[Chapter-delegates] Should ISOC support Net Neutrality in the U.S.?

[Richard Hill]

Indeed Vint’s succinct summary below is correct.  The events “ under the Powell FCC” that Vint refers to are explained in more detail here:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality_in_the_United_States#CLEC.2C_dial-up.2C_and_DSL_deregulation_.282004.E2.80.932005.29 

 

What Vint refers to is what the article describes as “In 2005, the FCC reclassified Internet access across the phone network, including DSL, as "information service" relaxing the common carrier regulations and unbundling requirement.” 

 

However, the history of discussions in the USA related to net neutrality precedes 2005, see:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality_in_the_United_States 


The implications of the 2005 decisions referred to above are discussed here:

 

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Cable_%26_Telecommunications_Ass%27n_v._Brand_X_Internet_Services 

 

Best,

Richard

 

From: Chapter-delegates [mailto:chapter-delegates-bounces at elists.isoc.org] On Behalf Of Kris Seeburn
Sent: Sunday, July 9, 2017 00:40
To: vinton cerf
Cc: ISOC Chapter Delegates
Subject: Re: [Chapter-delegates] Should ISOC support Net Neutrality in the U.S.?

 

+1 vint thiis is a factual analysis of the situation

 

 

On Jul 8, 2017, at 4:35 PM, vinton cerf <vgcerf at gmail.com> wrote:

 

I am in agreement with John and Evan. The sequence of events leading up to the use of Title II to give FCC authority to enforce NN was the only path forward. If I remember correctly, under the Powell FCC, Internet service was moved to Title I (information service, unregulated) and when the Wheeler FCC tried to enforce NN rules, the Supreme Court said "you don't have regulatory authority under Title I" - so Wheeler's FCC switched back to Title II with substantial limiting of applicable rules (ie refrained from enforcing) to as to give FCC authority to regulate the NN rules. The better solution would be an Internet Title expressing NN rules in an amended Telecom act but the present Congress seems an unlikely place in which to achieve passage of such legislation. 

 

vint 

 

On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 11:46 PM, John Levine <isocmember at johnlevine.com> wrote:

In article <CAMguqh2zqGrY0o7dT+XF70fxLivO2+ADXfKwDkoN5r+5DGvWhw at mail.gmail.com <mailto:CAMguqh2zqGrY0o7dT%2BXF70fxLivO2%2BADXfKwDkoN5r%2B5DGvWhw at mail.gmail.com> > you write:
>​I agree. But the current US push for telephony ​classification seems to be
>a desperation fallback position from the preferred solution -- implementing
>NN through legislation --

The preferred solution is to go back to the 1996 rules, regulate the
wires as common carriage with competitive ISPs using those wires, like
they do in Europe.  But with the FCC in the telcos' pocket, I'm not
holding my breath.

R's,
John
_______________________________________________
As an Internet Society Chapter Officer you are automatically subscribed
to this list, which is regularly synchronized with the Internet Society
Chapter Portal (AMS): https://portal.isoc.org <https://portal.isoc.org/> 

 

_______________________________________________
As an Internet Society Chapter Officer you are automatically subscribed
to this list, which is regularly synchronized with the Internet Society
Chapter Portal (AMS): https://portal.isoc.org

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20170709/bd058cd2/attachment.htm>