The adversaries to the reclassification of Internet Service under Title II of the Communications Act of the FCC filed their answer brief on Monday to the FCC’s brief. The competitions – headed by US Telecom – made several legal arguments about the shortcomings in how the FCC went about drafting an order without permitting opinion of their planned rules. The rules of the 2010 order were couched in language that was contained in the Notice of Proposed Rule Making that preceded it. So commenters had the ability to criticize or support the real rules before they became final.

The UST brief attentively revealed inconsistencies and the errors in the Arrangement on all the key factual and analytical issues too. The lawyer was particularly very happy to see my very own amicus brief mentioned on DNS in addition to a High Tech Newsgroup site post on the issues of the FCC.

Some may claim the Internet does not need DNS because we could get websites and programs by IP address, but that would inflict a tremendous loss of functionality for the internet. But web servers permit one IP address to be shared by multiple internet domain names. This is particularly useful to other web services and little sites. Some web servers host more or 100 web sites, all recognized by name.

CDNs also play to higher-operation places to direct traffic either nearer or more loaded than other servers that are potential. This is not routing as dynamic name resolution; IP and BGP does routing at the amount of IP addresses. You need both to completely use the web.