More old news.
May 19th?
It’s 2018 Bert, and thye focus of “Net Neutrality” is returning to where it
belongs:
The blatant non-neutral behavior of many Edge Providers...
Regards
Craig
On Dec 31, 2017, at 8:17 PM, Manfredi, Albert E
<albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
You can tell this article is going to say it like it is, just by the title.
The duplicitous statements made by the current Chairman. So, this article
too, dispels some of the lies this Chairman feels free to spread:
"Under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, a service can be either a
'telecommunications service,' like telephone service, that lets the
subscriber choose the content they receive and send without interference from
the service provider, or it can be an 'information service,' like cable
television or the old Prodigy service, that curates and selects what content
channels will be available to subscribers. The 1996 law provided that
'telecommunications services' are governed by 'Title II' of the
Communications Act of 1934, which includes nondiscrimination requirements.
'Information services' are not subject to Title II's requirements."
Precisely. If broadband service is not in fact "telecom," what in the world
is it? So, the FCC is perfectly within its legal jurisdiction here. And this
is the key point:
"For years, the FCC incorrectly classified broadband access as an
'information service,' and when it tried to impose even a weak version of net
neutrality protections the courts struck them down."
"Incorrectly" being the key word. Also, the idea that the FCC did keep trying
to impose some sort of neutrality mandates all along, until now, that is.
Where non-neutrality is considered to be an attribute, by some crooks with
too much power. And again, this disingenuous crap from the current Chairman,
about how the Internet flourished with no Title II restrictions, is factually
false. It flourished thanks only to Title II, thanks only to a neutrality
MANDATE, or we would all be using services like AOL these days, partially or
totally walled gardens, depending on one's broadband provider. Then there's
this:
"While we are on the subject of the legal basis for net neutrality, let's
talk about the rest of Title II. Net neutrality opponents complain that Title
II involves a host of regulations that don't make sense for the Internet.
This is a red herring. The FCC has used a process called 'forbearance' -
binding limits on its power to use parts of Title II - to ensure that Title
II is applied narrowly and as needed to address harms to net neutrality and
privacy."
And for all the paranoid lunatics that put on a big show of skepticism about
trusting a government agency, it is even more ludicrous to "trust" those who
benefit from non-neutral service, especially when these parties are already
waffling about their intentions. A corrupt government agency, possibly on the
take, is the only possible explanation for such egregious naiveté.
"Even without this precedent, the FTC's enforcement authority here targets
deceptive trade practices. The agency will only take action if a company
promises one thing and delivers another. If the legalese in a company's
privacy policy explains how it is free to use and sell your private
information, and it follows that policy, the FTC can't help you."
DUH! Once again, what kind of government agency would ever propose such a
"solution," unless that agency were hopelessly corrupt?
And then there's this bit of irony:
"Tell the FCC to Keep Title II and Not Undermine Net Neutrality."
Yeah right. Not with these crooks, you can't. They simply ignored all the
comments. Boot the scoundrels out.
Bert
----------------------------------------------
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/05/why-losing-title-ii-means-losing-net-neutrality-and-privacy
The FCC Pretends to Support Net Neutrality and Privacy While Moving to Gut
Both
Legal Analysis by Kit Walsh
May 9, 2017
FCC Chairman Ajit Pai has proposed a plan to eliminate net neutrality and
privacy for broadband subscribers. Of course, those protections are
tremendously popular, so Chairman Pai and his allies have been forced to pay
lip service to preserving them in "some form." How do we know it's just lip
service? Because the plan Pai is pushing will destroy the legal foundation
for net neutrality. That's right: if Pai succeeds, the FCC won't have the
legal authority to preserve net neutrality in just about any form. And if
he's read the case law, he knows it.
Let's break it down.
The FCC's Proposal Makes It Impossible to Enforce Core Net Neutrality
Requirements
Under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, a service can be either a
"telecommunications service," like telephone service, that lets the
subscriber choose the content they receive and send without interference from
the service provider, or it can be an "information service," like cable
television or the old Prodigy service, that curates and selects what content
channels will be available to subscribers. The 1996 law provided that
"telecommunications services" are governed by "Title II" of the
Communications Act of 1934, which includes nondiscrimination requirements.
"Information services" are not subject to Title II's requirements.
Under current law, the FCC can put either label on broadband Internet service
- but that choice has consequences. For years, the FCC incorrectly classified
broadband access as an "information service," and when it tried to impose
even a weak version of net neutrality protections the courts struck them
down. Essentially, the D.C. Circuit court explained [PDF] that it would be
inconsistent for the FCC to exempt broadband from Title II's
nondiscrimination requirements by classifying it as an information service,
but then impose those requirements anyway.
The legal mandate was clear: if it wanted meaningful open Internet rules to
pass judicial scrutiny, the FCC had to reclassify broadband service under
Title II. It was also clear to neutral observers that reclassification just
made sense. Broadband looks a lot more like a "telecommunications service"
than an "information service." It entails delivering information of the
subscriber's choosing, not information curated or altered by the provider.
It took an Internet uprising to persuade the FCC that reclassification made
practical and legal sense. But in the end we succeeded: in 2015, at the end
of a lengthy rulemaking process, the FCC reclassified broadband as a Title II
telecommunications service and issued net neutrality rules on that basis.
Resting at last on a proper legal foundation, those rules finally passed
judicial scrutiny [PDF].
But now, FCC Chairman Ajit Pai has proposed to reverse that decision and put
broadband back under the regime for "information services" - the same regime
that we already know won't support real net neutrality rules. Abandoning
Title II means the end of meaningful, enforceable net neutrality protections,
paving the way for companies like Comcast or Time Warner Cable to slice up
your Internet experience into favored, disfavored, and "premium" content.
Title II Is Not Overly Burdensome, Thanks to Forbearance
While we are on the subject of the legal basis for net neutrality, let's talk
about the rest of Title II. Net neutrality opponents complain that Title II
involves a host of regulations that don't make sense for the Internet. This
is a red herring. The FCC has used a process called "forbearance" - binding
limits on its power to use parts of Title II - to ensure that Title II is
applied narrowly and as needed to address harms to net neutrality and
privacy. So when critics of the FCC's decision to reclassify tell horror
stories about the potential excesses of Title II, keep in mind that those
stories are typically based on powers that the FCC has expressly disavowed,
like the ability to set prices for service.
What is more, Title II offers more regulatory limits than the alternative of
treating broadband as an information service, at least when it comes to net
neutrality. Where Title II grants specific, clear, and bounded powers that
can protect net neutrality, theories that do not rely on Title II have to
infer powers that aren't clearly granted to the FCC. As proponents of limited
regulation, these theories concern us. The proper way to protect neutrality
is not to expand FCC discretion by stretching the general provisions of the
Telecommunications Act (an approach already rejected in court), but to use a
limited subset of the clear authorities laid out in Title II.
The FTC Cannot Adequately Protect the Privacy of Internet Subscribers
Reclassifying broadband as an information service not subject to Title II
also creates yet another mess for subscriber privacy. The FCC crafted good
rules for Internet privacy, but Congress just rejected them. But it left in
place the FCC's underlying authority to protect privacy under Title II, which
leaves privacy in limbo. Abandoning Title II for broadband altogether would
mean that the FCC no longer has much of a role to play in protecting
broadband privacy - and it's not clear who will fill the gap.
Some have looked to the FTC to take up the mantle, but just last year AT&T
persuaded a federal appeals court that, as a company that also owned a
telephone business, the FTC had no power over any aspect of AT&T. That
precedent covers the entire west coast and leaves millions of Americans
without recourse for privacy violations by their Internet service provider.
And there's no doubt that AT&T and others will try to extend that precedent
across the country.
Even without this precedent, the FTC's enforcement authority here targets
deceptive trade practices. The agency will only take action if a company
promises one thing and delivers another. If the legalese in a company's
privacy policy explains how it is free to use and sell your private
information, and it follows that policy, the FTC can't help you.
Tell the FCC to Keep Title II and Not Undermine Net Neutrality
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at
FreeLists.org
- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
unsubscribe in the subject line.
