IMO the argument in seeking additional forbearance is that if all ISPs, no matter the size, have a similar minimum burden of regulatory filing and that burden is large, it acts as a barrier to entry. In a perfect world the rules can apply to all sizes of ISPs *and* not be burdensome.

To keep this on topic, why is Title II (the burden WISPA rejects, not necessarily the Net Neutrality goals TII espouses) the only way to achieve NN?

On a related note, I observe that neither WISPA nor NTCA have weighed in on neutrality per se. When I spoke to David Zumwalt last week in Vegas (current WISPA President/CEO) he was surprised to hear that there are ISPs and vendors active in the wireless and small fiber provider markets that are actively advocating for, selling and deploying non-net-neutral traffic management solutions. Perhaps WISPA is avoiding taking a stance on pure NN ideals.

$boilerplate not necessarily the opinions of my employer and/or ancestors,

Jeremy

On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 6:45 AM Livingood, Jason via Nnagain <nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:

“Small Broadband Providers Urge FCC to Leave Them Out of Some Net Neutrality Rules” See https://broadbandbreakfast.com/2023/10/small-broadband-providers-urge-fcc-to-leave-them-out-of-some-net-neutrality-rules/. My personal opinion is any rules should apply to all providers. After all, my locally-owned small car mechanic does not get to opt out of EPA rules for used motor oil disposal since they are small and have 4 employees and small organic farms don’t get to opt out of food safety rules or labeling.

JL

_______________________________________________
Nnagain mailing list
Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain

Jeremy Austin

Sr. Product Manager

Preseem | Aterlo Networks

preseem.com

Book a Call: https://app.hubspot.com/meetings/jeremy548

Phone: 1-833-733-7336 x718

Email: jeremy@preseem.com

Stay Connected with Newsletters & More: https://preseem.com/stay-connected/