf () dessus com>]

Except for the fact that the FCC decided that they wanted to give up Title II regulation of the internet because they 
were paid to do so by the telephants, they would have alwAYS had this power.

The people who were bribed are simply dead and the current crop of "officials" (they are not representatives -- they 
are elected officials) do not feel obligated by the bribes accepted by their corrupt predecessors.

---
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 Rob McEwen
> Sent: Saturday, 28 February, 2015 12:30
> To: nanog () nanog org
> Subject: Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality
>
> On 2/28/2015 1:48 PM, Lamar Owen wrote:
> > > The bigger picture is (a) HOW they got this authority--self-defining
> > > it in, and (b) the potential abuse and 4th amendment violations, not
> > > just today's "foot in the door" details!
> > How they got the authority is through the Communications Act of 1934,
> > as passed and amended by our elected representatives in Congress, with
> > the approval of our elected President.
>
> For roughly two decades of having a widely-publicly-used Internet,
> nobody realized that they already had this authority... until suddenly
> just now... we were just too stupid to see the obvious all those years,
> right? And how nice that the people who decided that this authority
> suddenly existed, are the ones who voted themselves that authority
> (referring to the vote on Thursday), and will be wielding that authority.
>
> Nobody has refuted my statement that their stated intentions for use of
> this authority, and their long term application of that authority, could
> be frighteningly different. What they say they will do for now... and
> what they COULD do in the future if this power grab stands--without
> anything more than another one of their little votes amongst
> themselves--could be very very different.
>
> FOR PERSPECTIVE... CONSIDER THIS HYPOTHETICAL: Suppose that the EPA was
> given a statutory power to monitor air quality (which is likely true,
> right)... decades later, a group of EPA officials have a little vote
> amongst themselves and they decide that they now define the air INSIDE
> your house is also covered by those same regulations and monitoring
> directives for outside air. Therefore, to carry out their task of
> monitoring the air inside your home, they conduct random warrent-less
> raids inside your homes, thus violating your 4th amendment rights. If
> the CO2 levels are too high (because someone likes to smoke), that
> person then gets fined, or their house gets bulldozed, etc. When asked
> about how they get that authority, someone like Lamar Owen points out
> that Congress gave them this authority in such-in-such clean air act
> past so many decades ago.
>
> I know that hypothetical example is even more preposterous than this net
> neutrality ruling... but probably not that much more! (in BOTH cases,
> the power grab involves an intrusion upon privately-owned space.. using
> a statute that was originally intended for public space)
>
> But the bigger picture isn't what the FCC STATES that they will do now..
> it is what unelected FCC officials could do, with LITTLE accountability,
> in the future. Arguing for/against this power grab... only based on what
> they say they will do for now, is very naive. Future generations may ask
> us, "why didn't you stop this?" When we answer, "well, it wasn't
> implemented as badly when it first started". They'll reply, "but you
> should have checked to see how far this could go once that power grab
> was allowed (or ignored!)"
>
> --
> Rob McEwen