NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad
[ NNSquad ] Re: AT&T: FCC has never had regulatory power over broadband
----- Forwarded message from Dave Farber <dfarber@me.com> ----- Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2010 18:30:22 -0400 From: Dave Farber <dfarber@me.com> Subject: [IP] AT&T: FCC has never had regulatory power over broadband Reply-To: dave@farber.net To: ip <ip@v2.listbox.com> Begin forwarded message: > From: Tor Fosheim <tfosheim@gmail.com> > Date: April 15, 2010 5:41:03 PM EDT > To: dave@farber.net > Subject: Re: [IP] AT&T: FCC has never had regulatory power over broadband > > I agree, the scope of the FTC is not technical - you cannot argue that because the FTC was not granted power over this specific piece of whatever, then the FTC has no power over it. > > The FTC has power over everything in a very broad comsumer-protective way; so you just cannot say that _this_ _particular device_ is like a very technical and difficult thing, so you have no power over it. Thats BS. > > That's like saying antitrust laws don't exist because its a computer-operating-thingy-system-contraption-with-loads-of-technical-widgets-innit, that I am now implementing on a mobile phone and something I am going to, well, call something kinda pad-like... > > Obviously; if there is some sort of technical way to harm or limit consumer access to communication or free trade by implementing a first- and second-tier system of access to said communications or limit access to it in any kind of way, the actual technical implementation of said device or contraption is not interesting to the scope of the power of the FTC. > > It is not the Federal Technical Commission :) > > It is the Federal Trade Commission. > > > On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 9:14 PM, Dave Farber <dfarber@me.com> wrote: > > From the pan into ... djf > > > Begin forwarded message: > >> From: "David P. Reed" <dpreed@reed.com> >> Date: April 14, 2010 9:35:36 PM EDT >> To: dave@farber.net >> Cc: Dave Farber <dfarber@me.com>, ip <ip@v2.listbox.com> >> Subject: Re: [IP] AT&T: FCC has never had regulatory power over broadband >> > >> You know.... the FCC's regulatory power over the Internet may be complicated. But the FTC can easily regulate *any* form of commerce. >> >> In particular, any service that is marketed as "Internet access" that turns out to NOT be access to the well-known thing called the public Internet, but instead turns out to be full of interference, substitutions, deceptions, etc. Any service that claims to provide communications but in fact reads people's communications and interferes with their communications at will: those actions would have to be considered as exploitation of consumers. >> >> Since such actions involve either Interstate Commerce (a Federally pre-emptive jurisdiction) or International Commerce, if the FCC has no regulatory authority, let's move to the Dept. of Commerce and the FTC. >> >> If the reclassification is a "nuclear option" - maybe we should just go straight to the "thermonuclear option" - the FTC. >> >> I'd not feel too sorry for Comcast, Verizon, ATT, etc. if they were required to submit to a completely new regulatory framework. They asked for it. >> >> Instead of being regulated based on theories of competition and antitrust, they'd have to respond to accusations of consumer fraud, bait-and-switch, misleading contracts, danger to children, etc. Fun times. >> >> Yeah, I know: the FTC can be wimpy. But maybe, given a new task and a direct reporting role to the President, they might rise to the occasion, rather than being captive and a tool of the companies under regulation, as the FCC has shown itself to be. >> >> The FCC is no consumer watchdog, and hasn't been for decades. >> >> >> On 04/14/2010 06:33 PM, Dave Farber wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Begin forwarded message: >>> >>>> From: Stagg Newman <lsnewmanjr@yahoo.com> >>>> Date: April 14, 2010 4:10:22 PM EDT >>>> To: Richard Bennett <richard@bennett.com>, George Ou <George.Ou@digitalsociety.org> >>>> Cc: "dave@farber.net" <dave@farber.net>, Lauren Weinstein <lauren@vortex.com> >>>> Subject: Re: [IP] AT&T: FCC has never had regulatory power over broadband >>>> >>> >>>> It is a complicated history. As a non-lawyer I certainly find it confusing. >>>> >>>> And then I remember what Scalia wrote via a vis the Telecom Act of '96 >>>> and take some comfort that I am not the only one who finds this confusing >>>> "Not only is this act not a model of clarity, it is in fact a model of ambiguity and self contradiction ...." - Anton Scalia >>>> >>>> Can one of the lawyers provide more details of what the FCC ruled on in 2002 and the context? >>>> >>>> From: Richard Bennett <richard@bennett.com> >>>> To: George Ou <George.Ou@digitalsociety.org> >>>> Cc: "daIve@farber.net" <dave@farber.net>; Lauren Weinstein <lauren@vortex.com>; "lsnewmanjr@yahoo.com" <lsnewmanjr@yahoo.com> >>>> Sent: Wed, April 14, 2010 3:42:45 PM >>>> Subject: Re: [IP] AT&T: FCC has never had regulatory power over broadband >>>> >>>> Cable modem was never a Title II service, so there's no history of "freeing Cable Broadband from Title II." There was some ancillary authority trick prior to the 2002 ruling, but never a Title II status for Cable. >>>> >>>> RB >>>> >>>> On 4/14/2010 1:36 PM, George Ou wrote: >>>>> >>>>> The FCC had never had Title II powers over broadband on the IP layer (Layer 3). What they had was price regulation powers (Title II) over DSL transport (Layer 2) through the use of ATM PVCs in the DSLAM up until 2005. The FCC had regulated wholesale prices of the sharing of twisted pair and DSLAMs. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> In July 2005, the FCC won the “Brand X” case affirming its 2002 ruling that freed Cable Broadband from Title II. In August 2005, the FCC went further and freed DSL transport from Title II classification and no longer regulated wholesale prices for DSL transport. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> What the Open Internet Coalition and others are now is asking is that the FCC should regulate broadband on all levels under Title II such that its actions on Comcast and its NPRM can be justified. That would have to include layer 3 IP services, Internet transit, IP interconnect (peering), and maybe even CDN. But from what I am reading, the FCC is limited in power to regulate prices even on things like Video on Demand, so I can’t see how they would justify price regulating the whole darn Internet and everything it encompasses. I mean can the FCC regulate the price of Amazon’s virtual “Elastic Cloud” servicers? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> George Ou >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From: Dave Farber [mailto:dave@farber.net] >>>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2010 5:56 AM >>>>> To: ip >>>>> Subject: [IP] AT&T: FCC has never had regulatory power over broadband >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Begin forwarded message: >>>>> >>>>> From: Stagg Newman <lsnewmanjr@yahoo.com> >>>>> Date: April 14, 2010 8:50:37 AM EDT >>>>> To: dave@farber.net, ip <ip@v2.listbox.com> >>>>> Subject: Re: [IP] AT&T: FCC has never had regulatory power over broadband >>>>> >>>>> The FCC has regulated Frame Relay, ATM, and SONET and other high speed private line services as Title II services. >>>>> >>>>> Those service are in the family of broadband services. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The FCC did not regulate Internet service as Title II. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> There is a deft change in the email below from broadband to Internet. They are not synonymns. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From: David Farber <dave@farber.net> >>>>> To: ip <ip@v2.listbox.com> >>>>> Sent: Tue, April 13, 2010 4:58:38 PM >>>>> Subject: [IP] AT&T: FCC has never had regulatory power over broadband >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Begin forwarded message: >>>>> >>>>> From: dewayne@warpspeed.com (Dewayne Hendricks) >>>>> Date: April 12, 2010 2:44:14 PM EDT >>>>> To: Dewayne-Net Technology List <xyzzy@warpspeed.com> >>>>> Subject: [Dewayne-Net] AT&T: FCC has never had regulatory power over broadband >>>>> >>>>> AT&T: FCC has never had regulatory power over broadband >>>>> The Hill >>>>> By Kim Hart >>>>> >>>>> AT&T lobbyist Hank Hultquist disputes that the FCC ever had the authority over broadband that it seeks today. >>>>> >>>>> His comments in a blog post fuel the fast-growing fight over whether the FCC can or should reclassify broadband as a "Title II" service, rather than the "Title I" service it is today. The D.C. Circuit clearly said last week that the FCC cannot impose net neutrality rules with the current classification. >>>>> >>>>> A host of legal experts and lobbyists have made the case that the FCC should be able to revert back to Title II, since the agency used to have regulatory authority over DSL and other broadband services until 2002, when they were reclassified as Title I. >>>>> >>>>> <http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/91603-atat-fcc-has-never-had-regulatory-power-over-broadband>RSS Feed: <http://www.warpspeed.com/wordpress> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------------------- >>>>> Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now >>>>> RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/ >>>>> Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com >>>>> >>>>> Archives >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> Archives >> > Archives > ------------------------------------------- Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/ Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com ----- End forwarded message -----