Any website which does not violate the law. In other words, if a lawful takedown order has been applied to a website, this code can’t be used to force an ISP to provide illegal access to said site. Owen
On Feb 27, 2015, at 11:14 , Jim Richardson <weaselkeeper@gmail.com> wrote:
From 47CFR§8.5b (b) A person engaged in the provision of mobile broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not block consumers from accessing lawful Web sites, subject to reasonable network management; nor shall such person block applications that compete with the provider's voice or video telephony services, subject to reasonable network management.
What's a "lawful" web site?
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 10:28 AM, Lamar Owen <lowen@pari.edu> wrote:
On 02/27/2015 01:19 PM, Rob McEwen wrote:
We're solving an almost non-existing problem.. by over-empowering an already out of control US government, with powers that we can't even begin to understand the extend of how they could be abused... to "fix" an industry that has done amazingly good things for consumers in recent years.
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 procedure for filing a complaint is pretty interesting, and requires the complainant to do some pretty involved things. (47CFR§8.14 for the complaint procedure, 47CFR§8.13 for the requirements for the pleading, etc). Note that the definitions found in 47CFR§8.11(a) and (b) are pretty specific in who is actually covered by 'net neutrality.'