 funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5
1 edit | reply to SuperWISP
Re: Finally 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.) |
