3 ms·

And neither am I, but I could see how the paid prioritization may be considered a "specialized" service. I am leaning towards reading it as double-speak.

ensignavenger 9y ago
But even if it does end up being a paid service, the FCC still, potentially, has the power to determine that it either A) "offered or provided in ways that threaten the meaningful availability of broadband internet access service", or B) has "been devised or promoted in a manner designed to evade the purposes of this section" So, the devil is in the details, and the FCC seems to have the power to write those details, if I understand correctly. Even if the present FCC writes sub standard details, a future FCC could re-write them.
- 24gttghh 9y ago
  I'd rather the FCC not be able to have leeway over it at this point, with the ability to alter their enforcement at whim every 4-8 years...
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > the devil is in the details, and the FCC seems to have the power to write those details The bill explicitly prohibits the FCC from writing rules fleshing out the details, and restricts the FCC to adjudicating specific cases (such adjudications are subject individually to review by the courts, so inasmuch as someone is empowered to define general standards, it's the course through case law, not the FCC, whose adjudications do not create binding precedent.) The FCC is that of essentially a trial court, not a rulemakers, under this bill.
  - ensignavenger 9y ago
    The bill only explicitly forbids them from expanding the obligations. It does specify that the FCC has authority to adjudicate complaints. I don't know if that prevents them from publishing guidelines ahead of time, or if that will evolve from adjudication. And, as you point out, the courts will ultimately have oversight over the adjudication- so I suppose in the end, the Supreme Court may end up writing the rules... Of course, this is an early proposal, maybe the final bill will provide the FCC/courts with more guidance. Why don't we provide feedback to our representatives and work with them on how the Bill can be improved by providing more guidance on rules and penalties?
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      > The bill only explicitly forbids them from expanding the obligations Any rule which restricted anything not restricted by the bare law would expand obligations, and is thereby prohibited.

ensignavenger 9y ago

But even if it does end up being a paid service, the FCC still, potentially, has the power to determine that it either A) "offered or provided in ways that threaten the meaningful availability of broadband internet access service", or B) has "been devised or promoted in a manner designed to evade the purposes of this section" So, the devil is in the details, and the FCC seems to have the power to write those details, if I understand correctly. Even if the present FCC writes sub standard details, a future FCC could re-write them.

24gttghh 9y ago
I'd rather the FCC not be able to have leeway over it at this point, with the ability to alter their enforcement at whim every 4-8 years...
dragonwriter 9y ago
> the devil is in the details, and the FCC seems to have the power to write those details The bill explicitly prohibits the FCC from writing rules fleshing out the details, and restricts the FCC to adjudicating specific cases (such adjudications are subject individually to review by the courts, so inasmuch as someone is empowered to define general standards, it's the course through case law, not the FCC, whose adjudications do not create binding precedent.) The FCC is that of essentially a trial court, not a rulemakers, under this bill.
- ensignavenger 9y ago
  The bill only explicitly forbids them from expanding the obligations. It does specify that the FCC has authority to adjudicate complaints. I don't know if that prevents them from publishing guidelines ahead of time, or if that will evolve from adjudication. And, as you point out, the courts will ultimately have oversight over the adjudication- so I suppose in the end, the Supreme Court may end up writing the rules... Of course, this is an early proposal, maybe the final bill will provide the FCC/courts with more guidance. Why don't we provide feedback to our representatives and work with them on how the Bill can be improved by providing more guidance on rules and penalties?
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > The bill only explicitly forbids them from expanding the obligations Any rule which restricted anything not restricted by the bare law would expand obligations, and is thereby prohibited.