Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

[lowen at pari.edu (Lamar Owen)]

On 02/27/2015 02:58 PM, Rob McEwen wrote:
> On 2/27/2015 1:28 PM, Lamar Owen wrote:
>> 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 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.  The largest amendments are from 
1996, as I recall.  The specific citations are 47 U.S.C. secs. 151, 152, 
153, 154, 201, 218, 230, 251, 254, 256, 257, 301, 303, 304, 307, 309, 
316, 332, 403, 503, 522, 536, 548, and 1302 (that list is from the 
Authority section of §8 itself, and will be elaborated upon in the R&O, 
likely with multiple paragraphs explaining why each of those enumerated 
sections of 47 USC apply here.  Commission R&O's will typically spend a 
bit of time on the history of each relevant section, and it wouldn't 
surprise me in the least to see the Telecom Act of 1996 quoted there.).

It will be interesting to see how the judiciary responds, or how 
Congress responds, for that matter, as Congress could always amend the 
Communications Act of 1934 again (subject to Executive approval, of 
course).  In any case, the Report and Order will give us a lot more 
information on why the regulations read the way they do, and on how this 
authority is said to derive from the portions of the USC as passed by 
Congress (and signed by the President).  And at that point things could 
get really interesting.  Our govermental system of checks and balances 
at work.

> 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.

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.

As an extreme example of how onerous regulations could be, if the 
Commission were to decide to decree that all ISP's have to use ATM cells 
instead of variable length IP packets on the last mile, they actually do 
have the regulatory authority to set that standard (they did exactly 
this for AM Stereo in the 80's, for IBOC HD Radio, and then the ATSC DTV 
standard (it was even an unfunded mandate in that case), not to mention 
the standards set in §68 for equipment connected to the public switched 
telephone network, etc).  The FCC even auctioned off spectrum already in 
use by §15 wireless microphones and amended §15 making those wireless 
mics (in the 700MHz range) illegal to use, even though many are still 
out there. So it could be very much worse; this new section is one of 
the shortest sections of 47CFR I've ever read.  Much, much, simpler and 
shorter than my bread and butter in 47CFR§§11, 73, and 101.

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......