3 ms·

"Actions speak louder than words." The FCC could put the money where their mouth is by re-classifying ISPs as "Title II - Common Carriers."

by inh3 12y ago

dragonwriter 12y ago
> "Actions speak louder than words." I think the FCC's repeated adoption of pro-neutrality regulations are very clear actions. The people who keep knocking them down are the federal courts, and then the FCC keeps setting up new ones framed slightly differently but aimed at achieving the same ends. So, yeah, actions speak louder than words -- and the FCC's actions on net neutrality are pretty consistently in favor of it (just as the words of the majority of commissioners, including the current chair, are.) The whole "fast lane" idea is based on a couple news outlets reporting of claims of anonymous sources with unspecified qualifications about their interpretation of the content of an unreleased proposal (note also that the original articles weren't actually consistent on their claims, either, as one claimed that the proposal would include a provision allowing for "fast lanes", and one suggesting that the proposal would allow it implicitly because it didn't address the practice at all), claims which have been emphatically denied on the record by Wheeler, whose proposal it is. Once they've actually published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for public comment, there will be a chance for informed discussion.
pdabbadabba 12y ago
Maybe. But this isn't just a question of using the right label. Classifying ISPs as common carriers also subjects them to a pile of other regulations and statutory requirements that were designed for other segments of the telecom industry. I don't think it's obvious that this cure would be better than the disease. It may, indeed, be better for the FCC to go as far as they can without designating ISPs as common carriers, but no farther. This seems to be what the FCC plans to do. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/chapter-5/subchapter-II/part-I http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/chapter-5/subchapt...

"Actions speak louder than words." The FCC could put the money where their mouth is by re-classifying ISPs as "Title II - Common Carriers."

by inh3 12y ago

"Actions speak louder than words." The FCC could put the money where their mouth is by re-classifying ISPs as "Title II - Common Carriers."

dragonwriter 12y ago

> "Actions speak louder than words." I think the FCC's repeated adoption of pro-neutrality regulations are very clear actions. The people who keep knocking them down are the federal courts, and then the FCC keeps setting up new ones framed slightly differently but aimed at achieving the same ends. So, yeah, actions speak louder than words -- and the FCC's actions on net neutrality are pretty consistently in favor of it (just as the words of the majority of commissioners, including the current chair, are.) The whole "fast lane" idea is based on a couple news outlets reporting of claims of anonymous sources with unspecified qualifications about their interpretation of the content of an unreleased proposal (note also that the original articles weren't actually consistent on their claims, either, as one claimed that the proposal would include a provision allowing for "fast lanes", and one suggesting that the proposal would allow it implicitly because it didn't address the practice at all), claims which have been emphatically denied on the record by Wheeler, whose proposal it is. Once they've actually published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for public comment, there will be a chance for informed discussion.

pdabbadabba 12y ago

Maybe. But this isn't just a question of using the right label. Classifying ISPs as common carriers also subjects them to a pile of other regulations and statutory requirements that were designed for other segments of the telecom industry. I don't think it's obvious that this cure would be better than the disease. It may, indeed, be better for the FCC to go as far as they can without designating ISPs as common carriers, but no farther. This seems to be what the FCC plans to do. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/chapter-5/subchapter-II/part-I http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/chapter-5/subchapt...