FCC releases Open Internet document

Lamar Owen lowen at pari.edu
Thu Mar 12 17:28:36 UTC 2015


On 03/12/2015 12:13 PM, Bryan Tong wrote:
> I read through the introduction. This document seems like a good thing 
> for everyone.
>
>
I'm about 50 pages in, reading a little bit at a time.  Paragraph 31 is 
one that anyone who does peering or exchanges should read and 
understand.  I take it to mean something like 'Guys who abuse peering 
and engage in peering disputes, take note of what we just did to the 
last mile people; you have been warned.'  But, having read Commission 
R&O's before on the broadcast (Media Bureau) side of the house for 
years, maybe I'm a bit cynical.

Paragraphs 37 through 40, including footnotes, appear tailored as a 
reply to Verizon's creative Morse reply.  It's impossible to know which 
was first, but it is an interesting thought.

The 'Verizon Court' is mentioned numerous times.  Paragraph43 and 
footnote 40 mention the 'Brand X' decision of the Supreme Court, 
mentioning that that decision left open the reclassification avenue.  
This could cause any legislation that attempted to thwart this R&O to 
eventually be ruled unconstitutional, citing Brand X.  Prior to reading 
this R&O I wasn't familiar with this decision, so I've already learned 
something new.....and I think the reference in paragraph 43, footnote 
41, is rather interesting as well.  And Justice Scalia's pizza delivery 
analogy makes a humorous (in the political context!) appearance.  
Delightful.

Paragraphs 60 through 74 give a concise history of the action, and are a 
great read.  And it also shows me that I should have paid a bit closer 
attention to the Part 8 I read a few days back; that's the part 8 from 
the R&O of 2010; the part 8 as of today in the eCFR has not been updated 
with the new sections, including 8.18.  So the rules as set into place 
by this R&O were not public earlier; I stand corrected.

Paragraphs 78 through 85 and associated footnotes (I found footnote 131 
particularly relevant) state in a nutshell why the FCC thought that this 
action had to be taken.  And I am just in awe of the first sentence of 
paragraph 92.  And paragraph 99 is spot-on on wireless carrier switching 
costs.

One of the more interesting side effects of this is that it would appear 
that a mass-market BIAS (the FCC's term, not mine, for Broadband 
Internet Access Service) provider cannot block outbound port 25 (R&O 
paragraph 105 and footnote 241 in particular). Well, it does depend upon 
what Paragraph 113 means about a device that 'does not harm the network.'

Whether you agree with the R&O or not, I believe that you will find it a 
very readable document.  Some will no doubt strongly disagree.





More information about the NANOG mailing list