Quoted below is an except from a listserv discussion with a WISPA committee member working to draft that org's FCC filing. I'm sharing this, to fill in details on the assertion of "uncertainty in regulation" that is being bandied about, i.e. that the assertion isn't devoid of substance. But again, I don't share this view myself, believing that the absence of any Title II regs at all bodes worse than the burdens they or may not impose.

------

The Commission asked what the definition of ‘reasonable network management’ should be. The original (2010) version called for “reasonable network management” and defined it as:

"A network management practice is reasonable if it is appropriate and tailored to achieving a legitimate network management purpose, taking into account the particular network architecture and technology of the broadband Internet access service."

In the Title II order this was changed to:

“a practice that has a primarily technical management justification, but does not include other business practices.”

What does “other business practices" mean? From an engineering standpoint I can design and build a network that never requires ’network management'. We used to have that network - it was called ‘circuit switched’ and it was an engineering marvel. What I can’t do is build that network today and deliver broadband at competitive prices without some degree of oversubscription. The level of oversubscription is ultimately a management (and economic) decision. If all network management practices are then ‘business practices’ it becomes very difficult to decide what network management can be justified as ‘primarily technical’.