There are many areas in the Title II order that create regulatory uncertainty. Picking one item only because the question came up while working on comments yesterday:
The Commission asked what the definition of ‘reasonable network management’ should be. The original (2010) version called for “reasonable network management” and defined it as: "A network management practice is reasonable if it is appropriate and tailored to achieving a legitimate network management purpose, taking into account the particular network architecture and technology of the broadband Internet access service." In the Title II order this was changed to: “a practice that has a primarily technical management justification, but does not include other business practices.” What does “other business practices" mean? From an engineering standpoint I can design and build a network that never requires ’network management'. We used to have that network - it was called ‘circuit switched’ and it was an engineering marvel. What I can’t do is build that network today and deliver broadband at competitive prices without some degree of oversubscription. The level of oversubscription is ultimately a management (and economic) decision. If all network management practices are then ‘business practices’ it becomes very difficult to decide what network management can be justified as ‘primarily technical’. Vague law like the above is ultimately settled in the courts, at great cost to the business. This is simply one small instance where the Title II order creates uncertainty. The upcoming filing looks at many more. Mark > On Jul 6, 2017, at 11:14 PM, Mark Steckel <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Mark, > > Thanks for the response and the attachments. I am looking forward to draft. > > In the mean time could you elaborate on "the overhead of Title II and the > regulatory uncertainty that comes with Title II". > > Thanks > Mark > > > ----- On Jul 6, 2017, at 10:41 PM, Mark Radabaugh [email protected] wrote: > >> Steve Coran and associates are currently working on the FCC comments that are >> due on the 17th. A draft should be available later this week on the FCC >> committee list later this week and will have a very detailed discussion of >> the >> subject. >> >> Below is the letter many of our members signed onto when the initial >> proposal to >> reverse Title II was released by the commission. It covers much of the >> reasoning behind WISPA’s position (though the letter is not a official WISPA >> filing). >> >> >> >> >> It’s a good place to start from in discussing the issues. >> >> In regard to the ‘good’ things in Title II such as Pole Attach and Right of >> Way >> access that could be lost with a reversal of Title II the FCC is conducting >> two >> proceedings 17-84 Accelerating Wireline Broadband Deployment by Removing >> Barriers to nfrastructure Investment and 17-79 “Accelerating Wrieless >> Broadband >> Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investement”. WISPA filed >> comments supporting the commissions authority to apply it’s rules regarding >> equal access regardless of regulatory classification. >> >> >> >> >> Mark >> >> Mark Radabaugh >> WISPA FCC Committee Chair >> [ mailto:[email protected] | [email protected] ] >> 419-261-5996 >> >> >> >> >> On Jul 6, 2017, at 9:55 PM, Mark Steckel < [ mailto:[email protected] | >> [email protected] ] >>> wrote: >> >> Mark, >> >> Can you please explain this position, specifically the arguments against the >> Title II classification? >> >> Thanks >> Mark >> >> >> ----- On Jul 6, 2017, at 9:41 PM, Mark Radabaugh [ mailto:[email protected] | >> [email protected] ] wrote: >> >> >> >> I would prefer not to see members signing onto the EFF letter. The EFF >> position >> is contrary to the positions that WISPA has taken on Network Neutrality and >> Title II both at the board and committee levels. >> >> WISPA continues to support the principals of network neutrality and an open >> Internet but believe this can best be achieved without the overhead of Title >> II >> and the regulatory uncertainty that comes with Title II. >> >> >> Mark Radabaugh >> WISPA FCC Committee Chair >> [ [ mailto:[email protected] | mailto:[email protected] ] | [ >> mailto:[email protected] | [email protected] ] ] >> 419-261-5996 >> >> >> >> >> On Jul 6, 2017, at 7:52 PM, mike.lyon--- via WISP < [ [ >> mailto:[email protected] | >> mailto:[email protected] ] | >> [ mailto:[email protected] | [email protected] ] ] > wrote: >> >> Forwarded on from another mailing list. >> >> -Mike >> >> >> Begin forwarded message: >> >> >> >> >> From: Erica Portnoy < [ [ mailto:[email protected] | mailto:[email protected] ] | [ >> mailto:[email protected] | [email protected] ] ] > >> Date: July 5, 2017 at 15:59:37 PDT >> To: [ [ mailto:[email protected] | mailto:[email protected] ] | [ >> mailto:[email protected] | [email protected] ] ] >> Subject: Sign onto EFF's comment to the FCC on their net neutrality proposal >> >> >> >> >> Dear colleagues, >> >> As many of you know, the FCC is currently engaging in the process of >> repealing its network neutrality rules and eliminating its Title II >> authority over broadband providers. >> >> I'm writing you today to ask you to sign on to a letter that EFF has >> prepared for filing, which explains several key engineering concepts >> that are vital to understanding how the Internet actually operates given >> that the FCC's own findings misinterpret how the Internet works. >> >> The letter stays away from legal arguments, and instead focuses on >> technical statements on the design and operation of the Internet. It is >> meant to establish a factual record for the FCC about the Internet and >> it is necessary because its initial findings in its Notice of Proposed >> Rulemaking >> < [ [ https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-344614A1.pdf | >> https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-344614A1.pdf ] | >> [ https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-344614A1.pdf | >> https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-344614A1.pdf ] ] > are >> just wrong. For one, the FCC thinks that broadband Internet providers >> are the ones providing end users with the services of the entire >> Internet, from search engines to online newspapers to language >> translation tools. >> >> /*If you're willing to sign on and help, please email >> [ [ mailto:[email protected] | >> mailto:[email protected] >> ] | [ mailto:[email protected] | [email protected] ] >> ] >> (off-list) by Friday, July 14 */and I will >> be happy to share a copy of the letter for you to review before you >> agree to sign on. >> >> The more signatures we can get, the more likely the FCC is to take >> notice as well as the courts should they move forward. All it takes is >> an email. Please help us make sure the FCC gets the facts from an >> engineer's standpoint. >> >> Thank you for your support, >> >> Erica Portnoy >> Staff Technologist >> Electronic Frontier Foundation >> _______________________________________________ >> WISP mailing list >> [ [ mailto:[email protected] | mailto:[email protected] ] | [ >> mailto:[email protected] | >> [email protected] ] ] >> [ http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wisp | >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wisp ] >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wireless mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >> _______________________________________________ >> Wireless mailing list >> [ mailto:[email protected] | [email protected] ] >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wireless mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > _______________________________________________ > Wireless mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >
_______________________________________________ Wireless mailing list [email protected] http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
