Subject: As if you don't have enough to read..

From: Richard Shockey <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2015 21:01:09 -0400

You are now officially part of the Public Switched Telephone Network of the
United States.

http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2015/db0312/FCC-15-2
4A1.pdf

At Para 48  "Consistent with that delegation of authority to define these
terms, and 
with the Commission¹s previous recognition that the public switched
network will grow and change over time, this
Order updates the definition of public switched network to reflect
current technology, by including services that use public IP addresses."

‹ 
Richard Shockey
Shockey Consulting LLC
Chairman of the Board SIP Forum
www.shockey.us
www.sipforum.org
richard<at>shockey.us
Skype-Linkedin-Facebook rshockey101
PSTN +1 703-593-2683

---

From: Dean Bogdanovic <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2015 02:07:30 +0000

Thank you for sending this. Great material to cure insomnia :-) With 400 pages, it should last for some time :-)

On Mar 12, 2015, at 9:01 PM, Richard Shockey <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:

You are now officially part of the Public Switched Telephone Network of the United States.

http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2015/db0312/FCC-15-24A1.pdf

At Para 48  "Consistent with that delegation of authority to define these terms, and
with the Commission’s previous recognition that the public switched
network will grow and change over time, this
Order updates the definition of public switched network to reflect
current technology, by including services that use public IP addresses."

—
Richard Shockey
Shockey Consulting LLC
Chairman of the Board SIP Forum
www.shockey.us<http://www.shockey.us>
www.sipforum.org<http://www.sipforum.org>
richard<at>shockey.us<http://shockey.us>
Skype-Linkedin-Facebook rshockey101
PSTN +1 703-593-2683

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2015 15:49:38 +1300

> You are now officially part of the Public Switched Telephone Network of the

Not if you use RFC 1918, ULAs or link-local addresses, it seems.

    Brian

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2015 07:00:29 +0000

+1

Lloyd Wood
http://about.me/lloydwood
________________________________
From: ietf <[email-masked]> on behalf of Richard Shockey <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, 13 March 2015 12:01:09 PM
To: IETF discussion list
Subject: As if you don't have enough to read..

with the Commission's previous recognition that the public switched

-
Richard Shockey
Shockey Consulting LLC

---

From: Michel Py <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2015 07:16:56 +0000

> http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2015/db0312/FCC-15-24A1.pdf

Because of two or three large ISPs who thought they could bend Net Neutrality and have it their way, and because many smaller ones thought that they had to choose between the lesser of two evils, here we are. Large ISP was so greedy that small ISP reluctantly agreed to create yet another bureaucratic monster, as the only survivable alternative.

Michel.

---

From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2015 08:18:26 -0400

On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 3:16 AM, Michel Py <
[email-masked]> wrote:

> Because of two or three large ISPs who thought they could bend Net
> Neutrality and have it their way, and because many smaller ones thought
> that they had to choose between the lesser of two evils, here we are. Large
> ISP was so greedy that small ISP reluctantly agreed to create yet another
> bureaucratic monster, as the only survivable alternative.
>

I think the lobbyists and lawyers who opposed the first set of FCC
regulations deserve the blame. They have not served their clients well. It
really behoves the management which engaged them to reconsider the strategy
they followed and the assumptions on which it was based before they throw
any more money at them.

Nobody disputed the fact that the FCC has authority to regulate the
telephone network under Title 2. Nor is the fact that the telephone network
has been effectively absorbed by IP based systems. It follows that existing
legislation grants the FCC the authority to regulate the Internet under
Title 2.

Going to court to dispute the particular authority under which the FCC has
proposed regulations when they obviously have authority that you are going
to find far more onerous is a strategy that is more to the interests of the
lawyers and lobbyists than their clients. Their new 'product' they are
offering being to help relieve their client of a few more tens of millions
for litigation, lobbying and spurious 'research' fighting the title II
regulations.

The only mystery here is why the administration chose Internet regulation
to be the topic on which they insisted a stand be taken rather than one of
the other dozens of issues where it is rather easier to understand what the
regulations should be. Public pressure certainly played a major role but
this is a lame duck administration and thus largely insulated from public
pressure if it chooses.

>From what I hear, the behavior of the lobbyists and their paid
'researchers' was a major factor. We have seen their modus operandi on this
list. Apparently their approach on the hill was very similar. Rude bullying
and deceitful is never a good combination.

The current state of play is that in the US the Internet is now being
regulated under legislation which dates back to the cold war. The
administration has all the leverage. If the industry wants to change that
situation it would do best to recognize that public opinion is on the
administration's side even if they don't understand what it is they are
asking for.

Getting a different set of lobbyists and sacking the faux researchers would
be a good start.

---

From: John Leslie <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2015 09:08:24 -0400

> You are now officially part of the Public Switched Telephone Network of the

   (regardless of where you live... ;^)

> http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2015/db0312/FCC-15-2

   Yes, I spent some time scrolling through pages. :^( It cured my
insomnia, which is all I ever hoped for. ;^)
> with the Commission?s previous recognition that the public switched

   I didn't try to make any sense of that statement. That's what we pay
judges to do.

   But I did run across one item, near the beginning of Appendix A:
] 
] 8.2 Definitions
] Broadband Internet access service. A mass-market retail service by
] wire or radio that provides the capability to transmit data to and
] receive data from all or substantially all Internet endpoints,
] including any capabilities that are incidental to and enable the
] operation of the communicatitons service, but excluding dial-up
] Internet access service. This term also encompasses any service
] that the Commission finds to be providing a functional equivalent
] of the service described in the previous sentence, or that is used
] to evade the protections set forth in this Part.

   Since no current ISP "provides the capability to transmit data
to and receive data from all or substantially all Internet endpoints,"
it's hard to see what the folks who wrote this think they're going
to regulate.

--
John Leslie <[email-masked]>

---

From: Miles Fidelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2015 09:43:06 -0400

> Richard Shockey <[email-masked]> wrote:
<snip>
> it's hard to see what the folks who wrote this think they're going
Wait a minute... isn't the Internet "capital I" defined precisely by the 
collection of IP addresses that are reachable from each other? If you 
can't exchange IP packets with an endpoint, is it really on the 
Internet?  (Yes, NAT confuses things a bit - but arguably it's the 
public address of a NAT device that's the "Internet endpoint"). And yes, 
firewalls also complicate matters - but, the "Internet wallplug" in my 
office has the "capability" to exchange packets with all other IP 
addresses on the net - but that doesn't require that they be willing (or 
able) to respond.

Miles Fidelman

-- 
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.   .... Yogi Berra

---

From: John Leslie <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2015 10:17:02 -0400

Miles Fidelman <[email-masked]> wrote:
> collection of IP addresses that are reachable from each other?

   I'm not aware of any definition which says that...

> If you can't exchange IP packets with an endpoint, is it really on the 
> Internet?

   The "Internet" is, by all definitions, one particular "network of
networks" which uses the IP protocol.

   Thus, IMHO, an endpoint is "on the Internet" if it connects to one
of the networks in that particular "network of networks".

> (Yes, NAT confuses things a bit - but arguably it's the public address
> of a NAT device that's the "Internet endpoint").

   That is a reasonable interpretation. But, I must disagree that there
is any generally-accepted definition of the term "Internet endpoint".

> And yes, firewalls also complicate matters - but, the "Internet
> wallplug" in my office has the "capability" to exchange packets with
> all other IP addresses on the net

   Fascinating... I've never heard of an "Internet wallplug" before...

> - but that doesn't require that they be willing (or able) to respond.

   I can understand your exception re: "willing"; but it seems strange
to claim that an "Internet endpoint" which is "unable" to respond fits
the new FCC definition.

   Please understand what ISPs actually do:

1. We receive packets and _try_ to route them to another node which we
   have reason to be "closer" to the destination address;

2. We advertise our "closeness" to particular ranges of IP addresses.

   That's it, folks. Whatever else we do in support of these cannot
change the fact that we cannot deliver packets "to" most IP addresses;
and we cannot even know whether a packet we may deliver to a customer
is actually "from" a particular IP address (least of all whether it
is in response to a packet our customer asked us to forward).

   It's all "best effort" -- which means we make no representation
whether any packet will reach the nominal destination.

---

From: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2015 10:50:07 -0400

You are not "part of the PSTN". You are part of the Public Switched Network.

Small ISPs are exempted from reporting requirements.

Just because something is considered under Title II doesn't mean it's
considered a telephone network.

It's an exciting read. I recommend it.

---

From: Miles Fidelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2015 11:00:47 -0400

>     I'm not aware of any definition which says that...

It's kind of implicit.  It's a mutually interconnected address space.  
Just like any telephone connected to the PSTN.

In any case, that's the way I remember discussions always ending when 
the topic of "an internet" (small i.) vs. "the Internet" (capital I) 
came up.

> of the networks in that particular "network of networks".

I think we're saying the same thing here.
> is any generally-accepted definition of the term "Internet endpoint".

I've certainly seen the term used interchangeably with IP address in 
multiple contexts - mostly around DDoS attack on a particular "internet 
endpoint" or another, and I seem to recall a draft MIB for "internet 
endpoints" that essentially treated the term interchangeably with IP 
addresses, or a physical port with an IP address.  If NOT an IP address, 
is there really any other viable interpretation?  (And yes, it would be 
nice if the FCC order defined its terms - though at one point the order 
says this "“Fixed” broadband Internet access service refers to a 
broadband Internet access service that serves end users primarily at 
fixed endpoints using stationary equipment, such as the modem that 
connects an end user’s home router, computer, or other Internet access 
device to the network).

>     Fascinating... I've never heard of an "Internet wallplug" before...

An old term, in vogue for a short period - back when folks talked about 
"network utilities" and "computing utilities" - as in the hole in the 
wall that you plug your computer into.  Otherwise known as an ethernet 
jack. :-)

> to claim that an "Internet endpoint" which is "unable" to respond fits

Unable as in - an addressable port with nothing attached to it, or a 
crashed machine, etc.  Not all addresses are active (though we may be 
getting pretty close for IPv4).
> whether any packet will reach the nominal destination.

One expects a bit more than that.  One expects an ISP to actually have 
connectivity, peering agreements, and routing tables set up that let a 
customer exchange packets with addresses across the Internet as a 
whole.  At least, I've never come across an ISP that advertises 
connectivity only to a limited set of ASNs, or a limited set of IP 
addresses (well, there are enterprise networks and VPNs, but those are 
not generally viewed as ISPs).  And things are generally considered 
broken when a polluted routing table leads some part of the net to 
become unreachable.  And it's generally considered a "bad thing" that 
governments, like the Chinese, put up big firewalls that block traffic 
to large chunks of the net.

The same argument applies to phone service.  I may get my local phone 
service from Verizon, but I expect to be able to place a call to any 
phone, anywhere in the world, that's connected to the PSTN. Verizon is 
providing the "capability" to dial and reach all those numbers, but it's 
not providing the end-to-end connectivity.  If they started saying "you 
can't call numbers in Cincinatti, or Italy" I think we'd all agree that 
something was wrong.

Miles Fidelman

---

From: manning bill <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2015 20:56:13 -0700

> Not if you use RFC 1918, ULAs or link-local addresses, it seems.

	perhaps you are conflating use vs. definition.
 	clearly those IP addresses were defined in public, documented in public, and interoperate with other IP addresses.
	i think if they are used, and they can/do talk to other IP addresses, they fit the profile.

/bill

---

From: Richard Shockey <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2015 11:40:00 -0400

I¹ve heard the Order called a lot of things but an ³exciting read" is not
one of them.

Maybe War and Peace without the plot or character.  BTW is not the world
record.  There is one that is over 700 pages on Universal Service and
Intercarrier Compensation.

That said it is useful to point out that this ³thing² is a result of some
very peculiar aspects of US Communications Law and the unique way the US
courts have interpreted it. In the 10 years or so this has been debated
there actually was rough consensus on some general principals on how to
treat IP traffic and allow the regulator to intervene when someone did
something stupid.  The question was never should IP traffic be regulated
it was how, what was the scope and under what Authority to Act and could
that Authority be ³Legally Defensible².

That said some of us should have a lucrative side business writing Expert
Opinion Letters defining what is ³reasonable network management².

Philip makes a interesting point.  There is a strong line of argument
running around our DC swamplands that the original lawsuit challenging the
FCC 2010 Open Internet Order should never been filed. The original order
was not that bad and ISP should have just sucked it up, moved on and we
would not have the further endless litigation we are presented with.

---

From: John Leslie <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2015 11:54:07 -0400

Miles Fidelman <[email-masked]> wrote:
> It's kind of implicit.

   (Isn't "kind of implicit" the opposite of "a definition"?)

> It's a mutually interconnected address space.  

   No, it isn't...

> Just like any telephone connected to the PSTN.

   It's not remotely similar to a telephone connected to the PSTN.

   It's connected to a network connected to another network connected
to yet another network (et cetera), none of which have any fixed
contractual interconnections. Paths through the network of networks
come and go (mostly) without any human intervention or even awareness.

> addresses,

   Can you give an example?

> or a physical port with an IP address. If NOT an IP address, is there
> really any other viable interpretation?

   "Internet endpoint" generally refers to a node with an interface
connected to one of the networks of "the Internet". "IP address" is
a transitory characteristic of the interface. These concepts seem
different to me...

> (And yes, it would be nice if the FCC order defined its terms

   It's not a question of "nice" -- the FCC _must_ define its terms.
Judges are not permitted to guess.

> - though at one point the order says this "?Fixed? broadband Internet
>   access service refers to a broadband Internet access service that
>   serves end users primarily at fixed endpoints using stationary
>   equipment, such as the modem that connects an end user?s home router,
>   computer, or other Internet access device to the network).

   Yeah, they screwed that definition up, too...

> One expects a bit more than that.

   Regardless of "expects", that's what we do.
 
> One expects an ISP to actually have connectivity,

   I suppose, but "connectivity" typically coveres multiple paths with
differing characteristics.

> peering agreements,

   Not all ISPs do "peering agreements" -- though probably most if not
all of the ISPs the FCC seems to intend to regulate under Title II
probably do. In any case, peering agreements are mostly secret, and
ISPs have good and valid reasons to keep them that way.

> and routing tables

   Yes, we all have routing tables.

> set up that let a customer exchange packets with addresses across
> the Internet as a whole.

   No, we don't. Routing tables are one-way things: where do we forward
a packet hoping the node we forward to is closer? The routing tables
that affect a return packet contain wildly different data.

> At least, I've never come across an ISP that advertises connectivity
> only to a limited set of ASNs,

   That's a meaningless concept: no ISP has control over what happens
to a packet after it is forwarded to a different autonomous system.

> or a limited set of IP addresses

   Again, no ISP can control what happens to a packet after it is
forwarded. ISPs _do_ filter traffic to particular IP ranges, but not
because they advertise that, rather to mitigate denial-of-service or
possibly inhibit spammers.

> (well, there are enterprise networks and VPNs, but those are not
> generally viewed as ISPs).
> And things are generally considered broken when a polluted routing
> table leads some part of the net to become unreachable.

   When such "brokenness" persists, most ISPs will "route around it."

> And it's generally considered a "bad thing" that governments, like
> the Chinese, put up big firewalls that block traffic to large chunks
> of the net.

   Obviously, that is beyond the control of ISPs -- but it's really
a tiny slice of what is beyond their control...

> can't call numbers in Cincinatti, or Italy" I think we'd all agree that 

   No comment -- different topic entirely.

====
   I understand you _want_ Internet Service to fit the FCC definition.
But wishing doesn't make it so. The FCC definition here calls for things
that ISPs are completely unable to do.

---

From: Miles Fidelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2015 13:11:10 -0400

>> It's a mutually interconnected address space.

I think we have to disagree on this.

> come and go (mostly) without any human intervention or even awareness.

Have you actually looked at the internals of the PSTN, particularly 
packetized underlying infrastructure, VoIP and all that?  Any long 
distance phone call, particularly an international one, gets packetized, 
and goes through lots of different networks.

As to contractual relationships - what do you call backbone peering?

The analogy is very direct.

>> endpoints" that essentially treated the term interchangeably with IP

Google is your friend:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ops-endpoint-mib-00
and no less than Doug Comer uses the term in his classic 
"Internetworking w/ TCP/IP"
https://books.google.com/books?id=yhwfAQAAIAAJ&q=%22internet+endpoint%22+%22IP+address%22&dq=%22internet+endpoint%22+%22IP+address%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=OhgDVaarH4qlNoKggfAH&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAQ
(though he uses it in the context of a specific socket)

> Judges are not permitted to guess.

Hah.

>     No comment -- different topic entirely.

Disagree completely.  Package delivery is not phone service, but they 
are both common carriers; and now so are ISPs.  Not a different topic at 
all.

> that ISPs are completely unable to do.

By your reading.  Not by mine.

Miles Fidelman

---

From: Michel Py <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2015 17:45:49 +0000

> Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote :
> Going to court to dispute the particular authority under which the FCC has proposed regulations when they obviously have authority that
> you are going to find far more onerous is a strategy that is more to the interests of the lawyers and lobbyists than their clients.
> Their new 'product' they are offering being to help relieve their client of a few more tens of millions for litigation, lobbying and
> spurious 'research' fighting the title II regulations.

Precisely. New source of revenue, each side gets a piece of the pie.

> The only mystery here is why the administration chose Internet regulation to be the topic on which they insisted a stand be taken
> rather than one of the other dozens of issues where it is rather easier to understand what the regulations should be.

Mmm, the political gain does not look too bad to me, what would you have picked instead ?

> Getting a different set of lobbyists and sacking the faux researchers would be a good start.

What makes you think their replacements would be better ?

Michel.

---

From: John Leslie <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2015 13:46:02 -0400

> I think we have to disagree on this.

   Fine. I promise not to use that term.

   (Actually, I'm nearing the point where I'll stop for a while to
keep my Narten score under control.)

>> come and go (mostly) without any human intervention or even awareness.

   "Fixed contractual interconnections" was a bad way to say what I
meant--namely that a packet is contractually guaranteed some priority
if forwarded to a particular node named in the contract. My bad...

> and goes through lots of different networks.

   ...under ToS "guaranteeing" certain behavior...

> As to contractual relationships - what do you call backbone peering?

   Secret contracts -- which agree to exchange routes and accept some
packets based on those routes.

> The analogy is very direct.

   I think we'll disagree here, too.

> https://books.google.com/books?id=yhwfAQAAIAAJ&q=%22internet+endpoint%22+%22IP+address%22&dq=%22internet+endpoint%22+%22IP+address%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=OhgDVaarH4qlNoKggfAH&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAQ

   Unless I've missed something, Comer talks of "Internet endpoint address"
rather than "Internet endpoint".

   (I do agree Comer is a satisfactory authority.)

> (though he uses it in the context of a specific socket)

   A socket, in that context, _is_ a pair of addresses and other numbers
which "define" the socket.

>[snip]

   (May I suggest private email before we introduce any more new terms?)

---

From: Ofer Inbar <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2015 17:33:22 -0500

> Judges are not permitted to guess.

I believe that under legal systems descended from English law,
such as the US, judges are expected to guess what the most reasonable
interpretation of something is, though there are some established
guidelines about how to do it so it's not a purely personal guess.
  -- Cos

---

From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2015 20:41:10 -0400

On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 1:45 PM, Michel Py <
[email-masked]> wrote:

> > Going to court to dispute the particular authority under which the FCC
> has proposed regulations when they obviously have authority that
> > you are going to find far more onerous is a strategy that is more to the
> interests of the lawyers and lobbyists than their clients.
> > Their new 'product' they are offering being to help relieve their client
> of a few more tens of millions for litigation, lobbying and

Not necessarily. My advice to the participants is to stop paying their
current lobbyists after this fiasco and replace them. They will spend just
as much money as before but at least they are not creating a moral hazard
problem where it is better for their advisers to give bad advice that
creates more demand for the services they provide.

But yes, when I saw the document, I thought to myself 'retirement fund'.

> What makes you think their replacements would be better ?

It is the moral hazard issue. If the reward for failure is a new contract
then you are creating an incentive to fail.

When you acquire a new company it is not uncommon to find that they have
some IT project in the works that they have sunk several million dollars
into at the behest of some clever consulting companies hiring out comp-sci
grads with 5 years experience to produce 'specifications' in the hope that
when they are finished these will be turned into code. And then you have to
have that meeting where first you tell the consulting company that their
services are no longer required and after they leave the manager who hired
them turns to you and asks 'well what am I going to do without them' to
which the answer is 'work with our outplacement agency'.

Why is it that folk who preach the virtues of capitalism never seem to
understand that the logical consequences should fall on them when they mess
up and not just the blue collar worker?

---

From: Richard Shockey <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2015 22:47:37 -0400

On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 1:45 PM, Michel Py
<[email-masked]> wrote:
>> proposed regulations when they obviously have authority that
>> > Their new 'product' they are offering being to help relieve their client of
>> a few more tens of millions for litigation, lobbying and

NO .. The lawyers can¹t plan that far ahead it more boats, european
vacations, kids college funds. Have you have never been to a Federal
Communications Bar Association Annual Dinner right?  Aka the Prom?   Let me
tell youŠ BIG  party.  Fills up the famous ballroom at the Washington Hilton
in Dupont circle in all of those movies and the White House press corps
dinner.

That said.  Where was ISOC in all of this? Did they ever file here?  NOPE!
Could ISOC have been greeted at the FCC with open arms?  YES!   Ask those
questions.

---

From: Michel Py <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2015 04:11:49 +0000

> It is the moral hazard issue. If the reward for failure is a new contract then you are creating an incentive to fail.

I don't think moral is part of their vocabulary, regardless which side of the aisle is part of their ecosystem.

> Why is it that folk who preach the virtues of capitalism never seem to understand that the logical
> consequences should fall on them when they mess up and not just the blue collar worker?

For the same reason folk who preaches the virtues of socialism never seem to understand that the logical consequences should fall on them when they mess up and not just the rich capitalist :P

> Richard Shockey wrote :
> Aka the Prom

Ah, that's what they call it in D.C., too ? I live in a small village called Sacramento, CA. Same name here.

Michel.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2015 17:37:16 +1300

On 14/03/2015 15:47, Richard Shockey wrote:
...
> Could ISOC have been greeted at the FCC with open arms?  YES!   Ask those

ISOC doesn't lobby national governments, being an international body.

Ask the ISOC DC Chapter whether they filed, if they still exist.

   Brian

---

From: Michel Py <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2015 05:06:52 +0000

Brian,

> Brian E. Carpenter wrote :

I have been wondering about that part. I lean towards thinking that it would not have changed anything anyway, as the FCC voted on party lines as expected. The prom queen is known before the prom event.

I have learned much from you; is there anything we could have done, besides James T. Kirk time machine ?

Michel.

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2015 05:08:59 -0400

--On Saturday, March 14, 2015 05:06 +0000 Michel Py
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>...
> I have been wondering about that part. I lean towards thinking
> that it would not have changed anything anyway, as the FCC
> voted on party lines as expected. The prom queen is known
> before the prom event.

I'll be interesting to see if Brian and/or Richard agree but...
Like any government or bureaucratic action involving a long and
complex document, the "vote" is taken mostly on principles that
are understood and assumptions about the details.   It would be
unreasonable to assume that everyone who voted either for or
against this understood every provision and its implications in
detail (or even superficially).

You should also understand that the FTC tried very hard, through
several administrations, to stay out of the Internet.   Some
rather strong positions to that effect in the mid and late 1990s
led to the combination of NTIA and what become ICANN.
Similarly, the FCC's initial position in the "neutrality" area
was much narrower and, in many ways, more attractive.  It would
have been sufficient had it not been very aggressively
challenged by a few companies, primarily ones that are telephone
Carriers under the old model and that now become telephone and
Internet Carriers.  So, regardless of the details, there are
almost certainly non-partisan elements of "fed up" and/or
"driven to this" behind this decision.

> I have learned much from you; is there anything we could have
> done, besides James T. Kirk time machine ?

Because of the above, what the staff who actually write these
things need, and typically pay close attention to, is advice
about how they can state things so that the outcomes they want
and consider important are accomplished while unexpected or
undesirable side-effects are minimized.   That is less a matter
of lobbying the US (or any other national) government and much
more one of being educational at the right times and in the
right ways.  At the level of high-level principles, "we" asked
for net neutrality and seem to be getting what we wished for.
To the extent to which the regs are drafted in the wrong
vocabulary and the vocabulary that is used may have nasty side
effects, yes, that is partially "our" fault because it is almost
certain that good and balanced education and advice would have
been followed in at least some of the relevant areas.

    john

---

From: Henning G Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2015 11:38:19 -0400

The US regulatory process provides both individuals and organizations
opportunities for input, both through written and oral contributions.
Submitting a comment is easier than writing an I-D, as no XML is required,
but there are deadlines ("comment periods") just as for I-Ds.

>From my experience, FCC staff are generally more than willing to meet
individuals willing to provide technical information, particularly if they
have done their homework and are not just shilling as for-hire experts. If
you look at the citations in any major FCC item, you'll see plenty of
references to individual faculty presentations. For various reasons, the
faculty visiting the FCC tend to be law professors, rather than
engineering, but that's mostly self-selection.

However, engineers should also realize that the high-order-bits of
decisions are not merely technical. They tend to involve legal and economic
efficiency arguments that are rarely clear-cut - they often involve
predictions on how a decision will affect investment, competition, public
safety and human behavior, among others.

It's important to get the technical details right, but it's at least as
important to recognize that this is not just (or even mainly) about the
proper definition of IP addresses or "best effort(s)".

Henning
(Disclaimer: I work part-time for the FCC; this is my personal opinion.)

On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 1:06 AM, Michel Py <
[email-masked]> wrote:

> I have been wondering about that part. I lean towards thinking that it
> would not have changed anything anyway, as the FCC voted on party lines as
> expected. The prom queen is known before the prom event.
>

---

From: joel jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2015 09:51:57 -0700

>> Could ISOC have been greeted at the FCC with open arms?  YES!   Ask those

Seems entirely unlikely that a problem this process suffered from was a
lack of input.

---

From: "John Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 14 Mar 2015 17:25:16 -0000

>but there are deadlines ("comment periods") just as for I-Ds.

I haven't gotten through the 400 pages yet, but a lot of what I've
seen in the runup and analysis, suggests that the mental model of the
people writing the rules doesn't match the actual Internet very well,
e.g., using packet loss as a metric of network quality.

I realize the ISOC doesn't lobby, but I'd think there'd be plenty of
room for genuinely non-partisan education, about how the Internet is
different from telephones.

R's,
John

---

From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2015 13:40:14 -0400

On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 11:38 AM, Henning G Schulzrinne <[email-masked]
> wrote:

> engineering, but that's mostly self-selection.

The risk of making a submission is being asked to help fix the problem...

And the fundamental issue here is that the Internet architecture does not
have any concept of payment for transmission. It is assumed that everything
is 'free'. While this solves a very large number of problems it also
creates problems.

The telephone system has a very clear payment model in which the initiator
of a call is responsible for payment over the wired network and the
receiver bears the cost on wireless. That model simply does not apply to
the Internet and attempts to apply it produce nonsense.

Settlements and interchange agreements are tricky. Especially so when the
data streams are very one sided. But at the end of the day the consumer is
paying their broadband ISP for the ability to connect to NetFlix and
YouTube.

> safety and human behavior, among others.

Engineers are capable of understanding political and economic arguments!
they just understand them according to a totally different ideological
frame to the one the rest of the world lives in.

> proper definition of IP addresses or "best effort(s)".

The proper definition of IP addresses is probably irrelevant. More critical
is the understanding of the way that interchange agreements work.

I think there is also something of a problem with the advice some folk
give. I was in a meeting where a very eminent IETF-er ranted about a
'nonsense' requirement that a part of the Federal Govt would like. A week
later I had a solution worked out that did not cause any of the
catastrophes claimed.

It is important to recognize that the 1980s Internet architecture was a
pragmatic approach in which the answer to a lot of hard problems was 'we
are not going to consider those right now'. Well now we have got to the
point where they matter.

---

From: Henning G Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2015 16:32:15 -0400

I should point out that there are (very roughly) two types of input:

(1) Input regarding an active proceeding, such as the recently-concluded
Open Internet one. They are subject to public disclosure (you can find all
of them in the FCC ECFS), among other things, and often, but not
necessarily, involve advocacy.

(2) General informational presentations that are not addressing an active
proceeding and are generally understood to be providing facts. A number of
SDOs routinely inform FCC staff about active standardization and technical
topics and engage in related discussions. Unfortunately, the IETF tends to
do less of that than others, even though there's an increasing overlap
between IETF work and policy issues.

By their very nature, staff, even technical staff, at regulatory agencies
need to be generalists and often need "just in time" information, so they
rely on outside information provided by those willing to do so.

Henning

---

From: Richard Shockey <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2015 18:03:25 -0400

First I can personally testify to the fact that FCC staff is more than
willing to meet with individuals that can help them understand problems.
Been there done that. Of course you have to be in DC if you want to meet
face to face and you must be willing to disclose the meeting in a simple
letter that is filed with the Commissions ECFS system ( on their web site)
that describes the meeting its general subject matter and reference the
appropriate issue (Docket) that the subject matter covers.

If you want to make a simple contribution as a subject matter expert the
procedure is the same.   State your case and address it to the famous Ms.
Marlene H. Dortch PDF is accepted.  Yes staff do read these things. BTW the
procedure is roughly the same in Canada with the CRTC and other National
Regulatory Authorities.

Phillip if you don¹t help the government staff understand things then the
there is a real risk of bad things happening.  We are seeing an increasing
number of issues that do require substantial technical input from our
community.  The days of purely technical discussions operating in isolation
is long gone.  Ask the biologists.

For instance RAI is spending a great deal of time looking at the Caller ID
spoofing problem to see if there appropriate technologies that can help
protect consumers as well as the network.   Securing the IP address space
its almost endless now.

Believe me a lot of people are still worried about interference with the
existing IP transit peering agreements ,  but the current trend in SIP based
voice communications is to go to the bill and keep model ( at least in North
America) in fact the FCC ordered it to be implemented by 2020.

From:  Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]>
Date:  Saturday, March 14, 2015 at 1:40 PM
To:  Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Cc:  Michel Py <[email-masked]>, IETF discussion list
<[email-masked]>, Richard Shockey <[email-masked]>
Subject:  Re: As if you don't have enough to read..

On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 11:38 AM, Henning G Schulzrinne
<[email-masked]> wrote:
> Submitting a comment is easier than writing an I-D, as no XML is required, but
> there are deadlines ("comment periods") just as for I-Ds.
> 
> have done their homework and are not just shilling as for-hire experts. If you
> look at the citations in any major FCC item, you'll see plenty of references
> to individual faculty presentations. For various reasons, the faculty visiting
> the FCC tend to be law professors, rather than engineering, but that's mostly
> self-selection.

And the fundamental issue here is that the Internet architecture does not
have any concept of payment for transmission. It is assumed that everything
is 'free'. While this solves a very large number of problems it also creates
problems.

The telephone system has a very clear payment model in which the initiator
of a call is responsible for payment over the wired network and the receiver
bears the cost on wireless. That model simply does not apply to the Internet
and attempts to apply it produce nonsense.

> However, engineers should also realize that the high-order-bits of decisions
> are not merely technical. They tend to involve legal and economic efficiency
> arguments that are rarely clear-cut - they often involve predictions on how a
> decision will affect investment, competition, public safety and human
> behavior, among others.

Engineers are capable of understanding political and economic arguments!
they just understand them according to a totally different ideological frame
to the one the rest of the world lives in.

> important to recognize that this is not just (or even mainly) about the proper
> definition of IP addresses or "best effort(s)".

I think there is also something of a problem with the advice some folk give.
I was in a meeting where a very eminent IETF-er ranted about a 'nonsense'
requirement that a part of the Federal Govt would like. A week later I had a
solution worked out that did not cause any of the catastrophes claimed.

It is important to recognize that the 1980s Internet architecture was a
pragmatic approach in which the answer to a lot of hard problems was 'we are
not going to consider those right now'. Well now we have got to the point
where they matter.

---

From: "Dan Harkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2015 22:38:03 -0700 (PDT)

> they followed and the assumptions on which it was based before they throw

  That would only make sense if _some sort of_ FCC regulations were
necessary. As it stands, these are regulations to address a non-problem.

> legislation grants the FCC the authority to regulate the Internet under

  Non sequitur.

[snip]
> administration's side even if they don't understand what it is they are

  Actually they pre-date the cold war by about 20 years. They were
enacted during that exciting time between the 2 world wars when
government was believed to be able to right wrongs and mold society
through administration by technocratic "experts". A belief now seen
to be hopelessly hubristic and naive.

  Usually no one listens to people who "don't understand what it is
they are asking for"-- i.e. the low-information voter. Why start now?

> Getting a different set of lobbyists and sacking the faux researchers

  Or maybe sacking the current administration that pressured the FCC
to act would be a good start. Certainly sack it before it can stack the
federal courts and regulatory bodies anymore.

  Dan.