Comments on: Surprises in the Open Internet NPRM

By: Justin Davis

Justin Davis — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 23:31:22 +0000

I agree, but I'm not so sure about what you said at the beginning. Where are you getting your information? I'm not disagreeing, but I'm just wondering how you came to that conclusion.

Justin Davis
Author does not represent the position of LSI, which screens content as an internet filter to K-12 institutions.

By: Justin Davis

Justin Davis — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 19:31:22 +0000

By: hhaney

hhaney — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 01:40:06 +0000

Good catch, Jerry. But I agree with Mike. Theory and practice are not in alignment. A broadband provider knows that if it wants to do something which might rankle a competitor, the competitor will go to the FCC and the FCC will demand a full explanation from the broadband provider. This always happens, by the way, because Washington representatives are cost centers who are desperate to show they can contribute to the bottom line. A broadband provider further knows that the FCC will take most complaints seriously, and that it will ask the broadband provider to make the problem go away unless the broadband provider wants to battle it out in a formal proceeding. So, in most cases, the broadband provider has to buy off its competitors. This raises the cost of innovation and discourages some investment. Whether the broadband provider requests a declaratory ruling or not is a tactical question for the lawyers. A decision not to request a declaratory ruling in no way forecloses FCC intervention. I say there will generally have to be pre-approval not because the FCC cares one way or another, but because prudent managers will be desperate for assurance they are not heading into an ultimately worthless investment. It is no exaggeration to say that in the old days of the telephone monopoly, lawyers and lobbyists were the most important people in the company who had a shot at becoming CEO. Fortunately we have been seeing less and less of that. There's nothing wrong with a good, ethical lawyer, of course, but “Washington skills” shouldn't be a ticket to the top floor. That's where I fear we will be heading if the FCC regulates the Internet like it used to regulate the old telephone monopolies.

By: mwendy

mwendy — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 21:32:01 +0000

I was riffing off of Hance's 2nd-to-last paragraph. I haven't had time to parse the NPRM yet. It's an NPRM, and notice has been given – it wouldn't be weird to see a 214-like process in this instance. I think you left a piece of that line off: “Providers would not be required to seek a declaratory…but they or others would be free to do so”. Comments might turn this around. In fact, competitors might want this because most any facility that gets placed on to a network could affect management practices (to their detriment). They'd want to know for a variety of reasons.

By: Jerry Brito

Jerry Brito — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 21:07:57 +0000

mwendy (and anyone else): Maybe I'm blind, but I don't see in the NPRM where it specifies pre-approval. In fact, para. 134 seems to state the opposite, that the Commission will not require declaratory rulings before an ISP can deploy a network management practice. In the enforcement section of the NPRM (starting at para. 175) it foresees post-hoc adjudications, not pre-approvals. Am I missing anything? Thanks! -JB

By: Jerry Brito

Jerry Brito — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 21:07:27 +0000

By: Regulatory “buckets” are back — Surprisingly Free

Regulatory “buckets” are back — Surprisingly Free — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 21:06:54 +0000

[...] Hance Haney notes, yesterday’s proposed rules on net neutrality from the FCC are not as far-reaching as one [...]

By: mwendy

mwendy — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 18:04:15 +0000

FCC pre-approval. Sort of like Section 214(a) – extension (or sale) of lines. Now, there's a great way to promote innovation.

I feel like I have stepped back to 1934.