Filepro-list Digest, Vol 156, Issue 26

Wed Jan 25 11:20:06 PST 2017

Here are some links provided by Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit.com, who 
is opposed to the Net Neutrality laws.

http://reason.com/blog/2015/03/12/the-fccs-new-internet-rules-put-the-fcc
[Excerpt]
...The regulations include a subjective catchall provision, requiring 
‘just and reasonable’ conduct.”

What counts as ‘just and reasonable’ will, naturally, be up to the whims 
of the FCC.

In some ways, this is the worst part of the agency’s net neutrality 
push: It’s not even that it puts in place bad rules; it’s that it 
installs potentially strict but ultimately /vague/ rules, and leaves the 
FCC as the final arbiter of what is and isn’t acceptable, with little to 
constrain its decisions. The FCC will have some guidelines, of course, 
but Wheeler’s book-length bureaucratic proposal will surely provide 
legal ammunition for whatever creative interpretation the agency settles 
on (or desires) at any given time.
[\excerpt]

And from over a year later:
http://www.redstate.com/setonmotley/2016/08/01/obamacare-net-neutrality-exactly-damage-opponents-predicted/
[excerpt]

And Net Neutrality? The government has imposed on the Internet 1934 law 
written to regulate a landline telephone monopoly 
<http://www.hngn.com/articles/47776/20141103/net-neutrality-fcc-reclassifies-broadband-internet-to-retail-and-back-end.htm>. 
Of course, if you regulate an uber-vibrant, multi-provider sector under 
monopoly law – you’ll end up with a monopoly. Killing off one provider 
after another – until but one remains. And for Net Neutrality proponents 
– that provider isn’t even a private company. It’s government 
<http://mediafreedom.org/yep-they-said-it/>:

/“At the moment, the battle over network neutrality is not to completely 
eliminate the telephone and cable companies. We are not at that point 
yet. But the ultimate goal is to get rid of the media capitalists in the 
phone and cable companies and to divest them from control.”
/[/excerpt]

> Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2017 11:36:52 -0600 From: Paul McNary 
> <pmcnary at cameron.net> To: Fairlight <fairlite at fairlite.com>, 
> filepro-list at lists.celestial.com Subject: Re: OT: Net Neutrality 
> Message-ID: <cff07a7e-c048-8543-a37c-c52cd23fc865 at cameron.net> 
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Hello 
> Mark I will try to find something. The 400 page document has a lot but 
> it the additional implementation in rule-making, ie how the fcc 
> rule-making (bureaucratic law) is implemented. The equipment is not 
> magic. Like you, I don't have any free time and usually I don't debate 
> things as much as I used to. The 'devil' is in the details and in the 
> rule making that gets implemented. IANAL, so I depend on my lawyer and 
> WISPA's general council and members that work the efforts on our 
> behalf in D.C, that is in daily contact with the FCC commissioners and 
> staff as well as our elected officials. You probably won't hear much 
> out of me on this subject, I am not a boot on the ground. Just wanted 
> to let people know that there is a counter viewpoint that people need 
> to at least look at. I will always accept the fact that your view is 
> vital to make our system work and I will defend your right to express 
> that. Take care Paul On 1/24/2017 9:23 PM, Fairlight via Filepro-list 
> wrote:
>> Apparently -nobody- is reporting on any reports required, because so far I
>> can't find what you're referencing.  Unfortunately, I don't have the free
>> time to read a 400 page law.
>>
>> Can you cite either a source which openly discusses it, or a specific
>> clause with a specific statute reference code?
>>
>> I just tried searching for it, and even CNET's distillation (which is
>> larger than most) didn't evoke any negative connotations.
>>
>> I'm friends with the GM of a local ISP (the same one Bob Stockler used
>> since he came online, until he passed).  I've never heard the GM say
>> anything negative about NN.  I've never asked directly, but I've never even
>> heard rumblings.
>>
>> I'd earnestly love to know what magic hardware you feel is required.
>>
>> Having been the sole admin of an ISP for 2.5 years in the late 90s into the
>> early 2000s, I'm conversant with the hardships of running an ISP in that
>> era, although I grant a lot of things have likely changed with the tech.
>> Realistically, -small- ISPs are dying, though.  As broadband penetrates
>> further and further, they're either dying, or they're reselling the big
>> boys' networks.  Aforementioned local ISP resells AT&T DSL circuits.
>>
>> I'm always willing to consider alternative evidence and change my opinion
>> as necessary.  However, until I see a specific statute clause reference and
>> read it, I can't tell it even exists, and there's nothing to reconsider.
>> Right now, it's your word against everything we've been reading for the
>> last half-decade.  I'm happy to hear specifics, though.
>>
>> mark->

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.celestial.com/pipermail/filepro-list/attachments/20170125/2801720a/attachment.html>