The saga continues, as I battle narcolepsy-by-gov-document.
It’s taking me a quite a while to wade through all the bureaucratese bullshit. I’ve read all I can for today. For the next several days.
So far, nothing I have read contradicts my earlier analysis. This really would forbid offering differing speed packages at differing prices (i.e.- 1.5 MB/s DSL at $9.95/mo and 25MB/s FAST/FiOS fiber at $20/mo) to subscribers. I suspect they didn’t intend that immediately, but did it accidentally through a complete lack of knowledge of how ATM networks work.
The latter point being terribly important: These clowns are trying to impress themselves by throwing around technical terms which they clearly do not comprehend even at the merely “informed layman” level.
Another thought: At one point, they insist their twisted vision of network neutrality is needed because it’s so easy for ISP to use deep packet inspection to see what services (Netflix, PornHub, whatever) customers are using, and throttled or cap unfavored content providers (unfavored=not paying extra for the privilege of not being throttled). Later, Kommissars dismiss privacy concerns over a provision which could be read as requiring deep packet inspection…on the grounds that DPI really isn’t technically feasible.
And the effin’ idiots have now so confused the definition of “information” that even they say they’ll have to consider on a case by case basis if one subscriber service over the Internet is “BIAS” (Broadband Internet access service) while another service for the same customer on the same Internet connection is “non-BIAS”. It looks like a Magic Jack phone is non-BIAS, while a Skype phone is BIAS.
Ho-lee effin’ shiite.
I could talk about peering, but frankly I couldn’t really tell WTF they meant, mainly because they clearly didn’t either. Even with diagrams. But apparently efficiently partnering networks for better Internet access for two companies’ subscribers is a bad thing that screams for more regulation.
For the life of me, it looks like someone with a major in Gender-Confused Afro-Hispanic-Identifying Caucasian Urbanite Feminist Studies (and a minor in Underwater Basket-Weaving Hypoxia) read the Wikipedia page IT acronyms and delared herhur/itself a network engineer.
IANAL, so I’ll leave to legal eagles to figure out how the FCC can reference Supreme Court cases it lost to support their claims (and at least one case Verizon won to explain why Verizon is wrong).
The marketing types can scratch their heads over the claim that historically voice communications saw innovation when aspects were deregulated (think buying your own wireline phone or answering machine instead of renting from Ma Bell), therefore more regulation is required of BIAS to foster innovation…
…while simultaneously holding up the huge amount of innovation and expanding services (Internet of Things, anyone?) as the reason new regulation is needed.
Clearly, DC legalized pot — and a host of other recreational pharmaceuticals — a lot earlier than we thought.