On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 3:16 AM, Michel Py <michel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2015/db0312/FCC-15-24A1.pdf
Because of two or three large ISPs who thought they could bend Net Neutrality and have it their way, and because many smaller ones thought that they had to choose between the lesser of two evils, here we are. Large ISP was so greedy that small ISP reluctantly agreed to create yet another bureaucratic monster, as the only survivable alternative.
I think the lobbyists and lawyers who opposed the first set of FCC regulations deserve the blame. They have not served their clients well. It really behoves the management which engaged them to reconsider the strategy they followed and the assumptions on which it was based before they throw any more money at them.
Nobody disputed the fact that the FCC has authority to regulate the telephone network under Title 2. Nor is the fact that the telephone network has been effectively absorbed by IP based systems. It follows that existing legislation grants the FCC the authority to regulate the Internet under Title 2.
Going to court to dispute the particular authority under which the FCC has proposed regulations when they obviously have authority that you are going to find far more onerous is a strategy that is more to the interests of the lawyers and lobbyists than their clients. Their new 'product' they are offering being to help relieve their client of a few more tens of millions for litigation, lobbying and spurious 'research' fighting the title II regulations.
The only mystery here is why the administration chose Internet regulation to be the topic on which they insisted a stand be taken rather than one of the other dozens of issues where it is rather easier to understand what the regulations should be. Public pressure certainly played a major role but this is a lame duck administration and thus largely insulated from public pressure if it chooses.
From what I hear, the behavior of the lobbyists and their paid 'researchers' was a major factor. We have seen their modus operandi on this list. Apparently their approach on the hill was very similar. Rude bullying and deceitful is never a good combination.
The current state of play is that in the US the Internet is now being regulated under legislation which dates back to the cold war. The administration has all the leverage. If the industry wants to change that situation it would do best to recognize that public opinion is on the administration's side even if they don't understand what it is they are asking for.
Getting a different set of lobbyists and sacking the faux researchers would be a good start.