Part of the problem with the FCC's current rules governing network neutrality is that they're so incredibly vague, they're useless when trying to crack down on anti-competitive behavior by ISPs. Were you the dubious sort, you might argue they were intentionally made that way to give the illusion that the FCC was engaged in a pro-consumer action when really just pandering to major carriers. Regardless of why they're murky, the entire reason for the FCC re-crafting these neutrality rules is to design more concrete guidelines that actually, well, work.

The new rules are only just getting cooked up at the FCC, but a group of law professors have taken an early look and say there's a serious problem: namely that, you guessed it, they're so murky and vague that they might not actually be useful. Yale Law School's Jack Balkin, Stanford Law Professor Barbara van Shewick, South Texas College of Law Professor John Blevins, University of Louisville School of Law's Jim Chen and Harvard Law Professor Larry Lessig all essentially agree -- sending a letter to the FCC warning that their current rules lack teeth:Specifically, the professors don't like that the FCC continues to leave the definition of "reasonable network management" vague -- something that's at the center of their debate with Comcast. The professors also argue that the FCC's proposed rules also fail to define "non-discrimination" in any meaningful way. As the professors note, surely this "unintentional" oversight will be rectified as the rule-making process moves forward.

We've frequently explored how a growing number of VoIP companies were blocking FreeConferencecall.com, because the service relies on a practice known as "traffic pumping," a regulatory loophole that allows small, rural telcos to sock bigger carriers with huge connectivity fees. A few years back, AT&T tried to block access to such services but were yelled at by the FCC because it breaks common carrier laws. VoIP operators are under no such restrictions, which is why everybody from Speakeasy to MajicJack freely blocks access.

Free conference services users may not like it, but given they're not a common carrier, Google Voice is similarly under no restrictions, and has blocked user access to these services as well.

Techdirt points out how the RIAA has come out in favor of network neutrality -- sort of. In a missive written over at the RIAA blog, RIAA President Cary Sherman proudly supports the government's network neutrality push -- provided it in turn supports the implementation of piracy filters. The RIAA correctly notes the FCC continues to use language that indicates any neutrality laws will not apply to the transfer of illegal content (even if determining what's not legal is still very murky ground). Says the RIAA:Given the number of former RIAA employees now working within the Department of Justice, the idea that the FCC's new neutrality rules will be written around the RIAA's desires shouldn't really surprise anybody.

A little more than a year ago, Comcast got their wrist slapped by the FCC for throttling upstream P2P traffic (and lying about it to the press and consumers), though the "sanction" contained no substantive punishment or fine. Still, Comcast has been battling the ruling ever since, arguing that the FCC's neutrality principles (pdf) don't give the FCC the authority to investigate the issue, much less sanction the company. In a final filing (pdf) provided to Broadband Reports by Comcast, the carrier argues that the FCC also violated "basic rules of fair notice:"Of course the debate over whether the FCC has the authority to enforce neutrality principles is a major reason why the FCC is taking steps to expand those rules, so there's little doubt they have the authority to act when carriers engage in particularly heavy-handed neutrality violations.

Last week we told you how some sloppy AT&T lobbying resulted in an Arkansas senior citizen group writing a form letter against net neutrality to the FCC, but forgetting some important details -- like replacing the form field "XYZ Organization" with an actual company name. Telecom companies frequently use a slew of existing or artificial groups to parrot company positions, giving the illusion of broad public support. Several users have subsequently written in to note that the letter signatory, and head of the "Arkansas Retired Seniors Coalition," unsurprisingly worked for Southwestern Bell for nearly thirty years. Mike Masnick at Techdirt has also been digging into the story, and notes that the man still claims he wrote the letter himself, for whatever that's worth.