 funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5
1 edit | reply to SuperWISP
Re: Finally As to the FCC mechanics, my understanding is that the FCC has a full record from previous looks into Special Access that it is debatable whether it needs another data refresh: not much has changed.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- District of Columbia -- KJ7RL
Test your Broadband connection today! -- »measurementlab.net/ |
|
3 edits | said by funchords:As to the FCC mechanics, my understanding is that the FCC has a full record from previous looks into Special Access that it is debatable whether it needs another data refresh: not much has changed. That is exactly the point. The FCC should have announced a Notice of Inquiry on the need (or not) for "network neutrality" regulation and a Notice of Proposed Rule Making on "special access." Instead, it did just the reverse.
The results could be devastating. The "network neutrality" regulations could mandate that small, competitive, and rural ISPs obtain more bandwidth before the "special access" proceeding makes sure that the bandwidth is available at a reasonable cost. This could be the "perfect storm" that will kill competitive providers. |
|
| That is scary. We need the small and rural ISPs. |
|
|
|
funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5
1 edit | reply to SuperWISP
Brett, you and I have filed ad nauseum into the broadband practices record. The only reason to keep that going is to further delay any action at all.
I'm still saying what I've said for over a year -- I want the rules to continue to be a one pager -- much like the policy statement is today. A book of rules about how ISPs should operate will be stale before its written. But arching concepts guaranteeing consumers' rights and choices against operators need for reasonable management and the public's needs (such as law enforcement) seems to strike a good balance.
Moving these policies to rules or laws removes any debate over whether they are enforceable. I grumble that it's necessary, but look at how Comcast is still behaving toward the policy statement!
Edit (added): You could be right on special access, I personally don't know if an NPRM on special access works best or doesn't. I'll leave that to the lawyers. What I want is the action.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- District of Columbia -- KJ7RL
Test your Broadband connection today! -- »measurementlab.net/ |
|
4 edits | said by funchords:Brett, you and I have filed ad nauseum into the broadband practices record. Maybe you have filed something nauseating; I tried to file sensible and truthful testimony.
However, the record of that circus-like proceeding contains huge amounts of misinformation from Google lobbyists and is in fact mostly spam generated by them. (Less than 1% of the docket is anything other than spam.) The FCC needs to do fact finding of its own and root out the falsehoods.
The only reason to keep that going is to further delay any action at all.
There is no to keep the old, fatally flawed proceeding going. It is time to start with a clean slate and do a serious inquiry to find out the facts. The previous proceeding was tainted from the start by a Chairman who wanted an excuse to bash Comcast... so that he could leave the FCC -- as he has -- to be paid huge hourly rates by the telcos as a lawyer at a firm that works for them. And maybe even be tapped by them, one day, as an executive.
I'm still saying what I've said for over a year -- I want the rules to continue to be a one pager -- much like the policy statement is today.
In which case it would be unconstitutionally vague -- as the FCC's "four principles" document was -- and hence not even legal. (Note that if the "four principles" had been enacted as rules, they would be illegal for this reason and also for another: they exceed the FCC's statutory authority. Thanks to Comcast's challenge to the FCC order, expect to see a court ruling to this effect soon.) |
|
