Martin is on his high horse again about Net Neutrality. Most of this stems from the 2005 Madison River BS when they were blocking VOIP and in Oct 2007 when Comcast was blocking BitTorrent. Both parties have since then reached an agreement to work together.
Martin some how thinks the FCC "principles" of NN are law and that he, (not the FCC is, my own emphasis added) "ready, willing and able," to prevent broadband internet service providers from irrationally interfering with their subscribers' internet access. http://www.reuters.com/article/internetNews/idUSN2525077120080225 >From the article referenced by Larry ; "FCC commissioners have said on several occasions that the Internet policy statement is not enforceable, and the law is very clear on that basic point," wrote Joe Waz, senior vice president of external affairs for Comcast. "The policy statement is not a set of rules. It doesn't have any binding effect. And the FCC has never adopted rules in this area." "The Supreme Court and Congress have made it clear that a federal agency like the FCC can act either through rules or a complaint processes," Ammori responded in a blog post. "It's astounding that a company with an army of high-priced lawyers would even try to dispute this, as it is a basic fact taught on day one of any administrative law class." But Congress has said otherwise when it comes to taking it from "policy" to law. Two laws have since been killed. 1. The Internet Freedom and Nondiscrimination Act of 2006 would have prohibited the use of admission control to determine network traffic priority. The legislation was approved by the House Judiciary committee but was never taken for vote, therefore failed to become law. 2. The Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement Act of 2006 was introduced in the US House of Representatives, referencing the principles of the FCC and authorizing fines up to $750,000 for infractions. It passed full House of Representatives failed to become law when it was filibustered in the Senate. The FCC IMO has not met their ancillary jurisdiction powers for what they feel they can do to Comcast. This whole NN debate has matters of opinion on both sides of the issue and should be debated openly for public review and comment. Internet access is one thing, how about email and websites maxing out their limits? Am I as a host provider for these services, not allowed to shut down an account for going over a mailbox limit, or a website that goes over their bandwidth use or storage allocation? I can and do shut down accounts for overages after providing sufficient notices to the customer, as per their AUP, TOS and billing agreements. Does the FCC have jurisdiction over all the bit-content passing on the Internet network or control of a providers management of network resources? Frank Muto www.SecureEmailPlus.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Larry Yunker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'WISPA General List'" <wireless@wispa.org> Sent: Friday, July 11, 2008 10:48 AM Subject: [WISPA] Report: FCC to Punish Comcast Over Web Blocking > Looks like the FCC make take some action in enforcing its Net Neutrality > "Policies" > > > > See: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2325396,00.asp > > > > Depending on the scope of their ruling, this could have a significant impact > on how WISPs can control traffic on their own networks. > > > > Larry Yunker > > Network Consultant > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
