--On Saturday, March 14, 2015 05:06 +0000 Michel Py
<michel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>...
> I have been wondering about that part. I lean towards thinking
> that it would not have changed anything anyway, as the FCC
> voted on party lines as expected. The prom queen is known
> before the prom event.
I'll be interesting to see if Brian and/or Richard agree but...
Like any government or bureaucratic action involving a long and
complex document, the "vote" is taken mostly on principles that
are understood and assumptions about the details. It would be
unreasonable to assume that everyone who voted either for or
against this understood every provision and its implications in
detail (or even superficially).
You should also understand that the FTC tried very hard, through
several administrations, to stay out of the Internet. Some
rather strong positions to that effect in the mid and late 1990s
led to the combination of NTIA and what become ICANN.
Similarly, the FCC's initial position in the "neutrality" area
was much narrower and, in many ways, more attractive. It would
have been sufficient had it not been very aggressively
challenged by a few companies, primarily ones that are telephone
Carriers under the old model and that now become telephone and
Internet Carriers. So, regardless of the details, there are
almost certainly non-partisan elements of "fed up" and/or
"driven to this" behind this decision.
> I have learned much from you; is there anything we could have
> done, besides James T. Kirk time machine ?
Because of the above, what the staff who actually write these
things need, and typically pay close attention to, is advice
about how they can state things so that the outcomes they want
and consider important are accomplished while unexpected or
undesirable side-effects are minimized. That is less a matter
of lobbying the US (or any other national) government and much
more one of being educational at the right times and in the
right ways. At the level of high-level principles, "we" asked
for net neutrality and seem to be getting what we wished for.
To the extent to which the regs are drafted in the wrong
vocabulary and the vocabulary that is used may have nasty side
effects, yes, that is partially "our" fault because it is almost
certain that good and balanced education and advice would have
been followed in at least some of the relevant areas.
john