Filepro-list Digest, Vol 156, Issue 26

[Fairlight]

Thanks Boaz.

In point of fact, rather than changing my mind, the cited articles actually
reinforce my opinion.

The one regarding using the old telephony law is especially poignant, as
there are those of us who have felt for -years- that ISPs should, in point
of fact, be treated as "common carriers".  That is exactly what we want.
We want it not only in a financial sense, but it also means that ISPs would
-not- be free to censor content.  If memory serves, it also means that it
would free ISPs from being held liable for illegal content transmitted
beyond their control.  That status should actually protect them, not harm
them.

Bill Vermillion and I used to semi-regularly go back to the topic of
treating ISPs as common carriers, and it was always a positive concept, not
a negative one.

Everything I see written in the articles strikes me as being written by
anti-government-regulation hyper-capitalists who want zero checks and
balances on their ability to screw over the public.  You can just insert
the name Comcast, if you like.  They -are- the biggest offender and
squeakiest wheel, and someone desperately needs to stop them.

Going back to the telephony example, if I had my way, they would break up
AT&T again.  It is astonishing how they broke up the original AT&T monopoly
under anti-trust measures, only to deregulate later and have it re-absorb
not only its own former offspring, but a host of other companies.  It's
now more of a behemoth than it was before it was splintered.  The only
difference is that there's now more competition in the marketplace, so I
guess they can't bring out the 'monopoly' clause.

But I digress.

No, I see nothing here which changes my mind.  I see no undue burden.  What
I see is a lot of whining about vagueness, and about not being able to
screw people to increase profit margins.  

Hyper-capitalism is out of hand, so I feel no sympathy for Comcast and
AT&T (amongst others) not being able to shaft people even harder than they
already do.

The vagueness is a -good- thing.  The copyright laws were pretty explicit,
but never evolved over time.  In the end, you ended up with copyright law
meant for 1800s and early 1900s media being applied unevenly and unfairly
to new mediums precisely because the laws were -too- specific, and there
was no room for play in judgement of application.  Some vagueness is
actually a really wise idea in terms of specifics, as it allows for
innovation to be kept from being boxed in by some explicit rule which would
contravene something nobody ever considered until it arrived.

I'm still 100% in favour of net neutrality.  If anything, I'm more
convinced, not less.

I reached out to get that ISP GM's take on NN, but he must be out or busy,
as I haven't heard back yet.

mark->

On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 02:20:06PM -0500, Boaz Bezborodko via Filepro-list thus spoke:
> 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>
> _______________________________________________
> Filepro-list mailing list
> Filepro-list at lists.celestial.com
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Subscription Changes
> http://mailman.celestial.com/mailman/listinfo/filepro-list
> 

-- 
Audio panton, cogito singularis.