FCC’s new chairman introduces plan to scale back net neutrality transparency rules - The Verge

FCC’s new chairman introduces plan to scale back net neutrality transparency rules - The Verge: "When the FCC passed its net neutrality rules in 2015, they included transparency measures for internet service providers. Big providers were required to submit information to regulators and consumers on data caps, fees, and speeds, but the order also included a temporary waiver for providers with less than 100,000 subscribers. After a re-extension, the transparency requirements would have gone into effect this month. Pai, who was just appointed to the new job this week, introduced a proposal that would not only extend that waiver for a full five years, but expand it. If passed by the rest of the agency’s commissioners, any service provider with fewer than 250,000 subscribers will not be bound by the transparency requirements." 'via Blog this'

Ajit Pai, staunch opponent of consumer protection rules, is now FCC chair | Ars Technica

Ajit Pai, staunch opponent of consumer protection rules, is now FCC chair | Ars Technica: "Monday, January 23: President Trump today made it official, selecting Ajit Pai as chairman of the Federal Communications Commission" 'via Blog this'

India: Net Neutrality Consultations Hits Home Stretch

Net Neutrality Consultations Hits Home Stretch: "“In keeping with such international precedents, a similar review and coordination process can be considered for India to provide inputs on the technical and operational aspects of implementation of any NN framework. This prompts the need to consider whether such a collaborative initiative would be suitable for India and what should be its design and structure,” the telecom regulator says. The consultation questions it poses in this regard are as follows:

 What would be the most effective legal/policy instrument for implementing a NN framework in India?  Which body should be responsible for monitoring and supervision? What actions should such body be empowered to take in case of any detected violation? If the Authority opts for QoS regulation on this subject, what should be the scope of such regulations?

The last date for public comments on the paper is February 15 and for counter-comments is February 28." 'via Blog this'

TeleFrieden: Insights on Future FCC Decision-making Gleaned From a Judicial Dissent

TeleFrieden: Insights on Future FCC Decision-making Gleaned From a Judicial Dissent: "I fear Judge Williams dissent foreshadows an FCC willing to misinterpret case law and statutory mandates to achieve a desired outcome. 

I worry that an infatuation with economics will legitimize bogus rationales that the FCC will embrace hook, line and sinker.  Who needs a maverick wireless carrier like TMobile when economists prove that any and all markets work just fine with 3 competitors? 


           

Lastly, I have concerns that FCC decision makers will overplay their hand.  I have seen ample and unjustified arrogance, hubris and political intrigue at the FCC.  It looks like the new management will continue—if not expand—the trend.
" 'via Blog this'

Cyberleagle: The Investigatory Powers Act - swan or turkey?

Cyberleagle: The Investigatory Powers Act - swan or turkey?: "Over 300 pages make up what then Prime Minister David Cameron described as the most important Bill of the last Parliament.

When it comes into force the IP Act will replace much of RIPA (the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000), described by David Anderson Q.C.’s report A Question of Trust as ‘incomprehensible to all but a tiny band of initiates’. It will also supersede a batch of non-RIPA powers that had been exercised in secret over many years - some, so the Investigatory Powers Tribunal has found, on the basis of an insufficiently clear legal framework. 
 

None of this would have occurred but for the 2013 Snowden revelations of the scale of GCHQ’s use of bulk interception powers. Two years post-Snowden the government was still acknowledging previously unknown (except to those in the know) uses of opaque statutory powers. 
 

Three Reviews and several Parliamentary Committees later, it remains a matter of opinion whether the thousands of hours of labour that went into the Act have brought forth a swan or a turkey." 'via Blog this'