On 02/27/2015 02:58 PM, Rob McEwen wrote:
On 2/27/2015 1:28 PM, Lamar Owen wrote:
You really should read 47CFR§8. It won't take you more than an hour or so, as it's only about 8 pages.
The bigger picture is (a) HOW they got this authority--self-defining it in, and (b) the potential abuse and 4th amendment violations, not just today's "foot in the door" details!
How they got the authority is through the Communications Act of 1934, as passed and amended by our elected representatives in Congress, with the approval of our elected President. The largest amendments are from 1996, as I recall. The specific citations are 47 U.S.C. secs. 151, 152, 153, 154, 201, 218, 230, 251, 254, 256, 257, 301, 303, 304, 307, 309, 316, 332, 403, 503, 522, 536, 548, and 1302 (that list is from the Authority section of §8 itself, and will be elaborated upon in the R&O, likely with multiple paragraphs explaining why each of those enumerated sections of 47 USC apply here. Commission R&O's will typically spend a bit of time on the history of each relevant section, and it wouldn't surprise me in the least to see the Telecom Act of 1996 quoted there.). It will be interesting to see how the judiciary responds, or how Congress responds, for that matter, as Congress could always amend the Communications Act of 1934 again (subject to Executive approval, of course). In any case, the Report and Order will give us a lot more information on why the regulations read the way they do, and on how this authority is said to derive from the portions of the USC as passed by Congress (and signed by the President). And at that point things could get really interesting. Our govermental system of checks and balances at work.
In the same way, I don't like the BASIS for this authority... and what it potentially means in the long term... besides what they state that they intend to do with this new authority they've appointed themselves in the short term.
Had some people not apparently taken advantage of the situation as it existed before the proceeding in docket 14-28, it's likely no regulatory actions would have been initiated. I'm not cheerleading by any means; I would much prefer less regulation than more in almost every situation; but the simple fact is that people do tend to abuse the lack of regulations long enough for regulatory agencies to take notice, and then everyone loses when regulations come. As an extreme example of how onerous regulations could be, if the Commission were to decide to decree that all ISP's have to use ATM cells instead of variable length IP packets on the last mile, they actually do have the regulatory authority to set that standard (they did exactly this for AM Stereo in the 80's, for IBOC HD Radio, and then the ATSC DTV standard (it was even an unfunded mandate in that case), not to mention the standards set in §68 for equipment connected to the public switched telephone network, etc). The FCC even auctioned off spectrum already in use by §15 wireless microphones and amended §15 making those wireless mics (in the 700MHz range) illegal to use, even though many are still out there. So it could be very much worse; this new section is one of the shortest sections of 47CFR I've ever read. Much, much, simpler and shorter than my bread and butter in 47CFR§§11, 73, and 101. Reading the R&O once it is released will be very interesting, at least in my opinion, since we'll get a glimpse into the rationale and the thought processes that went into each paragraph and subparagraph of this new section in 47CFR. I'm most interested in the rationale behind the pleading requirements, like requiring complainants to serve the complaint by hand delivery on the named defendant, requiring the complainant to serve two copies on the Market Disputes Resolution Division of the EB, etc. This seems to be a pretty high bar to filing a complaint; it's not like you can just fill out a form on the FCC website to report your ISP for violating 47CFR§8. Heh, part of the rationale might be the fact that they got over 2 million filings on this docket......