On Fri, March 13, 2015 5:18 am, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: > 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. That would only make sense if _some sort of_ FCC regulations were necessary. As it stands, these are regulations to address a non-problem. > 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. Non sequitur. [snip] > 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. Actually they pre-date the cold war by about 20 years. They were enacted during that exciting time between the 2 world wars when government was believed to be able to right wrongs and mold society through administration by technocratic "experts". A belief now seen to be hopelessly hubristic and naive. Usually no one listens to people who "don't understand what it is they are asking for"-- i.e. the low-information voter. Why start now? > Getting a different set of lobbyists and sacking the faux researchers > would > be a good start. Or maybe sacking the current administration that pressured the FCC to act would be a good start. Certainly sack it before it can stack the federal courts and regulatory bodies anymore. Dan.