At 12/13/2010 02:09 AM, Tom DeReggi wrote: >Well, currently there is no law to force a WISP to offer service to a >specific customer.
Indeed... The principle of common carriage is that a common carrier must offer service to anyone who asks and who meets the qualifications, but ISPs have never been common carriers. Telephone companies are common carriers. That's why they get subsidies. Only the FCC decided that telephone companies aren't even common carriers any more except for dial tone, DS1 and DS3. Since raw DSL (the ATM under the IP) is no longer common carriage, ISPs aren't entitled to buy it, and that is the only reason there is a "network neutrality" issue. The fix is thus obvious, and the courts have pointed it out, but since the Bells call the shots at The Portals, the FCC is not going there. >I believe that one way to fight it is to simply not comply. Remove any >reference to what your Network Management practices exactly are if the >conflict with allowed NetNEutrality laws, the opposite of truth in >advertsing. If any end use complains, simply disconnect their service at >their term end. Tell them that you ran out of network capacity, and were >forced to remove some subscribers on a random basis, and they were one of >them by chance. Let them complain, I believe it would be very unlikely for >the FCC to enforce anything, and very hard to prove any wrong doing was done >on the WISP's part. > >Just like the Soup Nazi on Seinfeld. You complain... No Soup for You. Just >dont say it out loud. Probably a perfectly valid approach. However, if there were some kind of general "neutrality" rule about ISPs, then kicking off unhappy subscribers wouldn't help. The neutrality police would just attack on principle. "FiOS can afford to carry all the video in the world. Why can't you?" (Verizon's supposed opposition to NN rules is a case of crocodile tears.) >My point here is... It wont be legal to block or limit speed. But is it >illegal to simply get rid of a subscriber? Cable COs under Franchises, or >ILECs under Monopoly Regulation may have trouble with the Law if they try >not to serve specific customers. But I'm not sure that WISPs will have that >same problem. You can dump subscribers but it's irrelevant to NN rules. >I guess what I'm uncertain of is what it will mean if a WISP is subject to >Title 1 legislation. Will a WISP become liable for discrimination cases, if >Heavy USers become looked at as a class of Consumers? You just cited the joke in the whole thing. There ain't no such animal as Title I regulation. Title II regulates common carriers. If ISPs were somehow deemed common carriers, they could fall under Title II. But the DC Circuit's Comcast ruling made it quite clear that the FCC lacks the "ancillary authority" under Title I to do anything here. Title I does not actually regulate much; it is where the law puts the organization of the FCC, fines, procedural matters, etc. Actual regulations are eleswhere, so by calling ISPs "Title I", they've been calling them "unregulated". The Comcast Order was overturned specifically because the FCC refused to cite Title II. And it seems highly unlikely that the FCC will cite Title II this time either. So it's back to court. But as I noted, WISPs, unlike Bells, lack any licenses and don't get any FCC (USF) subsidies, so their authority is doubtful. If the FTC (not FCC) decided that "Internet" in the product name somehow implied "neutrality", then they might have jurisdiction. In either case, if you don't use the name "Internet" in the product, they probably lack any jurisdiction. Warning: I am not a lawyer; I just play an engineer on TV. >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Fred Goldstein" <[email protected]> >To: "WISPA General List" <[email protected]> >Sent: Saturday, December 11, 2010 8:00 AM >Subject: Re: [WISPA] [WISPA Members] WISPA Files Ex Parte on Network >Neutrality > > > > At 12/10/2010 10:45 PM, Rick Harnish wrote: > >>CW, > >> > >>It appears as though they may be backing off trying to control billing > >>methods. However, they are pushing heavily to void the ability for WISPs > >>to > >>manage their network traffic. That will mean no QOS, no bursting, no > >>blocking of websites or controlled traffic flows. We all know what the > >>impact of this decision will have on our businesses. > > > > Or they will allow "reasonable network management", where > > "reasonable" is defined by whoever has the biggest law firm. For > > Verizon and ATT, anything goes. For somebody they don't like, fuggedabout > > it. > > > > I do however note the relatively small amount of leverage they have > > over most WISPs, who are entirely under Part 15. What little > > authority the FCC may claim to have over content (and this Order WILL > > be enjoined and thrown out in court, probably just after the next > > election, since it's purely a political game) comes from claims of > > consumer protection, based on whether you are doing what they claim > > you claim to be doing (i.e., what it means to be using the word > > "Internet"). So one option for WISPs is to simply stop selling > > "Internet" service per se and start selling "online differentiated > > data services with managed Internet access" instead. It sounds like > > a joke but then so is the whole NN proceeding, so you fight it with > > their terms rather than on their terms. > > > > -- Fred Goldstein k1io fgoldstein "at" ionary.com ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/ +1 617 795 2701 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WISPA Wireless List: [email protected] Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
