[TriLUG] Intel bug in the news today

[Wes Garrison via TriLUG]

They happened.  In what way have they been debunked?

Both Madison River and Comcast stopped their behavior when the FCC asked
them to.

...but when Verizon sued the FCC to say they lacked the authority to
enforce Net Neutrality, the court agreed.

The FCC can no longer ask the ISPs to stop because they now lack any
authority to make them stop.

The FTC can not make them stop unless they promised not to violate Net
Neutrality principles.

In what way is prohibiting blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization
"heavy handed" government regulation?

This is unreasonable.

_________________________________
Wesley S. Garrison
Network Engineer
Xitech Communications, Inc.
phone:  (919) 260-0803
fax:       (919) 932-5051
__________________________________
"Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from email."

On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 2:07 PM, Warren Myers via TriLUG <trilug at trilug.org>
wrote:

> You cited the same list of "violations" that was on the savetheinternet
> page with your freepress link.
>
> They've all been debunked.
>
>
> On 18-01-04 13:33, Wes Garrison wrote:
>
>> The FCC cannot enforce Net Neutrality under Title I.
>>
>> When they tried, Verizon sued them and won, saying they didn't have the
>> authority to regulate non-Common Carriers.
>>
>> The court agreed with Verizon that the FCC could only enforce Net
>> Neutrality if the Telecoms were classified under Title II.
>>
>> So Tom Wheeler's FCC re-classified them under Title II.
>>
>> Honestly this shouldn't be a political issue at all.  There is no
>> reasonable justification to not enforce Net Neutrality on the public
>> Internet, /especially/ since the Internet was invented and funded using
>> public funds from DARPA, and much of the Internet was built using public
>> funds, especially via universities.
>>
>> Access expansion continues to be funded via the Federal Universal Service
>> Fund fee.
>>
>> The only Cogent argument (see what I did there?) that anyone can make
>> against Title II is that it allows rate regulation, and even if the Wheeler
>> FCC said they would forbear from rate regulation, that does not prevent
>> some future FCC from regulating rates.
>>
>> I get that.
>>
>> The problem is that the only way to enforce Net Neutrality currently is
>> via Title II.
>>
>> I am happy to have ISPs be regulated under Title I if Congress will act
>> to preclude blocking, throttling, /and paid prioritization./  In addition,
>> Congress should authorize the FCC to regulate peering so we don't end up
>> with situations where Cogent/Netflix have to /pay the ISPs/ to send data
>> that has been /requested by their customers. /The customers are already
>> paying Comcast/Verizon/AT&T/Charter.  Netflix already pays Cogent.  Comcast
>> even charged Netflix to put Netflix servers in the Comcast data center.
>>
>> Without competition, even rate regulation is not unreasonable.  Here are
>> my current choices for "high speed" Internet:
>> AT&T 3Mbps DSL.
>>
>> My neighbors across the street can get 768Kbps. That's Kilobits.  2001
>> called, and they want their Internet back.
>>
>> The repeal of Net Neutrality only benefits ISPs while harming consumers
>> /and other businesses. /This is the exact behavior the FCC was created to
>> prevent.
>>
>> Here is a list of actual Net Neutrality violations by ISPs:
>> https://www.freepress.net/blog/2017/04/25/net-neutrality-
>> violations-brief-history
>>
>> NN is supported by the vast majority of Americans, Republican and
>> Democrat.  It is only in Congress that it is contested.
>>
>> -Wes
>>
>> _________________________________
>> Wesley S. Garrison
>> Network Engineer
>> Xitech Communications, Inc.
>> phone:  (919) 260-0803
>> fax:       (919) 932-5051
>> __________________________________
>> "Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from email."
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 9:53 AM, Warren Myers via TriLUG <
>> trilug at trilug.org <mailto:trilug at trilug.org>> wrote:
>>
>>     For that dozen or so list, may I refer to actual facts?
>>
>>     https://stratechery.com/2017/pro-neutrality-anti-title-ii/
>>     <https://stratechery.com/2017/pro-neutrality-anti-title-ii/>
>>
>>     NONE of those were "neutrality" related
>>
>>     And all were handled quite well under Title I regulations
>>
>>     -WMM
>>
>>     On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 2:35 PM, bak via TriLUG <trilug at trilug.org
>>     <mailto:trilug at trilug.org>> wrote:
>>
>>     >
>>     >
>>     > For a nice overview of a dozen or so ISP-related shenanigans
>>     that Net
>>     > Neutrality put a stop to, from the mid-2000s until
>>     implementation, may I
>>     > refer you to:
>>     >
>>     > https://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/2017/04/25/net-
>>     <https://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/2017/04/25/net->
>>     > neutrality-violations-brief-history <https://www.savetheinternet.
>>     > com/blog/2017/04/25/net-neutrality-violations-brief-history>
>>     >
>>     >
>>     --
>>     This message was sent to: Wes <wes at xitechusa.com
>>     <mailto:wes at xitechusa.com>>
>>     To unsubscribe, send a blank message to trilug-leave at trilug.org
>>     <mailto:trilug-leave at trilug.org> from that address.
>>     TriLUG mailing list :
>>     https://www.trilug.org/mailman/listinfo/trilug
>>     <https://www.trilug.org/mailman/listinfo/trilug>
>>     Unsubscribe or edit options on the web  :
>>     https://www.trilug.org/mailman/options/trilug/wes%40xitechusa.com
>>     <https://www.trilug.org/mailman/options/trilug/wes%40xitechusa.com>
>>     Welcome to TriLUG: http://trilug.org/welcome
>>
>>
>>
> --
> This message was sent to: Wes <wes at xitechusa.com>
> To unsubscribe, send a blank message to trilug-leave at trilug.org from that
> address.
> TriLUG mailing list : https://www.trilug.org/mailman/listinfo/trilug
> Unsubscribe or edit options on the web  : https://www.trilug.org/mailman
> /options/trilug/wes%40xitechusa.com
> Welcome to TriLUG: http://trilug.org/welcome
>