Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality
http://publicpolicy.verizon.com/blog/entry/fccs-throwback-thursday-move-impo... -- The unique Characteristics of System Administrators: The fact that they are infallible; and, The fact that they learn from their mistakes. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes
On 02/27/2015 06:05 AM, Larry Sheldon wrote:
http://publicpolicy.verizon.com/blog/entry/fccs-throwback-thursday-move-impo...
OK. The Morse code I knew about, from news stories. What I didn't know is that the "translation" would be PDF of 1930s-style typewritten transcription on an old Underwood Portable that had seen much, much better days. Someone at Verizon is trying to make lemonade out of what they perceive as bitter, bitter lemons...
On Feb 27, 2015, at 08:11, Stephen Satchell <list@satchell.net> wrote:
transcription on an old Underwood Portable that had seen much, much better days.
You’d think they could afford a new typewriter or two with all of the Universal Service fees they’ve been collecting and not providing.
On 02/27/2015 09:05 AM, Larry Sheldon wrote:
http://publicpolicy.verizon.com/blog/entry/fccs-throwback-thursday-move-impo...
Cute. Obviously they never watched the Leno segment where a pair of amateur radio ops using Morse code outperformed a couple of teens using texting, in terms of speed of communications.
While it’s amusing, it’s a serious distortion of the reality of the situation. Owen
On Feb 27, 2015, at 06:05 , Larry Sheldon <larrysheldon@cox.net> wrote:
http://publicpolicy.verizon.com/blog/entry/fccs-throwback-thursday-move-impo... -- The unique Characteristics of System Administrators:
The fact that they are infallible; and,
The fact that they learn from their mistakes.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes
They want to bang on about the ruling harming innovation and competition. My response: "Well, you were neither innovating nor competing as is, so no harm done."
Many other organizations who were innovating will be affected by the new rules. Many of those organizations are very small and cannot afford the army of lawyers that Verizon can. Judgements as to whether Net Neutrality helps or harms any specific industry will be inevitably guided by politics. The mere fact that politics has become a guiding factor in Internet-related public policy is an indicator that we must tread cautiously. And, no, I do not think recent regulatory efforts have been suitably cautious. Enacting unpublished rules violates the spirit and history of open design, open discussion, and open standards that have made the Internet what it is today. Kelly On 3/9/15, 10:55 AM, "list_nanog@bluerosetech.com" <list_nanog@bluerosetech.com> wrote:
They want to bang on about the ruling harming innovation and competition. My response: "Well, you were neither innovating nor competing as is, so no harm done."
******* CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE ******* This e-mail message and all attachments transmitted with it may contain legally privileged and confidential information intended solely for the use of the addressee. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any reading, dissemination, distribution, copying, or other use of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete this message from your system. Thank you.
On Mar 10, 2015, at 06:21 , Kelly Setzer <Kelly.Setzer@wnco.com> wrote:
Many other organizations who were innovating will be affected by the new rules. Many of those organizations are very small and cannot afford the army of lawyers that Verizon can.
Such as? Can you provide any actual examples of harmful effects or are you just ranting because you don’t like government involvement?
And, no, I do not think recent regulatory efforts have been suitably cautious. Enacting unpublished rules violates the spirit and history of open design, open discussion, and open standards that have made the Internet what it is today.
The rules are not unpublished, nor will they be unpublished when they are enacted. It’s true that the R&O isn’t out yet, but the actual rules (47CFR8) are published. Nothing takes effect until the R&O is published and due process is followed. I can accept that there may not have been sufficient caution, but your claim that the current process violates the spirit and history of open design, open discussion, and open standards simply does not apply. The FCC followed the NPRM process and accepted a wide variety of public comment (and actually seems to have listened to the public comment in this case). As near as I can tell, they bent over backwards to be far more inclusive in the process than is historically normal in the FCC NPRM process. I get that you don’t like the outcome, but I feel that your criticisms of the process reflect more of a lack of understanding of the normal federal rulemaking process than any substantive failure of that process. Owen
participants (7)
-
James Downs
-
Kelly Setzer
-
Lamar Owen
-
Larry Sheldon
-
list_nanog@bluerosetech.com
-
Owen DeLong
-
Stephen Satchell