[quote=“beschizza, post:1, topic:53556”]Enjoy, I guess![/quote]Are there cat GIFs? Where are the cat GIFs?
Cue the critics who think laws should be written in 25 words or less.
Since over half of the document appears to consist of “here’s why we’re doing this”, it could certainly be a lot shorter. Wouldn’t really impact the legal portion of it, though.
It’s hard to even read any of Commissioner Pai’s response, when the very first argument and foot note (note 3) is that forcing an ISP to actually provide it’s customers access to the things on the Internet as a basic level of service without also charging the content provider for it’s ability to return those things is regulating the price.
The inability of Boing Boing to charge me for responding to this comment is the very definition of ex ante rate regulation!
I feel dumb for not understanding legaleese.
I feel smart for not bothering to understand legaleese.
Any person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as
such person is so engaged, shall not unreasonably interfere with or unreasonably
disadvantage (i) end users’ ability to select, access, and use broadband Internet access
service or the lawful Internet content, applications, services, or devices of their choice, or
(ii) edge providers’ ability to make lawful content, applications, services, or devices
available to end users. Reasonable network management shall not be considered a
violation of this rule.
Goddamn music to my ears.
Here it is in a slightly more comprehensible form.
400 pages I’m sure they will find some loopholes.
140 characters or fewer.
According to Jonathan Swift, Brobdingnagian laws are not allowed to exceed in words the number of letters in their alphabet, and no arguments may be written about them. (I think that last is going too far.)
Marketing and “coddling the audience” is a thing in all professions.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.