The chairman of the US's communications watchdog is proposing "strong" protections to ensure the principles of net neutrality are upheld.
In an article in Wired, Tom Wheeler said he intended to place new restrictions on how fixed line and mobile broadband providers handle data.
He plans to prevent the service providers from being able to create fast lanes for those willing to pay.
Verizon has indicated that it might begin legal action as a consequence.
Setting out his vision, Mr Wheeler described it as the "strongest open internet protections ever proposed by the FCC".
The principle of net neutrality is one that holds that all packets of data, whether it be an email, a webpage or a video, are treated equally on the network.
FCC chairman Tom Wheeler FCC chairman Tom Wheeler intends to reclassify internet service providers as public utilities
FCC chairman Tom Wheeler said he intended to reclassify internet service providers (ISPs) to make them like any other public utility, in order to ensure the watchdog can regulate them.
"These enforceable, bright-line rules will ban paid prioritisation, and the blocking and throttling of lawful content and services," he wrote.
"I propose to fully apply - for the first time ever - those bright-line rules to mobile broadband.
Twitter Tom Wheeler tweeted details about his decision
"My proposal assures the rights of internet users to go where they want, when they want, and the rights of innovators to introduce new products without asking anyone's permission."
This will mean far heavier regulation for both fixed line and wireless providers and will give the FCC the power to stop ISPs from blocking traffic from services which rival their own, or from setting up fast lanes for those internet companies prepared to pay.
In a statement to the BBC ahead of the announcement, Verizon refused to be drawn on the debate.
"We have not publicly stated, nor do we intend to speculate, as to what we may or may not do regarding an order that we have not seen and has not yet been approved," it said.
But, in a blog post written a few months ago, entitled Diminishing the Prospects of Further Net Neutrality Litigation, the ISP explained the likely course for it and other ISPs if the FCC did reclassify internet access.
"The ISPs, and perhaps some in the tech industry, will have no choice but to fight the sudden reversal of two decades of settled law," it wrote.
ISPs have long argued that, in a data-hungry world, there needs to be some kind of traffic prioritisation.
They point out that bandwidth heavy services such as Netflix are putting disproportionate strain on their networks and forcing them to invest billions in infrastructure. Such services, they argue, should share the costs of maintaining the network.
Obama intervention
Barack Obama Some believe the FCC's chief only made a U-turn because President Obama had intervened
Verizon kickstarted the current debate about net neutrality when it challenged the FCC's net neutrality rules in January 2014.
A court found in its favour, meaning Verizon could start charging content providers such as Netflix to carry its content through its pipes. It also meant that the FCC had to reassess its rules.
It immediately had two lobby groups putting pressure on it.
Advocates of a free and open internet insisted that net neutrality was one of the fundamental tenets of the internet - it had been built for everybody and it should remain as easy for a small start-up as for a big multi-national to access people via the network, they argued.
ISPs, on the other hand, argued that some sort of traffic prioritisation was necessary in the complex data-hungry world we now live in. Doing so did not damage commitment to an open internet, they contended.
Initially it seemed that the regulator was leaning on the side of the ISPs and favouring some sort of two-tiered internet but protests outside its headquarters, intense lobbying from the tech industry and the eventual intervention of President Obama, appear to have changed its mind.
In November the president waded into the row and called on the FCC to enact "the strongest possible rules" to protect an open internet.
Web founder
Racing lanes Sir Tim-Berners Lee argues that when he created the web it had no special fast lanes
The debate about net neutrality is not just confined to the US.
In Europe some countries, such as the Netherlands, have already enshrined the principle in law.
Web pioneer Sir Tim Berners-Lee called for the rest of Europe to follow suit in a guest blog on the European Commission's website, written this week.
The inventor of the world wide web said that maintaining net neutrality was "critical for the future of the web and the future of human rights, innovation and progress in Europe".
"When I designed the web, I deliberately built it as a neutral, creative and collaborative space," he added.
He cited research commissioned by the Dutch government which suggested that net neutrality "stimulates a virtuous circle between more competition, lower prices, higher connectivity and greater innovation".
The European Union is due to discuss the issue of net neutrality in March.
In the US, the changes also have some way to go before they become law.
The five FCC commissioners will vote on the proposal on 26 February.
Meanwhile some reports suggest that a group of Republicans in Congress are already working on a bill to undermine the proposals.
I'm pretty happy to see that this has happened. I hope it actually works out.
Verizon has indicated that it might begin legal action as a consequence.
Verizon can suck my shlong. *flips Verizon the bird*
"The ISPs, and perhaps some in the tech industry, will have no choice but to fight the sudden reversal of two decades of settled law," it wrote.
And this is just laughable coming from the people trying to cause a sudden reversal of two decades of settled law.
Meanwhile some reports suggest that a group of Republicans in Congress are already working on a bill to undermine the proposals.
In all honesty, an Anti-NN stance is pretty much the sure ticket to get me to vote Dem for the rest of forever. I can put up with a lot of Rep BS to back the general stances I tend to prefer, but that's BS I just can't abide.
Melissia wrote: For once, HBMC is absolutely correct. This is good for everyone, and enhances the basic tenets of capitalism.
B-but m-my Comcast corporation. This is persecution! A company would never do unethical things to favor some things over others in an extremely manipulative way.
whembly wrote: I'd rather they create new regulations than to reclassify ISPs as Title II.
I'm more concerned how incestuous ISP + Content owners are... (ie, Comast owning NBC/Hulu/etc...)
From the stuff I've read, and I may be wrong I'm not up on US politics beyond laughing at the Daily Show to take my mind off how terrible UK politics are, they need to reclassify broadband as a utility because that gives them powers which would stand against a legal challenge by the ISPs(which they would/will mount regardless what solution the government went for), whereas without reclassification that's not guaranteed. Besides which, would a "normal" regulatory regime not have to originate in and pass through Congress, ie is effectively impossible given the generally anti-regulation stance of many Republicans backed up by their corporatist friends in both parties?
Also, shouldn't the additional powers to monitor and regulate anti-consumer behaviour that come with reclassification allow the government to combat such incestuous relationships more easily? Not that they'll be able to prevent them entirely of course, even if you guys win the battle for NN the lobbyist brigade aren't going to pack up and head home, alas.
whembly wrote: I'd rather they create new regulations than to reclassify ISPs as Title II.
I'm more concerned how incestuous ISP + Content owners are... (ie, Comast owning NBC/Hulu/etc...)
I'm far more concerned that ISPs have become a de facto monopoly in many areas, even pressuring local governments to ban municipal broadband. The blatant and unprosecuted business collusion between these companies is grotesque.
whembly wrote: I'd rather they create new regulations than to reclassify ISPs as Title II.
I'm more concerned how incestuous ISP + Content owners are... (ie, Comast owning NBC/Hulu/etc...)
From the stuff I've read, and I may be wrong I'm not up on US politics beyond laughing at the Daily Show to take my mind off how terrible UK politics are, they need to reclassify broadband as a utility because that gives them powers which would stand against a legal challenge by the ISPs(which they would/will mount regardless what solution the government went for), whereas without reclassification that's not guaranteed.
Eh... here's the problem with NN. There are waaaaaaay too many people using the term for completely different definitions.
However, to me... F.R.A.N.D. is the only answer, and I wished that concept/terminology is used more prevalently. Fair, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory access to customer-facing networks. I would be open to just about any method that would achieve this... but while Title II was designed for this for power-grids, and can achieve this... but it would be extremely awkward and that the industry would have to adapt massively. The unintended consequences can be ginormous.
Besides which, would a "normal" regulatory regime not have to originate in and pass through Congress, ie is effectively impossible given the generally anti-regulation stance of many Republicans backed up by their corporatist friends in both parties?
Not necessarily... that's how executive regulatory boards work. They're empowered by congress to issue regulatory rules within certain parameters. See EPA, DHS, HHS, etc...
Congress can override regulations, but it takes an active of legislation to overturn/adjust regulations. That takes time...
Also, shouldn't the additional powers to monitor and regulate anti-consumer behaviour that come with reclassification allow the government to combat such incestuous relationships more easily? Not that they'll be able to prevent them entirely of course, even if you guys win the battle for NN the lobbyist brigade aren't going to pack up and head home, alas.
With Title II... maybe... it's not as clear cut becaust Title II was made for a completely different industry.
Regardless, I'd be very surprise if this comes to fruitation... and we'd may see some sort of compromise instead. A Title II regulation meant for ISPs.
Melissia wrote: For once, HBMC is absolutely correct. This is good for everyone, and enhances the basic tenets of capitalism.
B-but m-my Comcast corporation. This is persecution! A company would never do unethical things to favor some things over others in an extremely manipulative way.
I dont know what its like in the States but can I play devils advocate for the ISPs.
If bandwith is flooding their networks and hence they have to infrastructurally upgrade them which is a cost to them they have 3 options:
1. charge the big data users such as Netflix an extra fee which is either passed onto consumers via netflix et al (as has happened) or not
2. charge more for their basic packages, again a consumer cost
3. pull out of the network altogether, leaving a hole that probably wont be filled due to the high costs/expertise involved.
I dont back the ISPs by the way, from reading what goes on in certain areas of the States they have become laws unto themselves really but anyone want to comment on the costs angle and how they can deal with it?
Ratius wrote: I dont know what its like in the States but can I play devils advocate for the ISPs.
If bandwith is flooding their networks and hence they have to infrastructurally upgrade them which is a cost to them they have 3 options:
In the US, much of the broadband development of the country is subsidized (if not paid for entirely) by state and local governments. The federal government also supplies funding in accordance with NTIA.
Time Warner Cable runs it's broadband at a 97% profit margin. They don't spend money and expand service because there is next to no competition; the companies only rarely operate fully in the same area.
It's shameful how long it's been allowed to continue. It's is about as shining an example of collusion as you could possibly find.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote: Last I checked the US had some of the worst speeds of the industrialized world at some of the highest costs. Hopefully this will correct that.
If you've ever seen the John Oliver bit, I believe we rank below Estonia. (Who if you read about, is actually one of the more advanced European countries in terms of internet, but still.)
I see, I wasnt aware of that, cheers.
So State and Local build the actual networks and then large ISPs simply own them and the rights to them charging high costs to consumers?
Do I have that right?
Ratius wrote: 1. charge the big data users such as Netflix an extra fee which is either passed onto consumers via netflix et al (as has happened) or not
Services like Netflix are already paying for the extra bandwidth they use. If you've ever gone and rented a server or webspace, you may notice that many providers place limits on upload and download, and having more costs more. These companies are already being charged for using more of the internet infrastructure. They need to buy extra connections, more accessibility, more servers, etc to function.
You can't just plug one modem into the wall and get millions of MB in data to millions of users. You need dozens of them. Hundreds. Netflix has to pay for all that extra connectivity.
This is and never has been about charging companies for how much internetz they use. It's about ISP's wanting to expand the market to include another level of service. One where they can force major market players into paying more for their connections (because if they don't then they get stuck in the slow lane). That would work great for them, but it would suck for pretty much everyone else.
And this isn't getting into the other underlying issue that the providers of internet (and cable) are now becoming owners of the companies that pay for those services. Comcast for example owns NBC now (i.e. a cable tv provider, owns one of the largest cable networks), and also owns Hulu, the most direct competitor to Netflix (I.E. a internet provider, owns a company that streams TV over the internet). Nor does it address the issue that there is no meaningful competition in the ISP market in most of the US. Most of us only have choice of 1 provider. Companies like Comcast and Verizon operate in a 0 competition environment where they can charge whatever they want because the rest of us have no choice.
2. charge more for their basic packages, again a consumer cost
People in the US already pay far more for internet service than most of the rest of the world, and we have internet speeds much lower than most of the rest of the world.
3. pull out of the network altogether, leaving a hole that probably wont be filled due to the high costs/expertise involved.
Because making 0$ in profit is better than making billions?
We Need Net Neutrality Policy, but ‘30s Regs Aren’t the Way to Do It
I like the Internet.
Cat Vids ← It brings us cat videos.
And baby photos. And memes.
It also brings education to the masses, health care to the hard to reach, and drives California’s economic engine.
The Internet does all these things (and more!) because it is an open platform. The principles of “Net Neutrality” (NN) and the open Internet are bedrock beliefs for innovative companies in California and around the country who are delivering the innovations and applications that power our lives.
More than a decade after NN was defined, it’s back on the front burner with everyone from talk show satirists to dog walkers discussing the importance of keeping the Internet open. The issues around NN are not new. The Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) has been struggling to create a legal framework to preserve and protect these core principles of openness for a long time, and I applaud FCC Commissioner Tom Wheeler’s recent efforts to craft a sensible solution.
I’m convinced that a common sense solution exists, while at the same time hopeful that we’ll make sure there’s water in the pool before we dive in headfirst. I say that because I’m a little concerned about the desire by some to impose 1930s style telephone regulations on the Internet.
These old rules, also known as Title II, if you’re wondering, refer to a section of the Telecommunications Act that Congress first passed in 1934 to regulate telephone service. Not surprisingly, things are dramatically different now than they were 80 years ago, so when you take regulations drafted in the era of the rotary phone and apply them to the era of the smartphone, one has to wonder if this is a square-peg, round-hole solution.
Applying these old telephone regulations would essentially treat the Internet like a utility such as water or electricity. But when is the last time you saw innovation in your water pipe? “
If the Internet had been regulated like water or gas, I highly doubt we would have seen the advent of things like Google Fiber or connected cars,” said Jack Crawford, general partner at Velocity Venture Capital.
Eighty years ago, do you know what went through your water pipe? Water. And I bet that is what will go through it in 80 years. But do you want to guess what will flow through our broadband networks in 80 years? Do you want to guess the bandwidth requirements, the necessary speeds, or the possible services that future networks will need to support? I asked Crawford to answer the same question in the event that broadband is treated as a utility. His response:
“I don’t have a crystal ball, but in 80 years I think regulated broadband would look a lot like it does today. Let’s not veer down that path.”
Over the last three years, I have had the pleasure to work with the FCC, the CPUC, and officials at every level of government to ensure that California’s startups have a voice in the regulatory process. We may not always agree, but these governmental decision makers are working hard to create and enforce rules that will protect consumers, incentivize investment, and grow our economy. It’s the trifecta we all want.
It’s a poorly kept secret, but government moves slower than startups. And the FCC is no different. In order to make a decision on an Internet Service, it’s a 30 day comment period followed by a 30 day reply comment period — and that’s before any ruling by the Commission can even take place. Not exactly the speed of innovation. According to Avetta’s Lloyd Marino, a process such as this would have a chilling effect on innovation.
“In this business, we’re iterating on the fly, A/B testing different features and changing pricing models frequently. I don’t have the time to wait patiently for the conclusion of a regulatory process that I frankly don’t understand and can’t afford.”
As with any heavy regulatory hammer, Title II will be felt by nearly every part of the Internet ecosystem because it will regulate Internet services.That potentially means any company in the business of transporting information from one corner of the Internet to another could be regulated under these rules. That could include the likes of Netflix, Amazon, Twitter, even Snapchat — heavy-hitters who rely on the free flow of data to meet the needs of their customers.
For startups especially, extreme regulation could easily become Armageddon. Since under the rule the FCC will have the same regulatory oversight over Internet services as it does basic telephone service. That means it will approve, or not approve, any changes in Internet service, pricing, terms, conditions, and infrastructure. “Without the freedom for people to innovate without government oversight — what’s known as “permissionless innovation” — it’s doubtful the Internet would be where it is today,” said Yo Yoshida, Founder & CEO of Appallicious, a San Francisco-based civic startup operating in the open government space.
Furthermore, this might also require the payment of regulatory fees. Any company deemed to be providing a “telecommunication service” would theoretically have to contribute to the Universal Service Fund (“USF”). Who picks up this 17% tab? Probably us — consumers. Adding lines of fees and taxes to our Internet bills isn’t on my Christmas list.
In answer to these very real concerns, some supporters of reclassification state the FCC could forebear (grant exceptions) on certain parts of Title II. This, they say, would keep innovation moving. But what this perspective underestimates is the uncertainty this will inject into the sector, the onslaught of litigation such an approach would create, and the institutionalization of distinct classes of the Internet — where some companies can innovate freely and others are left to seek permission every step of the way.
In a statement by Chairman Wheeler following a recent hearing, he said, “There is ONE Internet. Not a fast internet, not a slow internet; ONE Internet.” I could not agree more with that statement. In fact, back in 2012 I wrote an op-ed about the dangers of two Internets. The United Nations was engaged in a treaty process that had the potential to create two Internets through a misguided regulatory process favored by countries such as China, Iran and Russia, and I posited that we must vigilantly fight to preserve one open Internet for all across the world.
I feel the same way nearly 18 months later and echo the words of Chairman Wheeler. We need to protect the open Internet. Saying the Internet is of great benefit and utility is like saying water is wet. It’s a universal truth.
I am delighted to see a robust conversation developing around how to best preserve what makes the Internet great. I just hope we don’t leap into a regulatory framework without really understanding what it means. We can all agree that keeping the Internet open is vital and I’m confident we’ll arrive at a practical solution in time, but we need a modern regulatory approach for modern times — not the porting of a one-size-fits all old-school solution to modern-day challenges.
Mike Montgomery is executive director of CALinnovates, a coalition advocating on behalf of California’s tech community.
That article is pretty terrible honestly. Comparing the internet to water pipes? Really? There's a reason there's a lack of innovation in water pipes (which there actually isn't, considering the rise of smart meters in piping and all that).
What will be on those fibers in 80 years? Nothing. Because just like his craptastical water pipe analogy, in 80 years those pipes will have been replaced with newer, better pipes. Because innovation still happens, even when the government tells you have can't have 97% profit margins and virtual monopolies.
streamdragon wrote: That article is pretty terrible honestly. Comparing the internet to water pipes? Really? There's a reason there's a lack of innovation in water pipes (which there actually isn't, considering the rise of smart meters in piping and all that).
What will be on those fibers in 80 years? Nothing. Because just like his craptastical water pipe analogy, in 80 years those pipes will have been replaced with newer, better pipes. Because innovation still happens, even when the government tells you have can't have 97% profit margins and virtual monopolies.
So... you want to punish a wildly successful company?
I also think the answer may lie in removing monopolies from cable companies and allowing others to lay cable. The problem is the public easement access is difficult as hell just due to space limitations. Still a complex problem
Re-classifying ISPs into utilities won't fix that.
In fact, regulators and politicians would have more oversight... and guess who donates to their politicians?
That's right... companies like Verizon & Comcast's piggy bank would contribute even MORE for favorable regulations... rather than letting the Market as any sort of impact.
whembly wrote: So... you want to punish a wildly successful company?
I also think the answer may lie in removing monopolies from cable companies and allowing others to lay cable. The problem is the public easement access is difficult as hell just due to space limitations. Still a complex problem
Re-classifying ISPs into utilities won't fix that.
In fact, regulators and politicians would have more oversight... and guess who donates to their politicians?
That's right... companies like Verizon & Comcast's piggy bank would contribute even MORE for favorable regulations... rather than letting the Market as any sort of impact.
Given that TWCs "success" comes through border line illegal practices? Yes. Their exec is on record as saying that they stay out of areas where their competitors are, and that their competitors return the favor. What do you think I've meant when I said "de facto monopoly"? TWC and Verizon already have destroyed municipal broadband in many areas because it would actually be able to compete, and they can't have that now can they?
Getting the fiber laid isn't the issue. Like I said, most fiber installation is covered in part or in whole by state and local governments. This makes bans on municipal internet even more insulting, as the government pays for installation of the lines, and then gets told they can't use them. Easement rights are just obfuscating that the tax payer is essentially bolstering these companies by paying their costs for actually building the infrastructure.
As for giving these companies more ability to regulate, that's simply not possible. They basically already have almost total control over what regs do and do not make it through. The only difference is that lately they took it too far, people noticed and now there's an actual fight. Frankly, that you think the market can or will correct anything is surprising. It can't, and it doesn't, because it's already controlled by the people it's supposed to impact.
Forgive my ignorance here but dont you guys have anti monoploy legislation, fair play rules and standards?
European legislation and "interference" gets a lot of bad press but in terms of anti monopoly policy they are right on the money.
whembly wrote: So... you want to punish a wildly successful company?
I also think the answer may lie in removing monopolies from cable companies and allowing others to lay cable. The problem is the public easement access is difficult as hell just due to space limitations. Still a complex problem
Re-classifying ISPs into utilities won't fix that.
In fact, regulators and politicians would have more oversight... and guess who donates to their politicians?
That's right... companies like Verizon & Comcast's piggy bank would contribute even MORE for favorable regulations... rather than letting the Market as any sort of impact.
Given that TWCs "success" comes through border line illegal practices? Yes. Their exec is on record as saying that they stay out of areas where their competitors are, and that their competitors return the favor. What do you think I've meant when I said "de facto monopoly"? TWC and Verizon already have destroyed municipal broadband in many areas because it would actually be able to compete, and they can't have that now can they?
Getting the fiber laid isn't the issue. Like I said, most fiber installation is covered in part or in whole by state and local governments. This makes bans on municipal internet even more insulting, as the government pays for installation of the lines, and then gets told they can't use them. Easement rights are just obfuscating that the tax payer is essentially bolstering these companies by paying their costs for actually building the infrastructure.
As for giving these companies more ability to regulate, that's simply not possible. They basically already have almost total control over what regs do and do not make it through. The only difference is that lately they took it too far, people noticed and now there's an actual fight. Frankly, that you think the market can or will correct anything is surprising. It can't, and it doesn't, because it's already controlled by the people it's supposed to impact.
I'm not saying it's rainbows and unicorn here.... I believe this is definitely a case where there's a solution to a non-existent problem.
I mean... Verizon are huge dicks, because they got caught throttling their pipes. It was because they wanted to sell their contents/app.
So, everyone here? Raise the middle finger to Verizon.
Cool?
Don't like the water utility analogy? Let's trying something different (I've bastardized this elsewhere and kept it short here):
Let’s use the highway analog. We have Netflyx Delivery Company off UT&T Expressway, which connects to Concast Highway, which serves your little housing community as well as other businesses (including other delivery companies), and Concast Highway is connected to Vorizon Tollroads, which serves other little residential communities and businesses.
Now, normally, as Netflyx trucks move from UT&T onto Concast and then onto Vorizon, you would expect that they pay separate tolls to each operating company. What’s happened is that the toll operators have a gentleman’s agreement; whatever traffic flows *from* one *to* the other is netted out by traffic flowing the other way, and at the end of the month or whatever period, they tote up the flows and pay the balance.
That is what they mean by Peering Agreements.
Now what happens is that Netflyx Delivery Company is really, really popular, so much so that Concast’s network is saturated handling the traffic. Worse, it’s so saturated that its *own* communities and businesses (that is, those linked directly to it) can’t get out and experience general slowdown.
Here’s the problem...
Netflyx isn’t Concast’s direct customer; it’s UT&T’s. Netflyx isn’t paying Concast *anything* extra, even though it’s causing the traffic jams. And Netflyx traffic is made up of trucks, and lots of them, so there’s a lot more wear-and-tear on the roads, whereas the gentleman’s agreement is based on an average type of traffic (maybe a mix of cars, trucks and buses, but mostly cars).
The current gentleman’s agreement is also based on roughly equal flows of traffic, so that the impact on everyone’s road networks is approximately the same… and therefore, the pricing is based on that model. Suddenly, that model is no longer valid. When a business model changes, pricing has to change as well.
Some advocates is pushing the idea of NN, which in turn forbids pricing differentiation based on the type of traffic as well as the bandwidth required to carry it. Remember that Web surfing doesn’t typically require high priority (and file downloads don’t either; P2P can be the lowest priority traffic and still work), but video streaming requires real-time priority and a significant amount of bandwidth. Because we all know that waiting to "buffer" suck balls.
In the real world, motorcycles might not be charged any toll, cars a standard amount, vans more, trucks and buses the most... different types of traffic cause different levels of wear-and-tear and use up more space and so forth. Amongst other things, NN could force tolls to be absolutely identical across all classes of traffic.
This… is kinda dumb.
My biggest issue is that reclassifying ISPs into Title 2, is that it's too broad... If you allow ISPs to be regulated by *forbidding* them to do certain things *now*, you’ve opened the doorway to the government *forbidding* them to do *other* things later.
Narrow the scope down a bit... maybe don't change anything except force ISPs to sell bandwidth at Bulk rates, and allow ALL ISPs to compete on the last mile to the customer. That's kinda like what happened with Microsoft when they were forced to delink IE from the OS and allow other browsers.
Ratius wrote: Forgive my ignorance here but dont you guys have anti monoploy legislation, fair play rules and standards?
European legislation and "interference" gets a lot of bad press but in terms of anti monopoly policy they are right on the money.
So, broadband in itself, there's no real monopoly.
Unless you live in Nevada. or Utah. Or Arizona. Or Colorado. Or anywhere else where there's a monopoly according to that map. You're being dishonest on purpose by claiming that there's no monopoly on broadband nationally (which is true) when you know damn well that we're discussing local situations (where there very much appears to be a monopoly).
So, broadband in itself, there's no real monopoly.
Unless you live in Nevada. or Utah. Or Arizona. Or Colorado. Or anywhere else where there's a monopoly according to that map. You're being dishonest on purpose by claiming that there's no monopoly on broadband nationally (which is true) when you know damn well that we're discussing local situations (where there very much appears to be a monopoly).
I know for a fact that there's at least 3 providers I can get in Colorado or Arizona..
You're missing this line in my previous post:
And there are numerous other wireless/babybells companies as well...
Ratius wrote:Forgive my ignorance here but dont you guys have anti monoploy legislation, fair play rules and standards?
European legislation and "interference" gets a lot of bad press but in terms of anti monopoly policy they are right on the money.
Yes and no. We have anti-monopoly rules, but as Whembly shows below, the big companies are extremely adept at circumventing them. I actually worked for the Department of Justice's Anti-Trust Bureau for a decade. It's why when people tell me "The market will fix it", I have to be careful not to hurt myself rolling me eyes. Now I work for the Federal Trade Commission, where I get to spend my day pouring over documents showcasing how much these companies actually despise their customers.
I freely admit my bias against some of these companies. But after spending 15 years wading through their much, I'm not really able to give them the benefit of the doubt. They've fixed everything from job salaries, to book prices, to feed prices, to medical prices, insurance and billing. There is basically not a single enterprise that companies haven't completely frelled the consumer in, up to and including knowingly letting people die.
whembly wrote:
I'm not saying it's rainbows and unicorn here.... I believe this is definitely a case where there's a solution to a non-existent problem.
I mean... Verizon are huge dicks, because they got caught throttling their pipes. It was because they wanted to sell their contents/app.
So, everyone here? Raise the middle finger to Verizon.
Cool?
Don't like the water utility analogy? Let's trying something different: >even worse analogy snipped<
This… is kinda dumb.
My biggest issue is that reclassifying ISPs into Title 2, is that it's too broad... If you allow ISPs to be regulated by *forbidding* them to do certain things *now*, you’ve opened the doorway to the government *forbidding* them to do *other* things later.
Narrow the scope down a bit... maybe don't change anything except force ISPs to sell bandwidth at Bulk rates, and allow ALL ISPs to compete on the last mile to the customer. That's kinda like what happened with Microsoft when they were forced to delink IE from the OS and allow other browsers.
Except that there is a problem; these companies are taking citizen tax money, using it to bolster their business with promises of increased service, only to shaft them, rake them over the coals, and walk away scott free. All while making sure that there is as close to 0 competition and other options as possible.
As to your new highway analogy, that's actually worse than the water pipe analogy. The reason that various types of vehicles pay more or less in highway tolls is directly linked to the amount of damage that vehicle causes to the road by simple operation. We also reduce tolls for carpools to incentivize reducing the number of cars (and thus the damage to roads, use of fossil fuels, emissions, etc. etc. etc.)
Absolutely 0 of that applies to the internet. Every single 1 and 0 is exactly the same as any other 1 and 0. Whether I'm streaming a 4GB movie from Netflix or I'm downloading a 4GB torrent of porn, the data that traverses the wiring is exactly identical pulses of electricity. Netflix's signals don't cause any more damage than pirate bay's, NBC's, FOX's or any other websites. What Comcast did to Netflix was almost textbook extortion. Seriously. "That's a nice business you have there. Shame if something were to happen to it." It's literal movie mobster mentality; that they were allowed to get away with it showcased exactly WHY we need new laws to govern that type of nonsense.
whembly wrote:
So, broadband in itself, there's no real monopoly.
I know for a fact that there's at least 3 providers I can get in Colorado or Arizona..
You're missing this line in my previous post:
And there are numerous other wireless/babybells companies as well...
You should be a lobbyist for big cable; you're certainly adept at distorting the truth like they do.
Technically, yes, there is no nation-wide monopoly. That would be too obviously against US anti-trust law. It comes down to regions, where most regions have 1 single major provider. If you try to point out the monopoly, just like Whembly they will point to all the babybell companies, who can barely provide a fraction of the service for higher price. It's a de facto regional monopoly, since those smaller babybell companies almost invariably piggy back on the bigger companies lines (because they can't afford to buy a legislator to give them money for laying lines). So either way, those big companies end up getting your money, even if you go with "the little guy".
The only real competition comes from:
1) the government; see where I have at least twice noted that big cable then buys out the legislature to ban municipal internet (something that would be impossible to do if broadband goes title II).
2) Google; sadly, this is only in a few places so far. I'm not completely blind to Google's evil side. I've worked on cases against them, I know they're not pristine clean. However, when they launch their fiber services, suddenly service improves. I live in Maryland and have Verizon FioS. I pay more than that, and get literally 1/10th the speed.
The other thing ISPs will point to, to show "competition" is mobile phone companies. That's right Criket Wireless is supposedly "competition" for Verizon. Riiiiiiiiiiight
Again, demonstrating my ignorance here of the US setup but the states that are white i.e. no coverage.
They have no DSL/cable connectivity at all?
Are there alternatives as in satelitte or ISDN?
Im going to be agog if you guys say its dial up or 56k?
If as someone said the infrastructure is funded by local or state why hasnt it penetrated to these States? Is it funding, terrain, low population, lack of care, ignorance or something more bizzare?
Even in the auld woilds of Oirland we have DSL. Granted the geographical footprint is much much smaller but still. In the US its 0 in some States?
And no, thats not some condescening judgement on the US before someone says. Its more a wtf-type question
Ratius wrote: Again, demonstrating my ignorance here of the US setup but the states that are white i.e. no coverage.
They have no DSL/cable connectivity at all?
Are there alternatives as in satelitte or ISDN?
Im going to be agog if you guys say its dial up or 56k?
If as someone said the infrastructure is funded by local or state why hasnt it penetrated to these States? Is it funding, terrain, low population, lack of care, ignorance or something more bizzare?
Even in the auld woilds of Oirland we have DSL. Granted the geographical footprint is much much smaller but still. In the US its 0 in some States?
And no, thats not some condescening judgement on the US before someone says. Its more a wtf-type question
That is correct, white states in that photo have 0 DSL coverage. Those places most likely are forced to utilize satellite internet. One of the problems with large rural states is that even for the state, the cost of expanding wired internet services can be prohibitive. The plan is for all states to be 100% wired eventually. States like Wyoming (WY) have a population density of less than 6 people per square mile (< 2.26/sq km). Even if the local governments were willing to fund the wiring, finding an ISP willing to provide connection is extremely difficult; the costs are considered too high.
The ISPs do cover the costs of going from the street to the house. In most suburban areas, you're talking 20-30 feet at most. In some rural areas, you're talking about miles of cable that the states don't cover.
It's why outside of Google, no ISP offers Fiber-to-house connection. Verizon would have to pay more for it, and even though they could pass said cost on to me, they don't think they would make enough overall to justify the costs.
Personally I have come to the conclusion that net neutrality is not a fundamentally good or important principle. My reasons are:
The technical basis for packet prioritisation was built into IP at the beginning, it just hasn't been used so far.
Some packets are more urgent than others. If you subscribe to Netflix, it's a serious problem for your VOD film to stop and buffer. Whereas non-real-time applications such as email have no problem waiting a few milliseconds to get a packet through at lower priority.
We tolerate pay for priority in other communication and transport systems (postal, train, etc.) because it works, so why not in internet communication?
It seems to me that a lot of the net neutrality argument centres around ISPs like Verizon being dicks. But if they are dicks there could be a law to stop them being dicks rather than a law to stop customers from paying for a better service if they want to.
Kilkrazy wrote: Personally I have come to the conclusion that net neutrality is not a fundamentally good or important principle. My reasons are:
The technical basis for packet prioritisation was built into IP at the beginning, it just hasn't been used so far.
Some packets are more urgent than others. If you subscribe to Netflix, it's a serious problem for your VOD film to stop and buffer. Whereas non-real-time applications such as email have no problem waiting a few milliseconds to get a packet through at lower priority.
We tolerate pay for priority in other communication and transport systems (postal, train, etc.) because it works, so why not in internet communication?
It seems to me that a lot of the net neutrality argument centres around ISPs like Verizon being dicks. But if they are dicks there could be a law to stop them being dicks rather than a law to stop customers from paying for a better service if they want to.
Customers can already pay for a better service if they want to, by taking a better package. I use the internet a lot and for fairly bandwidth-intensive activities, so I pay a modest premium for 100Mb cable with no download cap - someone who uses the internet less, or for less intensive activities, could pay less for a middling-speed connection, or much less for a slower(relatively, we're still talking 20Mb+) connection with usage limits. That is the equivalent of "pay for priority" in terms of transport. What Net Neutrality is designed to avoid is ISPs demanding content providing companies pay them a fee, or they will artificially degrade the service that their users get through that ISPs network. That isn't paying for priority, it's extortion, and while a Netflix or a Youtube might be able to afford to pay the extortion money, smaller companies likely wouldn't. So not only would a non-neutral internet result in a situation where the level of service an ISP's customers actually receive in real-world usage is entirely dependent on the whims/wallet of a third party(eg Youtube refuses to pay up, the fact you're paying through the nose for tippy-top speed internet won't matter, you'll still get arse speeds when you try to access Youtube), but it creates a situation where ISPs can stifle competition among content providers, intentionally or otherwise(remember a lot of ISPs own online content providers, in a non-neutral internet they could prioritise traffic for the one they own and degrade the bandwidth of its competitors).
The only people that benefit from a non-neutral internet are ISPs and any major established corporations willing to collude with them.
Absolutely 0 of that applies to the internet. Every single 1 and 0 is exactly the same as any other 1 and 0. Whether I'm streaming a 4GB movie from Netflix or I'm downloading a 4GB torrent of porn, the data that traverses the wiring is exactly identical pulses of electricity. Netflix's signals don't cause any more damage than pirate bay's, NBC's, FOX's or any other websites. What Comcast did to Netflix was almost textbook extortion. Seriously. "That's a nice business you have there. Shame if something were to happen to it." It's literal movie mobster mentality; that they were allowed to get away with it showcased exactly WHY we need new laws to govern that type of nonsense.
I think you're missing the point completely.
While the actual discrete data (ones and zeros) aren't any different from Netflix streams to browsing DakkaDakka's forums... the stability/tolerance of those data streams between those two events are VASTLY different.
Ie, you'd notice more if you had to "buffer" while watching Netflix than yelling at whembly in this forum.
That's because it's mostly a technical challenge.
Before bantering back and forth... when you watch Netflix, how many different companies does that data has to traverse before it hits your TV screens? Do some research as I don't think you'd believe me... once you have that, think about the implications.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: Personally I have come to the conclusion that net neutrality is not a fundamentally good or important principle. My reasons are:
The technical basis for packet prioritisation was built into IP at the beginning, it just hasn't been used so far.
Some packets are more urgent than others. If you subscribe to Netflix, it's a serious problem for your VOD film to stop and buffer. Whereas non-real-time applications such as email have no problem waiting a few milliseconds to get a packet through at lower priority.
We tolerate pay for priority in other communication and transport systems (postal, train, etc.) because it works, so why not in internet communication?
It seems to me that a lot of the net neutrality argument centres around ISPs like Verizon being dicks. But if they are dicks there could be a law to stop them being dicks rather than a law to stop customers from paying for a better service if they want to.
^^^THIS! Totally this!
Net Neutrality proponents think this is the "easy button" to ensure great internet access... and frankly I believe there are better ideas/solutions.
Internet is delivered over the phone lines (DSL), via coxial cable (Cable), and from microwave transmission (Satellite). How do you regulate the internet "fairly" between three disparate platforms as these?
Breotan wrote: Internet is delivered over the phone lines (DSL), via coxial cable (Cable), and from microwave transmission (Satellite). How do you regulate the internet "fairly" between three disparate platforms as these?
Literally everybody else seems to be managing it OK.
And again whembly, from my reading I don't think people are advocating Title II classification because it's "easy mode", but because it's the only solution that would grant the necessary powers while actually standing up to challenges through your legal system or by lobbyists. It's all very well to advocate an alternative solution on principle, but at some point you have to look at the practicalities; months and years of wrangling to get individuals laws passed through a Republican-controlled Congress that is anti-regulation by default and who would be backed by many lobbyist-influenced pro-corporate Democrats, then months and years more while the ISPs force even those doubtless watered-down regulations through every legal challenge they can think of, possibly culminating in them being struck down entirely depending on whether your Supreme Court has been on the absinthe that week or not, it's just not rational when there's a solution which will work now, which won't be watered down by lobbyists, and which is much more likely to stand against legal challenges.
It may not be the ideal solution, but politics isn't about ideals, it's about getting as close as you can to your goal in the most workable way.
Breotan wrote: Internet is delivered over the phone lines (DSL), via coxial cable (Cable), and from microwave transmission (Satellite). How do you regulate the internet "fairly" between three disparate platforms as these?
Literally everybody else seems to be managing it OK.
And we're not?
Tell you what... do people like me who are actually happy with their service count? I mean, yeah I'd love it it were cheaper, but I'm a happy customer with regards to the service I've been getting.
And again whembly, from my reading I don't think people are advocating Title II classification because it's "easy mode", but because it's the only solution that would grant the necessary powers while actually standing up to challenges through your legal system or by lobbyists.
It's all very well to advocate an alternative solution on principle, but at some point you have to look at the practicalities; months and years of wrangling to get individuals laws passed through a Republican-controlled Congress that is anti-regulation by default and who would be backed by many lobbyist-influenced pro-corporate Democrats, then months and years more while the ISPs force even those doubtless watered-down regulations through every legal challenge they can think of, possibly culminating in them being struck down entirely depending on whether your Supreme Court has been on the absinthe that week or not, it's just not rational when there's a solution which will work now, which won't be watered down by lobbyists, and which is much more likely to stand against legal challenges.
It may not be the ideal solution, but politics isn't about ideals, it's about getting as close as you can to your goal in the most workable way.
As a proponent of reclassifying ISP as Title II... here is where your logic falls apart.
Do you think the big ISPs of the world are NOT going to contribute to their representative to carve out special goodies for them?
All I'm saying is that for legit issues over the actions of Verizon and the fubar between Netflix/Akami/Comcast... having the FCC using powers from Title II is inappropriate.
Breotan wrote: Internet is delivered over the phone lines (DSL), via coxial cable (Cable), and from microwave transmission (Satellite). How do you regulate the internet "fairly" between three disparate platforms as these?
Literally everybody else seems to be managing it OK.
And we're not?
Tell you what... do people like me who are actually happy with their service count? I mean, yeah I'd love it it were cheaper, but I'm a happy customer with regards to the service I've been getting.
For you, that's great. But statistically? No, you don't count, and no, your country's not doing it right. The UK is actually pretty poor by European standards, but we have better coverage & higher speeds than the US, and in all but a handful of heavily populated cities you pay substantially more than we do. Not a little bit, a lot more. The USA has an objectively bad internet infrastructure by the standards of the rest of the developed world, and that is a problem. That's not a dig at your national pride, it's not snooty Euros laughing at the unsophisticated "colonists", it's just an issue you need to find a way to solve, because a good quality 'net infrastructure is vital for the social and economic health of modern developed nations.
And again whembly, from my reading I don't think people are advocating Title II classification because it's "easy mode", but because it's the only solution that would grant the necessary powers while actually standing up to challenges through your legal system or by lobbyists.
It's all very well to advocate an alternative solution on principle, but at some point you have to look at the practicalities; months and years of wrangling to get individuals laws passed through a Republican-controlled Congress that is anti-regulation by default and who would be backed by many lobbyist-influenced pro-corporate Democrats, then months and years more while the ISPs force even those doubtless watered-down regulations through every legal challenge they can think of, possibly culminating in them being struck down entirely depending on whether your Supreme Court has been on the absinthe that week or not, it's just not rational when there's a solution which will work now, which won't be watered down by lobbyists, and which is much more likely to stand against legal challenges.
It may not be the ideal solution, but politics isn't about ideals, it's about getting as close as you can to your goal in the most workable way.
As a proponent of reclassifying ISP as Title II... here is where your logic falls apart.
Do you think the big ISPs of the world are NOT going to contribute to their representative to carve out special goodies for them?
All I'm saying is that for legit issues over the actions of Verizon and the fubar between Netflix/Akami/Comcast... having the FCC using powers from Title II is inappropriate.
Point of fact; I'm not really a proponent of anything, I've said I'm only trying to understand this from the outside, it's just that from what I have been able to discern this seems like the most logical way to achieve the desired result.
Your second point I'm not really sure what you're getting at. That lobbyists will try and subvert the actions of the FCC just as they would any other process? Well, of course they will, subverting democracy is what lobbyists are for. The question is which method of bringing necessary regulation to bear on the ISPs offers the fewest opportunities for that subversion to occur, and which of those is most likely to stand up in court. Title II fits that bill as far as I can see, but if there's an alternative I'm missing, a reason why using it is "inappropriate", I'm interested to hear what it might be. Genuinely; how else would you propose the US government successfully regulate the ISPs without spending the next half-decade or more tied up in court defending legislation that may or may not survive that challenge, assuming such legislation could even be successfully drafted by your anti-regulations legislature in the first place?
First, President Obama’s plan marks a monumental shift toward government control of the Internet. It gives the FCC the power to micromanage virtually every aspect of how the Internet works. It’s an overreach that will let a Washington bureaucracy, and not the American people, decide the future of the online world. It’s no wonder that net neutrality proponents are already bragging that it will turn the FCC into the “Department of the Internet.” For that reason, if you like dealing with the IRS, you are going to love the President’s plan.
Second, President Obama’s plan to regulate the Internet will increase consumers’ monthly broadband bills. The plan explicitly opens the door to billions of dollars in new taxes on broadband. Indeed, states have already begun discussions on how they will spend the extra money. These new taxes will mean higher prices for consumers and more hidden fees that they have to pay.
Third, President Obama’s plan to regulate the Internet will mean slower broadband for American consumers. The plan contains a host of new regulations that will reduce investment in broadband networks. That means slower Internet speeds. It also means that many rural Americans will have to wait longer for access to quality broadband.
Fourth, President Obama’s plan to regulate the Internet will hurt competition and innovation and move us toward a broadband monopoly. The plan saddles small, independent businesses and entrepreneurs with heavy-handed regulations that will push them out of the market. As a result, Americans will have fewer broadband choices. This is no accident. Title II was designed to regulate a monopoly. If we impose that model on a vibrant broadband marketplace, a highly regulated
monopoly is what we’ll get. We shouldn’t bring Ma Bell back to life in this dynamic, digital age.
Fifth, President Obama’s plan to regulate the Internet is an unlawful power grab. Courts have twice thrown out the FCC’s attempts at Internet regulation. There’s no reason to think that the third time will be the charm. Even a cursory look at the plan reveals glaring legal flaws that are sure to mire the agency in the muck of litigation for a long, long time.
And sixth, the American people are being misled about what is in President Obama’s plan to regulate the Internet. The rollout earlier in the week was obviously intended to downplay the plan’s massive intrusion into the Internet economy. Beginning next week, I look forward to sharing with the public key aspects of what this plan will actually do.
Looks like the playbook here is that "we have to pass it to find out what it will do" mindset... ala, Obamacare.
I can hear a new lie already: "If you like your Internet, you can keep it!".
Or, and I'm begining to repeat my self here, we go back to the old system which worked fine, and the only people who disagreed with it were the ISPs and people who are against all regulation.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Or, and I'm begining to repeat my self here, we go back to the old system which worked fine, and the only people who disagreed with it were the ISPs and people who are against all regulation.
Pretty much. Just make the rules that the FCC had in place "official". It worked, and that's what I care about right now. Do tweaking later, but get the basis there first. You have to learn to walk bore you can run.
Looks like the playbook here is that "we have to pass it to find out what it will do" mindset... ala, Obamacare.
If that's going to be your argument, you probably should have quoted the first paragraph of young Pai's screed.
Huh?
Last night, Chairman Wheeler provided his fellow Commissioners with President Obama’s 332-page plan to regulate the Internet. I am disappointed that the plan will not be released publicly. The FCC should be as open and transparent as the Internet itself and post the entire document on its website. Instead, it looks like the FCC will have to pass the President’s plan before the American people will be able to find out what’s really in it.In the coming days, I look forward to continuing to study the plan in detail. Based on my initial examination, however, several points are apparent.
First, President Obama’s plan marks a monumental shift toward government control of the Internet. It gives the FCC the power to micromanage virtually every aspect of how the Internet works. It’s an overreach that will let a Washington bureaucracy, and not the American people, decide the future of the online world. It’s no wonder that net neutrality proponents are already bragging that it will turn the FCC into the “Department of the Internet.” For that reason, if you like dealing with the IRS, you are going to love the President’s plan.
And who controls the politicians? Gee, I guess that'd be the American people. Further, as a non-American I have to add that it's hubris of the highest order to claim that the American people have some sort of right to decide the future of the Internet on their own.
Second, President Obama’s plan to regulate the Internet will increase consumers’ monthly broadband bills. The plan explicitly opens the door to billions of dollars in new taxes on broadband. Indeed, states have already begun discussions on how they will spend the extra money. These new taxes will mean higher prices for consumers and more hidden fees that they have to pay.
If people don't want those taxes, they don't have to happen. They're not an intrinsic part of the legislation. It's like the whole "homosexuals can't have rights, because then zoophilia being next is not only logical, but inevitable!!!11!!" rant that shows up every now and then.
Third, President Obama’s plan to regulate the Internet will mean slower broadband for American consumers. The plan contains a host of new regulations that will reduce investment in broadband networks. That means slower Internet speeds. It also means that many rural Americans will have to wait longer for access to quality broadband.
That'd be the case if the companies wouldn't make a profit from the investments, yes. Making less profit is not the same as making no profit.
Fourth, President Obama’s plan to regulate the Internet will hurt competition and innovation and move us toward a broadband monopoly. The plan saddles small, independent businesses and entrepreneurs with heavy-handed regulations that will push them out of the market. As a result, Americans will have fewer broadband choices. This is no accident. Title II was designed to regulate a monopoly. If we impose that model on a vibrant broadband marketplace, a highly regulated
monopoly is what we’ll get. We shouldn’t bring Ma Bell back to life in this dynamic, digital age.
That sounds more like he's describing what's already going on (from my admitedly limited knowledge) than what'd happen. How many small, independent ISPs are there, really?
Fifth, President Obama’s plan to regulate the Internet is an unlawful power grab. Courts have twice thrown out the FCC’s attempts at Internet regulation. There’s no reason to think that the third time will be the charm. Even a cursory look at the plan reveals glaring legal flaws that are sure to mire the agency in the muck of litigation for a long, long time.
No, they don't. Hey, looks like I can make unsubstantiated claims too!
And sixth, the American people are being misled about what is in President Obama’s plan to regulate the Internet. The rollout earlier in the week was obviously intended to downplay the plan’s massive intrusion into the Internet economy. Beginning next week, I look forward to sharing with the public key aspects of what this plan will actually do.
See #5.
In summary, having Commissioner Pai spend a few years in DakkaDakka's Off-Topic Forum would probably have improved the arguments being made significantly.
Come to think of it, that fact kinda explains why you guys don't trust your government very much.
First, President Obama’s plan marks a monumental shift toward government control of the Internet. It gives the FCC the power to micromanage virtually every aspect of how the Internet works. It’s an overreach that will let a Washington bureaucracy, and not the American people, decide the future of the online world. It’s no wonder that net neutrality proponents are already bragging that it will turn the FCC into the “Department of the Internet.” For that reason, if you like dealing with the IRS, you are going to love the President’s plan.
And who controls the politicians? Gee, I guess that'd be the American people.
Bwahahahaha! Americans "control" their politician much like cat owners "herd" their cats across large bodies of water.
Thanks for the laugh.
Further, as a non-American I have to add that it's hubris of the highest order to claim that the American people have some sort of right to decide the future of the Internet on their own.
Uh... what was that again?
This proposal, ie. classifying this as a Title II utility will make the ISPs more vulnerable to AMERICAN POLITICIAN'S whims here... I mean, if you're claiming the it's "hubris of the highest order to claim that the American people have some sort of right to decide the future of the internet on their own"... then, you'd oppose this from the get-go.
Second, President Obama’s plan to regulate the Internet will increase consumers’ monthly broadband bills. The plan explicitly opens the door to billions of dollars in new taxes on broadband. Indeed, states have already begun discussions on how they will spend the extra money. These new taxes will mean higher prices for consumers and more hidden fees that they have to pay.
If people don't want those taxes, they don't have to happen.
They're not an intrinsic part of the legislation. It's like the whole "homosexuals can't have rights, because then zoophilia being next is not only logical, but inevitable!!!11!!" rant that shows up every now and then.
It's definitely part of the problem with this proposal... that and the increasing red-tape to get gak done.
Third, President Obama’s plan to regulate the Internet will mean slower broadband for American consumers. The plan contains a host of new regulations that will reduce investment in broadband networks. That means slower Internet speeds. It also means that many rural Americans will have to wait longer for access to quality broadband.
That'd be the case if the companies wouldn't make a profit from the investments, yes. Making less profit is not the same as making no profit.
That doesn't even make sense... you're acting like ISPs won't invest unless there's a huge ROI.
If companies could make a profit, they'd likely would expand in order to increase market shares. However, building new broadbands is ridiculously expensive, so the incentive need to be at least *just enough* to warrant said investment.
Fourth, President Obama’s plan to regulate the Internet will hurt competition and innovation and move us toward a broadband monopoly. The plan saddles small, independent businesses and entrepreneurs with heavy-handed regulations that will push them out of the market. As a result, Americans will have fewer broadband choices. This is no accident. Title II was designed to regulate a monopoly. If we impose that model on a vibrant broadband marketplace, a highly regulated monopoly is what we’ll get. We shouldn’t bring Ma Bell back to life in this dynamic, digital age.
That sounds more like he's describing what's already going on (from my admitedly limited knowledge) than what'd happen. How many small, independent ISPs are there, really?
No... what he's saying is that startups like Vimeo would have a harder time to succeed against established media companies like Comcast/Verizon/Netflix.
Fifth, President Obama’s plan to regulate the Internet is an unlawful power grab. Courts have twice thrown out the FCC’s attempts at Internet regulation. There’s no reason to think that the third time will be the charm. Even a cursory look at the plan reveals glaring legal flaws that are sure to mire the agency in the muck of litigation for a long, long time.
No, they don't. Hey, looks like I can make unsubstantiated claims too!
Uh... the FCC were smacked down by the Courts due to over reach.
In fact, this proposal is awfully close to what EPA was trying to do, before the courts slapped them down too. That is, these regulatory boards are trying to "make" laws.
And sixth, the American people are being misled about what is in President Obama’s plan to regulate the Internet. The rollout earlier in the week was obviously intended to downplay the plan’s massive intrusion into the Internet economy. Beginning next week, I look forward to sharing with the public key aspects of what this plan will actually do.
See #5.
Saw it.
In summary, having Commissioner Pai spend a few years in DakkaDakka's Off-Topic Forum would probably have improved the arguments being made significantly.
Come to think of it, that fact kinda explains why you guys don't trust your government very much.
In summary... be careful what you wish for... what you think you want in "Net Neutrality" regulations is simply a trojan horse for the few powers to tweak the laws into their favor...
Ie: The Afforable Care Act may be a lot of things, but it certain ain't afforable.
The Employee Free Choice Act, a pro-Union Democrat bill that failed, sounds good in practice, but in reality it was trying to forbid "secret ballots". Definitely NOT "free choice".
Seriously, half the thing is "but this awful thing could happen!". Tax increases do not have to follow just because they could.
And no, I'd much rather have your Government deciding the American rules for the Internet, becasue dealing with a foreign government is much easier than dealing with a conglomerate of foreign businesses whose sole reason for existing is profit. Having the government in control means the rest of the world at least can have input, whereas having private entities do it means the rest of the world is completely cut out of the loop. If you're going to screw over some of the biggest actors on the Internet the rest of the world would probably want a way to ask you to stop.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Seriously, half the thing is "but this awful thing could happen!". Tax increases do not have to follow just because they could.
And no, I'd much rather have your Government deciding the American rules for the Internet, becasue dealing with a foreign government is much easier than dealing with a conglomerate of foreign businesses whose sole reason for existing is profit. Having the government in control means the rest of the world at least can have input, whereas having private entities do it means the rest of the world is completely cut out of the loop. If you're going to screw over some of the biggest actors on the Internet the rest of the world would probably want a way to ask you to stop.
I "get" what you're saying... I really do.
I'm not convinced that reclassifying ISPs to Title II is the way to go...
I mean... what do proponents of Net Neutrality really want?
They want that the ISPs not have the ability to discriminate on the source, destination or contents of internet traffic. That they will have to treat all traffic equally. While I think there are issues with that (we should only have that limit on the consumer end), if that's what we really want, why not engage Congress to codify that into a separate law.
Such that it'll stand up to future legal challenges. That's the way to do it imo.
EDIT:
. Having the government in control means the rest of the world at least can have input, whereas having private entities do it means the rest of the world is completely cut out of the loop
Philosophically... that's flawed.
I believe the government should stay as far away as possible and with "light fingers" on the internet. Only get involved when things gets too big. Frankly, we're nowhere near there.
Dreadwinter wrote: So wait, has the plan even come out with how all of this is going to be handled?
The official plan hasn't been released to the public yet and the plan is (so far) to only release until after the FCC vote at the end of the month (5 commissioner).
What we do know, according to Wheeler, is reclassifying ISPs back into Title 2. (there were title 2 prior to 2000 I believe).
They want that the ISPs not have the ability to discriminate on the source, destination or contents of internet traffic. That they will have to treat all traffic equally. While I think there are issues with that (we should only have that limit on the consumer end), if that's what we really want, why not engage Congress to codify that into a separate law.
Because a GOP controlled Congress will never agree to it as net neutrality is seen as a liberal issue, and habitual GOP voters are unlikely to back a member of the GOP who votes liberal.
They want that the ISPs not have the ability to discriminate on the source, destination or contents of internet traffic. That they will have to treat all traffic equally. While I think there are issues with that (we should only have that limit on the consumer end), if that's what we really want, why not engage Congress to codify that into a separate law.
Because a GOP controlled Congress will never agree to it as net neutrality is seen as a liberal issue, and habitual GOP voters are unlikely to back a member of the GOP who votes liberal.
Eh... it's politically toxic now, true.
But, eventually something like could pass in the future.
Americans really like the online service they currently have and strongly oppose so-called “net neutrality” efforts that would allow the federal government to regulate the Internet.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 26% of American Adults agree the Federal Communications Commission should regulate the Internet like it does radio and television. Sixty-one percent (61%) disagree and think the Internet should remain open without regulation and censorship. Thirteen percent (13%) are not sure. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
Only 19% believe more government regulation is the best way to protect those who use the Internet. Fifty-six percent (56%) feel more free market competition is the best protection. Twenty-five percent (25%) are undecided.
Most Americans have opposed increased government regulation of the Internet since December 2010 when some members of the FCC began pushing “net neutrality” efforts to stop some companies from offering higher downloading speeds to preferred customers.
To my European Dakkanaughts, pay attention to here:
Seventy-six percent (76%) of Americans who regularly go online rate the quality of their Internet service as good or excellent. Only five percent (5%) consider their service poor.
The money shot:
Americans remain suspicious of the motives of those who want government regulation of the Internet. Sixty-eight percent (68%) are concerned that if the FCC does gain regulatory control over the Internet, it will lead to government efforts to control online content or promote a political agenda, with 44% who are Very Concerned. Twenty-seven percent (27%) don’t share this concern about possible government abuse, but that includes only eight percent (8%) who are Not At All Concerned.
Fifty-six percent (56%) of voters said in December 2010 that if the FCC was given the authority to regulate the Internet, it would use that power to promote a political agenda.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 26% of American Adults agree the Federal Communications Commission should regulate the Internet like it does radio and television. Sixty-one percent (61%) disagree and think the Internet should remain open without regulation and censorship.
1* How closely have you followed recent news reports about so-called Internet “neutrality” issues?
2* Should the Internet remain “open” without regulation and censorship or should the Federal Communications Commission regulate the Internet like it does radio and television?
Sixty-one percent (61%) disagree and think the Internet should remain open without regulation and censorship.
Then let the government reclassify. The entire point of putting the net under Title II is to continue things as they were. Does anyone have a problem with the way the FCC was handling the internet prior to this? I didn't. Let them reclassify so we can go back to the way things were. It is the only realistic way we are going to get that now. If you don't like that blame the ISPs. They're the ones who have boxed us into this corner, not the FCC, not the government. If this change hurts them, cry me a river. They brought this on themselves. Maybe they shouldn't have screwed their own pooch.
This entire thing about 'government regulation is bad we can't let them touch the internet" is intellectually dishonest (and one of the most blatant cases of it I've seen in my life).
Sixty-one percent (61%) disagree and think the Internet should remain open without regulation and censorship.
Then let the government reclassify. The entire point of putting the net under Title II is to continue things as they were. Does anyone have a problem with the way the FCC was handling the internet prior to this? I didn't. Let them reclassify so we can go back to the way things were. It is the only realistic way we are going to get that now. If you don't like that blame the ISPs. They're the ones who have boxed us into this corner, not the FCC, not the government. If this change hurts them, cry me a river. They brought this on themselves. Maybe they shouldn't have screwed their own pooch.
This entire thing about 'government regulation is bad we can't let them touch the internet" is intellectually dishonest (and one of the most blatant cases of it I've seen in my life).
So you wanna reclassify them back to pre-2002 for cable (pre-2007 for wireless)? Was it fething rainbows and unicorn back then... because, I don't remember that.
I feel like there's often two different types of regulation that get lumped together in such a way that, when I see a blanket "regulation is X" or "you support regulation in X. True?! False?!" I sometimes question the motives of why that's not being defined more precisely than that.
For example, if regulation means "regulate what appears on the internet, what a person can say, do, or visit without fear of repercussion, or the use and connection to the internet itself" then my answer is almost always no. If regulation means "regulate the reach of ISPs to control what their users are allowed to view, or regulate legal monopolies and other conditions that stifle further improvements to infrastructure due to removing any economic impetus for them", then my answer might be different.
I also question the wisdom of anyone taking something that has nearly limitless capacity* and regulating it like limited spectrum bands, like radio and television. Again though, I'd have to wonder in what ways one would propose that it be regulated that way.
* I'm talking in terms of breadth, not throughput here. I realize that capacity is limited.
So you wanna reclassify them back to pre-2002 for cable (pre-2007 for wireless)? Was it fething rainbows and unicorn back then... because, I don't remember that.
I was only 19 in 2002, but I had more internet access than most people my age at the time. I don't frankly recall a significant change anytime around then, excepting the DMCA years prior.
A lot of us in college rearranged our keyboard keys to spell out "DMCASUXOR". We were such rebels.
So you wanna reclassify them back to pre-2002 for cable (pre-2007 for wireless)? Was it fething rainbows and unicorn back then... because, I don't remember that.
I was only 19 in 2002, but I had more internet access than most people my age at the time. I don't frankly recall a significant change anytime around then, excepting the DMCA years prior.
A lot of us in college rearranged our keyboard keys to spell out "DMCASUXOR". We were such rebels.
Heh... that's because cable broadband was still really in it's infancy back then. They're STILL laying down pipes.
As to wireless broadbands, we're almost to the point that it's going to explode and we'll start seeing major coverages, like our cellular coverages.
whembly wrote: Why is it that you want to change the entire industry over some Comcast/Verizon shenanigans?
Points 1; No one wants the industry to change. That's the point. The entire point of reclassifying to Title II is to keep things the way they are. The way net neutrality was previously implemented was deemed illegal. All the FCC (and proponents of NN) are now saying is that we make what we were doing before legal by switching ISPs to Title II which grants the FCC the legal authority to keep doing what it was doing. You and others who keep harping on about big bad government regulation are actively engaging in intellectual dishonesty (i.e. twisting reality) by constantly trying to suggest to people otherwise.
Points 2; Those shenanigans are being undertaken by the companies with the most influence in how we consumers interact with the internet. What they do effects all of us. Strongly. It is further intellectually dishonest to try and present their actions as if they were some minor inconvenience. It isn't. What they're attempting to do has sweeping and radical ramifications. They (Comcast/Verizon/Cable and ISP providors) trying to change the entire industry. Not the government. Not the FFC. Not NN proponents. You are actively taking the reality of what is happening, and twisting it in on itself, where the conservatives of the internet who want to maintain things the way they are, are somehow engaged in some insidious plot to expand the power of the government when they are not.
whembly wrote: Why is it that you want to change the entire industry over some Comcast/Verizon shenanigans?
Points 1; No one wants the industry to change. That's the point. The entire point of reclassifying to Title II is to keep things the way they are. The way net neutrality was previously implemented was deemed illegal. All the FCC (and proponents of NN) are now saying is that we make what we were doing before legal by switching ISPs to Title II which grants the FCC the legal authority to keep doing what it was doing. You and others who keep harping on about big bad government regulation are actively engaging in intellectual dishonesty (i.e. twisting reality) by constantly trying to suggest to people otherwise.
Points 2; Those shenanigans are being undertaken by the companies with the most influence in how we consumers interact with the internet. What they do effects all of us. Strongly. It is further intellectually dishonest to try and present their actions as if they were some minor inconvenience. It isn't. What they're attempting to do has sweeping and radical ramifications. They (Comcast/Verizon/Cable and ISP providors) trying to change the entire industry. Not the government. Not the FFC. Not NN proponents. You are actively taking the reality of what is happening, and twisting it in on itself, where the conservatives of the internet who want to maintain things the way they are, are somehow engaged in some insidious plot to expand the power of the government when they are not.
It's intellectually dishonest to say "All the FCC (and proponents of NN) are now saying is that we make what we were doing before legal by switching ISPs to Title II which grants the FCC the legal authority to keep doing what it was doing. "
Switching the ISPs to Title I is largely credited to the advancements we see right now.
The FCC got bitch slapped by the Appeals Court because they overstepped their authority. Reclassifying it will NOT mean that "things will go back to the way they were". And frankly, it's foolish to think that the powers that be will leave it well alone.
whembly wrote: "All the FCC (and proponents of NN) are now saying is that we make what we were doing before legal by switching ISPs to Title II which grants the FCC the legal authority to keep doing what it was doing. "
No it's not because that's exactly what the FCC and proponents of NN say they want to do.
The FCC got bitch slapped by the Supreme Court because they overstepped their authority.
The FCC got bitch slapped because the law hasn't caught up to technology (really in this case it's kind of baffling we are still using a law devised in 1934 for this kind of thing, but that's how it is). They went 30 years pretty steadily and figured "eh so far so good."
Reclassifying it will NOT mean that "things will go back to the way they were".
Yes it will. Title II is basically the US common carrier standard. Net neutrality is at it's essence an advocation for the same principle. Neutrality in regards to who is using a service. To content providers and consumers, not much is going to change.
And frankly, it's foolish to think that the powers that be will leave it well alone.
I trust a democratically elected government more than a private corporation and it's foolish to think that letting the later run rampant will ever be better than the former. The FCC has endorsed net neutrality for over 30 years. I trust that for now they will continue to do so. When that changes (and it probably will) we can deal with it then under the FCC, a much easier task than ever attempt reform under a bunch of corporate monopolies.
And frankly, it's foolish to think that the powers that be will leave it well alone.
I trust a democratically elected government more than a private corporation and it's foolish to think that letting the later run rampant will ever be better than the former. The FCC has endorsed net neutrality for over 30 years. I trust that for now they will continue to do so. When that changes (and it probably will) we can deal with it then under the FCC, a much easier task than ever attempt reform under a bunch of corporate monopolies.
You may trust the government... but, here's the sticking point for me: We can’t see the new rules yet!
There's a total of 332 pages and will apparently be available to the public only after the commission votes on them on 26 February 2015.
How the feth does that inspire me to trust my government?
EDIT: that a "large" number of pages... which some industry experts speculates that it may be a nothingburger in the end because Wheeler used to by the industry lobbist. Such that, it may be lip service to NN with minor regulatory changes. *shrug*
How the feth does that inspire me to trust my government?
You never trust your government anyway
Even if you don't trust them, what is better/easier to handle? A government regulatory body answerable to elected officials, or a private corporation answerable to no one but its profit margin?
This is the real world and there are now only two options. Reclassify to Title II and try to go back to the good old days, or just surrender and let the internet become subverted to the interests of a small number of companies to everyone elses detriment. There are no other options that will pass muster. The Republicans are quickly taking an anti-NN stance, while Obama and the Dems are quickly taking a pro-NN stance. If we do not resolve this now, before the next big elections, we are screwed. We have to do this now. Title II is the only way to avoid worse outcomes. If it drags for too long it'll become embroiled in election politics and we'll probably never actually get a solution, meaning that the cable and ISP providers will just move forward with their plans for lack of any law that says they can't.
EDIT: that a "large" number of pages... which some industry experts speculates that it may be a nothingburger in the end because Wheeler used to by the industry lobbist. Such that, it may be lip service to NN with minor regulatory changes. *shrug*
While possible, it's also possible Wheeler and the FCC have been forced to be completely serious by sheer public and political pressure. The open call they made for comments was overwhelmingly anti-ISP.
While possible, it's also possible Wheeler and the FCC have been forced to be completely serious by sheer public and political pressure. The open call they made for comments was overwhelmingly anti-ISP.
Dreadwinter wrote: So wait, has the plan even come out with how all of this is going to be handled?
The official plan hasn't been released to the public yet and the plan is (so far) to only release until after the FCC vote at the end of the month (5 commissioner).
What we do know, according to Wheeler, is reclassifying ISPs back into Title 2. (there were title 2 prior to 2000 I believe).
Oh, so you do not know anything about what is going on and you are already calling this the next Obamacare?
How the feth does that inspire me to trust my government?
You never trust your government anyway
You got that right bro... Zombie Reagan said it best: "Trust, but verify. AND DEVOUR THEIR BRAAAAAINS!"
Even if you don't trust them, what is better/easier to handle? A government regulatory body answerable to elected officials, or a private corporation answerable to no one but its profit margin?
In this industry? Definitely NOT politicians and the government. It moves way too fast to be over burden with Title-II like regulations.
I'm not saying we go wild, wild west here. But you seem to be focused on the bad things and not on all the good things that happened along the way.
This is the real world and there are now only two options. Reclassify to Title II and try to go back to the good old days, or just surrender and let the internet become subverted to the interests of a small number of companies to everyone elses detriment. There are no other options that will pass muster. The Republicans are quickly taking an anti-NN stance, while Obama and the Dems are quickly taking a pro-NN stance. If we do not resolve this now, before the next big elections, we are screwed. We have to do this now. Title II is the only way to avoid worse outcomes.
I see it becoming toxic politically because it hit's all the right buzz words to the partisan crowd. But, the big issue for me is that where is this dire situation that we MUST DO SOMETHING RIGHT NOW!
NOOOOOOAW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
?
Did we learn after the Obamacare boondogle? That will be a microcosm of what will happen if ISPs is reclassified as telecommunications service.
Yeah, it is said that this proposal is to ensure that all legal Internet traffic is treated with equal, best-effort priority (ie, FRAND). At the same time, the FCC is promising to set aside provisions (forebarence that is) that enable the agency to set rates, impose fees, and require ISPs to share key portions of their networks with competitors.
How long do you trust the FCC to NOT to "go there" sometime in the future.
What are they going to say? But, Mr. FCC dude... you promised!
Cue the:
If you like your plan, you can KEEP you plan! Montage.
EDIT: that a "large" number of pages... which some industry experts speculates that it may be a nothingburger in the end because Wheeler used to by the industry lobbist. Such that, it may be lip service to NN with minor regulatory changes. *shrug*
While possible, it's also possible Wheeler and the FCC have been forced to be completely serious by sheer public and political pressure. The open call they made for comments was overwhelmingly anti-ISP.
True. I'm still very bother that the plan isn't made public prior to the vote. That smacks to me as the Nancy Pelosi™ "You have to pass it to see what's in it" strategy.
Dreadwinter wrote: So wait, has the plan even come out with how all of this is going to be handled?
The official plan hasn't been released to the public yet and the plan is (so far) to only release until after the FCC vote at the end of the month (5 commissioner).
What we do know, according to Wheeler, is reclassifying ISPs back into Title 2. (there were title 2 prior to 2000 I believe).
Oh, so you do not know anything about what is going on and you are already calling this the next Obamacare?
Dreadwinter wrote: So wait, has the plan even come out with how all of this is going to be handled?
The official plan hasn't been released to the public yet and the plan is (so far) to only release until after the FCC vote at the end of the month (5 commissioner).
What we do know, according to Wheeler, is reclassifying ISPs back into Title 2. (there were title 2 prior to 2000 I believe).
Oh, so you do not know anything about what is going on and you are already calling this the next Obamacare?
There are leaks around the 'Net, here's one set:
ISPs may not block, degrade, or limit any lawful Internet content or service. Similarly, ISPs may not create “fast lanes” or engage in paid prioritization deals that grant preferential treatment to selected lawful Internet traffic. These restrictions preserve the central key aspects of net neutrality or the “Open Internet.”
In a new move, open Internet requirements wouldn’t apply to just fixed-line Internet providers like telephone and cable companies, but also to mobile Internet, interconnection points, and so-called edge providers. These segments had been exempt from previous net neutrality rules. ISPs could still charge companies like Netflix, Cogent, and Level 3 for access to their networks, but the deals would only be allowed if the FCC finds them “just and reasonable” under Title II. However, content delivery networks (like Akamai) that try to optimize how data gets to individual users would still have free rein in charging their clients.
ISPs may engage in “reasonable” network management — which could include blocking apps, capping data, or limiting performance — so long as they disclose the practice and it’s not done for their commercial benefit.
ISPs will continue to be held to transparency requirements to provide accurate information about their services to consumers. Transparency rules aren’t new — they survived Verizon’s most recent court challenge — but the FCC says they’ll be augmented under the new rules.
ISPs may offer private-networking services that don’t use the public Internet (like voice service over cable), but they’re subject to transparency requirements and cannot be used to create de facto “fast lanes” or undermine net neutrality.
ISPs will be subject to Title II provisions enabling the FCC to guard against “unjust and unreasonable” practices, hear consumer complaints, ensure “fair access” to poles and conduits, protect access for people with disabilities, and protect consumer privacy.
The FCC can ignore (or “forbear”) aspects of Title II it feels aren’t in the public interest. ISPs will not be subject to Title II provisions that would enable the FCC to regulate rates or require broadband providers to contribute to the Universal Service fund. The new rules also won’t apply any new taxes or fees to broadband, and ISPs will not be required to “unbundle” the last mile of connectivity to homes and businesses for competitors to use.
Dreadwinter wrote: So wait, has the plan even come out with how all of this is going to be handled?
The official plan hasn't been released to the public yet and the plan is (so far) to only release until after the FCC vote at the end of the month (5 commissioner).
What we do know, according to Wheeler, is reclassifying ISPs back into Title 2. (there were title 2 prior to 2000 I believe).
Oh, so you do not know anything about what is going on and you are already calling this the next Obamacare?
I don't recall where he said that.
That is cool, I got you.
Whembly wrote:Looks like the playbook here is that "we have to pass it to find out what it will do" mindset... ala, Obamacare.
In this industry? Definitely NOT politicians and the government. It moves way too fast to be over burden with Title-II like regulations.
How is laying cable a fast paced industry? Comcast and Verizon and other ISPs are not the internet. They're just the ones who can dictate who can access it and how. Their industry hasn't changed much (in the sense that the nature and structure of their business hasn't changed much) in awhile. It is in fact a very slow and steady industry where advancement is fairly linear and stable. The proposed regulations would effect them, but it's hardly going to halt progress.
But you seem to be focused on the bad things and not on all the good things that happened along the way.
That's because the only people who are saying that good will come out of this are the people with a huge financial interest in all the bad stuff happening (not to mention most of the 'good' is a bunch of horse hooey that is observably false).
Did we learn after the Obamacare boondogle? That will be a microcosm of what will happen if ISPs is reclassified as telecommunications service.
Yes. That expecting the government to pass a sensible new way to deal with an old problem is asking for too much.
It's much better to ask a regulatory body to use existing laws to solve the problem. The only thing that this shares with Obamacare, is the need for immediacy. Beyond that is just political BS.
In this industry? Definitely NOT politicians and the government. It moves way too fast to be over burden with Title-II like regulations.
How is laying cable a fast paced industry? Comcast and Verizon and other ISPs are not the internet. They're just the ones who can dictate who can access it and how. Their industry hasn't changed much (in the sense that the nature and structure of their business hasn't changed much).
The TECHNOLOGIES has change quite a bit... gak, I work in the healthcare IT industry and I see it. And we're usually the last group to adopt new gak as we're so conservative (in a non-political manner).
It's true that the nature of their business hasn't changed, but the way we use it as evolved rapidedly.
For instance, streaming movies/shows has increased enormously over the years.... not only capacity has increased, but so has NETWORK STABILITY.
Stability is king now. I could care less if I have 50 MB download broadband or 500 MB. As long as I can watch Netflix, me yammer on Dakka and my boys play their XBone without any issues, then I'm a happy customer.
Also, don't discount how the advancement of your smartphones as evolved recent. Do you know how they work? You often transmit from "tower-to-local-ISP". So, here in St. Louis, if you have ATT&T/Cricket/Sprint and you use your smartphone... you'll hit the nearest wireless tower, then to Charter's network. Major, MAJOR advancements/agreements between the Wireless companies and the regional MSOs over the years.
But you seem to be focused on the bad things and not on all the good things that happened along the way.
That's because the only people who are saying that good will come out of this are the people with a huge financial interest in all the bad stuff happening (not to mention most of the 'good' is a bunch of horse hooey that is observably false).
Where's my check dude?
Did we learn after the Obamacare boondogle? That will be a microcosm of what will happen if ISPs is reclassified as telecommunications service.
Yes. That expecting the government to pass a sensible new way to deal with an old problem is asking for too much.
It's much better to ask a regulatory body to use existing laws to solve the problem.
No. And Hell No!.
If you can't get Congress to pass anything that you think is important... then, it's I'm sorry, it's not THAT important.
And even if the FCC did change ISP back to Title II, I don't see how they can prevail over a concerted lawsuit. If you want to affect lasting change, the engage your congress critters.
whembly wrote: It's true that the nature of their business hasn't changed, but the way we use it as evolved rapidedly.
The first part of this statement is the only one that actually matters to the ISP providers. The way we use the internet has evolved rapidly but the ISPs are not the internet. They're not even a fraction of it. They are a minor gear in the larger machine and their gear just doesn't juggle that much as time has gone on. The machine as a whole has changed rapidly but that gear doesn't have that many technical hurdles to jump through in comparison.
Reclassification will not effect the internet in the way you're suggesting.
If you can't get Congress to pass anything that you think is important... then, it's I'm sorry, it's not THAT important.
Congress doesn't pass anything important. Congress passes what gets congress elected. NN is a big issue, but I don't think it's big enough that we can expect congress to do much about it. It'll be a minor talking point they argue over, but no one in congress will be dedicated enough to it to meaningfully act on it in any way.
And even if the FCC did change ISP back to Title II, I don't see how they can prevail over a concerted lawsuit.
Defeating ad hoc regulations is wildly different from defeating Tittle II (an act of Congress).
Can we maybe get an offshoot political party that is reasonably conservative without being corporate shills? I'd just.... really like that. Because every argument against this is just sounding really corporate shill-y?
Bromsy wrote: Can we maybe get an offshoot political party that is reasonably conservative without being corporate shills? I'd just.... really like that. Because every argument against this is just sounding really corporate shill-y?
Yeah... I'll readily admit that opponents to this plan sounds "shill-y". But that doesn't mean there's opposition to "Net Neutrality" in principle. It's the method to achieve it gives me the willys.
It would prohibit paid prioritization, throttling, and blocking of “lawful content and non-harmful devices,” while requiring transparency of network management practices.
The bill defines paid prioritization as:
the speeding up or slowing down of some Internet traffic in relation to other Internet traffic over the consumer’s broadband Internet access service by prioritizing or deprioritizing packets based on compensation or lack thereof by the sender to the broadband Internet access service provider.
The Federal Communications Commission will vote on Feb. 26 on rules aiming to protect competition online by treating all website traffic equally, despite broad opposition from congressional Republicans who are proposing their own legislative version of net neutrality.
[READ: Obama Defends Net Neutrality, Broadband Policy in State of the Union]
President Barack Obama’s State of the Union address on Tuesday did not focus as much on tech policy as in 2014, but he briefly mentioned net neutrality in his speech. Obama has called for the FCC to craft net neutrality rules using some of the regulatory power it claims over phone companies through Title II of the Communications Act — a concept Republicans oppose as an unwarranted increase of government power.
“I intend to protect a free and open Internet … so that the next generation of digital innovators and entrepreneurs have the platform to keep reshaping our world,” Obama said during his speech.
The commission is considering applying Title II to protect new rules against an anticipated lawsuit from a telecom like Verizon, said FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler.
Republicans supported the lawsuit by Verizon Communications that successfully struck down the previous net neutrality rules last year on the grounds that the FCC did not have legal authority to enforce them. Public support has pressured Republicans to embrace some of the core issues of the commission’s new proposed rules, including forbidding Internet service providers from slowing rival websites and charging for priority traffic speeds.
These provisions are part of a bill being drafted jointly by the chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich., and the head of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, Sen. John Thune, R-S.D. The draft bill signals that the conversation has shifted from contesting the need for net neutrality as a way to ensure reliable download speeds for websites and consumers to the argument that the FCC has no legal authority to enforce online competition.
The Republican bill has met criticism from consumer protection advocacy group Fight for the Future, which claims the bill is an effort to "derail the FCC’s net neutrality efforts” in a way that would benefit the cable industry over consumers.
Upton said in a statement ahead of a net neutrality hearing Wednesday in the House Subcommittee on Communications and Technology that the bill would provide clear rules on Internet protection that would not hinder investment in broadband, unlike the FCC efforts.
“Providers need certainty so they can move forward with their business models,” Upton said. “Without this certainty, innovation and investment suffer, and consumers lose.”
[ALSO: FCC’s Wheeler Confirms February Vote on Net Neutrality at CES 2015]
But Democrats have questioned whether investment would be damaged if the FCC reclassified broadband as a utility, like a mobile phone company. Sen. Bill Nelson of Florida, ranking Democrat on the Senate Subcommittee on Communications, Technology and the Internet raised the issue Wednesday during a hearing in his committee.
“With an ever-evolving Internet, we need a regulator who is not frozen in time,” Nelson said. “The FCC must have authority that is flexible enough that it can respond to a changing world.”
During the Senate hearing, Nelson questioned Meredith Attwell Baker, president of industry trade group CTIA-The Wireless Association, to explain her concerns that the FCC would confuse potential broadband investors if the commission extended regulations used on mobile phones to the Internet.
“Investment will happen, the question is how much,” Baker said.
Gene Kimmelman, president of the consumer advocacy group Public Knowledge, said that to keep regulation from becoming too broad the FCC will likely use a process called forbearance to selectively apply relevant parts of Title II to the Internet, including portions that would encourage building networks and making services affordable. Obama also called for the FCC to forgo non-relevant portions of Title II, including rate regulation.
“Out of 48 sections, there are only a handful that could be relevant,” said Kimmelman, a former antitrust official with the Department of Justice.
. Having the government in control means the rest of the world at least can have input, whereas having private entities do it means the rest of the world is completely cut out of the loop
Philosophically... that's flawed.
I believe the government should stay as far away as possible and with "light fingers" on the internet. Only get involved when things gets too big. Frankly, we're nowhere near there.
. Having the government in control means the rest of the world at least can have input, whereas having private entities do it means the rest of the world is completely cut out of the loop
Philosophically... that's flawed.
I believe the government should stay as far away as possible and with "light fingers" on the internet. Only get involved when things gets too big. Frankly, we're nowhere near there.
How is it philosophically flawed?
Because I believe "Net Neutrality" in current parlance in our government is a misnomer.
Also... the 332 page plan is kept secret. Why is that?
. Having the government in control means the rest of the world at least can have input, whereas having private entities do it means the rest of the world is completely cut out of the loop
Philosophically... that's flawed.
I believe the government should stay as far away as possible and with "light fingers" on the internet. Only get involved when things gets too big. Frankly, we're nowhere near there.
How is it philosophically flawed?
Because I believe "Net Neutrality" in current parlance in our government is a misnomer.
Also... the 332 page plan is kept secret. Why is that?
And your opinion on whether "NN" is a misnomer or not has what to do with my statement being philosophicaly flawed?
As for the plan, presumably to let the Commissioners deal with it without having to wade through the gak-storm that could potentially erupt and actually get the vote over with. They're going to release it to the public, no? I agree that it's pretty poor form though (to the point that it'd be unconstitutional in Sweden), so that's fair criticism IMO.
Perhaps it's not ready for release? It may come as a shock to you, but the government isn't the hive of evil that you seem to portray it as. Edit:ninja-ed
Co'tor Shas wrote: Perhaps it's not ready for release? It may come as a shock to you, but the government isn't the hive of evil that you seem to portray it as. Edit:ninja-ed
The commissioners have the completed plans in their hand. Hence they ACTUALLY scheduled a vote at the end of this month.
And government isn't "evil"... it's just not always the best solution.
As for the plan, presumably to let the Commissioners deal with it without having to wade through the gak-storm that could potentially erupt and actually get the vote over with. They're going to release it to the public, no? I agree that it's pretty poor form though (to the point that it'd be unconstitutional in Sweden), so that's fair criticism IMO.
So far, they've said they'll release the full text after the vote. Which, to me, should be a huge flag.
While I agree with you, just to be the Devil's advocate: if it were released ahead of the vote, what would change? You either have a scenario where the Commissioners vote on the proposal and then make public what they've voted for and how they've voted for it, or they make the proposal public and then vote on it with the same outcome anyway. The vote is going to happen, and since as far as I understand it the Commissioners are not elected officials perhaps they should be allowed to do the job they were appointed to do?
AlmightyWalrus wrote: While I agree with you, just to be the Devil's advocate: if it were released ahead of the vote, what would change? You either have a scenario where the Commissioners vote on the proposal and then make public what they've voted for and how they've voted for it, or they make the proposal public and then vote on it with the same outcome anyway. The vote is going to happen, and since as far as I understand it the Commissioners are not elected officials perhaps they should be allowed to do the job they were appointed to do?
They're supposed to be an independent agency... ala, the Federal Reserve. However, my opposition is basically summarized by opposing more regulations at the federal level (Title II).
My current internet service provider (ISP) is Charter.
We know that Charter is a regulated regional monopoly, since they are able to provide monopoly service within a local area. The reason being is because it's so expensive to lay down the pipes, the companies negotiate with the regional government for the franchise. The regulation here comes, in large measure, from the local governments that oversee the franchise agreement that Charter operates under . While I can't get Cox, or Time Warner, or some other cable company. I do have the option of getting my phone and internet from AT&T/Uverse, Clear Wireless, or Verizon FiOS (off the top of my head).
I've stuck with Charter for years because stability is king. I only thought about going to somewhere else shortly after they've merged with the other MSOs way back when because their customer service/billing service were epically horribad. But, over the years, they've pulled their asses out of their nether regions and worked out their customer service admirably.
Bottom line, NN (in this current proposal via Title II) is turning the ISPs into regulated monopolies, but at the federal level. If you want to address the performance of a regulated monopoly, you have to take it up with the level of government that oversees the regulated monopoly. It happened to Charter when the customers were leaving in droves because of poor customer service. Right now, I can at least corner someone in my city government about Charter. If Charter was regulated at the national level, I'd have to go to my congressional critters.... Who is more likely to take my call? Or a grass root effort?
If you support Wheeler's proposal, you are supporting oversight at a higher level of government. I can see elite statist really want to get involved, but it can open doors to problematic interference.
Now, I've stuck with Charter because their broadband's stability is stellar... but those other internet options aren't bad, but the quality isn't in the same ballpark. (Their TV lineups, however, are better for the price).
As a consumer, I can simple go somewhere else.
If I wanted to stick with Charter and affect some sort of change, I can drum up some grass root supports in my city and go to my city authorities if I feel Charter is playing "unfairly".
Now you asked if I have some control over the government? Heh... I voted for Romney. Who got elected again?
Now you asked if I have some control over the government? Heh... I voted for Romney. Who got elected again?
You know what happens if you stop purchasing Internet services from someone? They lose you as a customer. That's it. You have 0 power over private companies.
Now you asked if I have some control over the government? Heh... I voted for Romney. Who got elected again?
You know what happens if you stop purchasing Internet services from someone? They lose you as a customer. That's it. You have 0 power over private companies.
In a vacuum... right-o.
However, if a bunch of customers switches... then, thats POWAH!
However, if a bunch of customers switches... then, thats POWAH!
I suspect the average American does not have the options you have and I opine that may be coloring your opinion. Where I live, I have my cable company (100 megabit), I have DSL (1.5 megabit for half as much as the 100 megabit), and dialup.
Now you asked if I have some control over the government? Heh... I voted for Romney. Who got elected again?
You know what happens if you stop purchasing Internet services from someone? They lose you as a customer. That's it. You have 0 power over private companies.
In a vacuum... right-o.
However, if a bunch of customers switches... then, thats POWAH!
However, if a bunch of customers switches... then, thats POWAH!
I suspect the average American does not have the options you have and I opine that may be coloring your opinion. Where I live, I have my cable company (100 megabit), I have DSL (1.5 megabit for half as much as the 100 megabit), and dialup.
So given what we know based on the leaked highlights from Wheeler and Ajits... how would the current NN plan promote more competition for you?
whembly wrote: However, if a bunch of customers switches... then, thats POWAH!
I can't tell if it's adorable or pathetic that you think "the market will fix it" is really an actual thing that happens.
And as to "WE DON'T KNOW WHAT'S IN IT!!!!OMGWTFBBQ!" No crap. Thank you for showcasing once again why 99% of the US population needs to take a freakin civics course. Do you get to see everything that every department works on? Should HHS make sure you're up to date on what their latest decision will be re: housing standards? Maybe the FDA should make public all the formulas and products they review every. single. day. Please, tell me what the FTC is up to, since apparently the FCC working behind closed doors like every other agency is now some horrible machiavellian plan.
Pretty much everything except the legislature is close door. Black box. This isn't new. It wasn't any different for any other political group in charge. It has been this way for decades.
streamdragon wrote: I can't tell if it's adorable or pathetic that you think "the market will fix it" is really an actual thing that happens.
But capitalism says it does work! Capitalism would never lie to me!*
*Except when capitalism is subverted by business' who have laws written into place to protect their business interests to subvert capitalism, i.e. the US and social psychology comes into play and begins to show many of the basic underlying ideas on which capitalism is based are in fact false assumptions and capitalism will never function in the way Adam Smith originally conceived it especially in a global market place where laws and politics end up profoundly effecting the availability of products and the cost of bringing them to consumers.
streamdragon wrote: I can't tell if it's adorable or pathetic that you think "the market will fix it" is really an actual thing that happens.
But capitalism says it does work! Capitalism would never lie to me!*
*Except when capitalism is subverted by business' who have laws written into place to protect their business interests to subvert capitalism, i.e. the US and social psychology comes into play and begins to show many of the basic underlying ideas on which capitalism is based are in fact false assumptions and capitalism will never function in the way Adam Smith originally conceived it especially in a global market place where laws and politics end up profoundly effecting the availability of products and the cost of bringing them to consumers.
:sigh:
Then get ready for crony capitalism under Title 2*.
I still stay reclassifying to Title 2 is wrong... but hey:
If you like your broadband, you can keep it!
So you are comparing a bill run through congress of elected representatives and turned into a law, with a regulation and reclassification run through a commission of appointed officials?
Just so we're clear. You think these two things are at all comparable in execution.
I still stay reclassifying to Title 2 is wrong... but hey: If you like your broadband, you can keep it!
So you are comparing a bill run through congress of elected representatives and turned into a law, with a regulation and reclassification run through a commission of appointed officials?
Just so we're clear. You think these two things are at all comparable in execution.
I'm talking about the politics of it... or rather the PR of this ordeal.
I was just PM'ing someone about this, so I'm going to say it again.
Another way to look at this is if you look at the battle lines, the content/edge providers (Netflix, Google, Amazon, ect) are generally in favor of NN while service providers / hardware manufacturers are generally opposed.
NN as in transactions can't be discriminated and the prohibition "paid" prioritization.
These content/edge providers stand to make piles of cashola by dumping their content into provider networks.
If the service providers balk at the increasing load and asks for a fee from these edge providers to either help with infrastructure costs or host their servers on site, which would give their contents a more direct path to their customers... instead these edge providers can presumably just run to the FCC and ask them to intervene, instead of just letting the normal business processes work out (Peering, CDN, etc..).
It’s crony capitalism plain and simple. Sorry... I'm just not seeing any good out this, based on the highlights that Wheeler/Ajit has provided so far...
It's a misnomer... just like the AffordableCare Act is a misnomer.
Muni broadband providers don’t want to face common carrier rules Small ISPs have no incentive to interfere with Internet traffic, they argue.
It's no secret that the big Internet providers like Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon oppose a move toward heavier Internet regulation. But many smaller providers don't want stricter rules, either. Today, 43 municipal broadband providers asked the Federal Communications Commission to avoid reclassifying them as common carriers, a move that would expose them to net neutrality rules and potentially other requirements under Title II of the Communications Act.
Municipal broadband providers have mixed feelings about the policies of President Obama and FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler. Obama and Wheeler are planning to eliminate state laws that restrict growth of municipal broadband networks, a move that is opposed by the big private ISPs but supported by the municipal broadband providers.
But at least a few dozen municipal broadband providers oppose Title II regulation, including Cedar Falls Utilities in Iowa, which recently hosted Obama when he was arguing against anti-municipal broadband laws. The 43 signers of the letter included Cedar Falls, though it did not include two municipal broadband providers in Tennessee and North Carolina that have asked the FCC to preempt state laws.
"The undersigned, municipal providers of broadband Internet access service, are strong supporters of net neutrality and an open Internet but are staunchly opposed, like other, small and medium-sized Internet service providers (ISPs) who are privately held, to the reclassification and regulation of this service as common carriage under Title II of the Communications Act," the 43 providers wrote to the FCC.
If the commission does reclassify broadband under Title II, it should exempt small and medium-sized providers "from any new and enhanced transparency obligations; and ensure smaller ISPs that utilize poles that are subject to the cable rate formula are not forced into paying higher fees based on the telecommunications rate," they wrote.
"As smaller ISPs, we do not have an incentive to harm the openness of the Internet," they continued. "All of the undersigned face competition from one or more wireline ISPs, and we compete hard to attract and serve customers who would depart to our competitors if we engage in any business practices that interfere with their Internet experience."
Although Wheeler says he does not intend to impose rate regulation, tariff requirements, or last-mile unbundling, the providers said this is "cold comfort."
"The Commission has in the past imposed structural separations, service unbundling and resale obligations under Sections 201 and 202, and this Commission cannot bind the actions of a future Commission should it wish to institute rate regulation, tariffing, unbundling or any other form of before-the-fact regulation, creating deep and lasting regulatory uncertainty," they wrote. "Moreover, even this Commission will be obligated to respond to complaints about rates or seeking open access to facilities by third-party providers."
In making the case for Title II, Wheeler claimed that small Internet providers "have all come in and said, 'we like Title II, we hope you’ll do Title II.’”
The American Cable Association (ACA), which represents more than 900 small and medium-sized providers, including 100 municipal providers, begs to differ.
"ACA applauds the 43 municipal broadband Internet providers that are also ACA members for speaking out about the harms of Title II reclassification for smaller ISPs," CEO Matthew Polka said in an announcement today. "ACA agrees with their clear message that the FCC Chairman should make changes to the order to accommodate these concerns before the scheduled vote on Feb. 26.”
Google warns FCC plan could help ISPs charge senders of Web traffic
Net neutrality plan could have unintended consequences, Google argues.
Google is warning that the Federal Communications Commission's net neutrality plan could have unintended consequences that help Internet service providers charge Web services for sending traffic.
FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler's plan would reclassify broadband providers as common carriers on two fronts, in the service they provide home Internet customers and their relationships with "edge providers," companies like Netflix that offer content to consumers over the Internet. Classifying the ISP-edge provider relationship is, in the FCC's way of thinking, supposed to provide additional authority so the commission can intervene when an edge provider claims it is being treated unfairly.
But Google says that giving the ISP-edge provider relationships a new classification could actually make it easier for Internet providers to charge edge providers for the right to send traffic to consumers.
"[T]his issue must be viewed in light of the efforts by some ISPs, particularly abroad, to claim that they provide a service to content providers for which they should be able to charge under a 'sender pays' model—while still charging their retail customers for the same traffic," Google Communications Law Director Austin Schlick wrote in a filing with the FCC. "To the extent the Commission encourages the falsehood that ISPs offer two overlapping access services instead of just one, or the fiction that edge providers are customers of terminating ISPs when they deliver content to the Internet, it may encourage such attempts at double-recovery. That could do serious, long-term harm to the virtuous circle of Internet innovation, thus greatly undermining the benefit of adopting net neutrality rules."
Google is making an argument similar to one put forth by the advocacy group Free Press, which said that classifying the ISP-edge provider connection as a common carrier service is a legally dicey strategy. The FCC's goal is to be able to intervene in interconnection disputes that harm Internet service quality. But both Free Press and Google argue that the FCC can oversee interconnection simply by reclassifying consumer broadband as a common carrier service.
It is not "necessary to imagine a non-existent service in order to reach ISPs’ interconnection practices," Google told the FCC. "Should the Commission classify end-user broadband Internet access as a telecommunications service subject to Title II [of the Communications Act], that classification alone would enable the Commission to ensure that ISPs’ interconnection practices are just and reasonable. As noted, for instance, Section 201(b) requires just and reasonable practices 'for and in connection with such communication service.' If an ISP’s intentional port congestion or other interconnection practices denied end-user customers the full benefit of the two-way service they have purchased, then the Commission could take enforcement action."
Interconnection is when two network providers, or an edge provider and an ISP, exchange traffic directly without a middleman. These transfers can happen with or without payment. This type of paid traffic transfer is different from "paid prioritization" deals prohibited by the net neutrality proposal, because interconnection doesn't speed traffic up after it enters the ISP's network. But interconnection can greatly improve performance because it provides a dedicated path into the ISP's network.
Interconnection became part of the net neutrality debate only after a dispute between Netflix and ISPs caused consumers to have poor Netflix service for months, until Netflix relented and paid for direct network connections. The FCC is not proposing a ban on interconnection payments outright, but it wants to set up a complaint process in which edge providers could argue that they are being overcharged or that ISPs aren't upgrading capacity quickly enough.
Google, which is both a content provider and an ISP, has argued that companies like Netflix should not have to pay for interconnection. But the FCC's approach to interconnection is flawed, Google argued.
"Informal, settlement-free peering is the norm because it minimizes transaction costs and reflects the mutual benefit both parties receive from interconnection," Google wrote. "Google has entered into peering arrangements with some of the largest US broadband providers insofar as we are unable to use transit to reach users on those networks with reasonable quality. These arrangements are individually negotiated, however, so they could not support classification of a common carriage service provided to Google or any other edge provider."
FCC: We’re doing this “just in case”
Google acknowledged that the FCC appears to be reacting to the court ruling that vacated the commission's previous net neutrality rules.
"The impetus for seeking to classify a non-existent edge provider service appears to be language in the DC Circuit’s Verizon decision," Google wrote. "There, the Court of Appeals opined, without reference to any evidence, that 'broadband providers furnish a service to edge providers, thus undoubtedly functioning as edge providers’ ‘carriers.’ The Commission and the Department of Justice had argued to the contrary, correctly advising the Court that this view 'misstates... the nature of Internet access service.'"
The FCC "should not assume that the DC Circuit’s prior view will be the last word in future litigation," Google wrote.
The FCC seems to be hedging its bets in an attempt to survive court challenges. In a summary of Wheeler's proposal, the FCC said that reclassifying retail broadband should be enough to enforce net neutrality rules.
"But just in case, we also make clear that if a court finds that it is necessary to classify the service that broadband providers make available to 'edge providers,' it too is a Title II telecommunications service," the FCC said. "[B]oth the service to the end user and to the edge provider are classified under Title II."
A spokesperson for Wheeler declined to comment when contacted by Ars today. The commission is scheduled to vote on the net neutrality plan Thursday this week. Although we have a summary of the proposal, the FCC is not releasing the entire plan until after the vote, as is consistent with past practice.
A Democrat on the Federal Communications Commission wants to see changes that could narrow the scope of new net neutrality rules set for a vote on Thursday.
Mignon Clyburn, one of three Democrats on the FCC, has asked Chairman Tom Wheeler to roll back some of his provisions before the full commission votes on them, FCC officials said.
The request — which Wheeler has yet to respond to — puts the chairman in the awkward position of having to either roll back his proposals, or defend the tough rules and convince Clyburn to back down.
It’s an ironic spot for Wheeler, who for months was considered to be favoring weaker rules than those pushed for by his fellow Democrats, before he reversed himself and backed tougher restrictions on Internet service providers.
Clyburn’s objections complicate the highly anticipated vote and add an extra bit of drama to the already high tensions on the five-member commission.
Wheeler will need the votes of both Clyburn and Democratic Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel to pass the rules, since the two Republicans on the commission are expected to vote against anything he proposes.
Clyburn’s changes would leave in place the central and most controversial component of Wheeler’s rules — the notion that broadband Internet service should be reclassified so that it can be treated as a telecommunications service under Title II of the Communications Act, similar to utilities like phone lines.
Proponents of net neutrality have said such a move is the surest way to prevent Internet service providers from interfering with people’s access to the Web.
However, she wants to eliminate a new legal category of “broadband subscriber access services,” created as an additional point of legal authority for the FCC to monitor the ways companies hand off traffic on the back end of the Internet.
Those deals, known as “interconnection” arrangements, became a point of contention last year, when Netflix accused Comcast and other companies of erecting “Internet tolls” before easily passing Web traffic from one network to another.
The initial plan sought by Wheeler would allow the FCC to investigate and take action against deals that are “not just and reasonable,” according to a fact sheet released by the commission earlier this month.
Eliminating the new legal category could make it trickier for the FCC to police those arrangements, said officials with the agency, who were granted anonymity in order to speak freely about the ongoing negotiations.
Other FCC officials have previously said that the broader act of reclassifying broadband Internet service would, in and of itself, give the commission enough power to oversee interconnection deals. That opinion has been backed up by lawyers at Google, among others, who made the argument to FCC officials last week.
Matt Wood, the policy director at the pro-net neutrality organization Free Press, disagreed with officials who thought the change could weaken the rule. Clyburn’s edit might actually make the rules stronger by getting rid of “unnecessary baggage” in Wheeler’s early draft, he said.
Clyburn’s changes also would replace a new standard for Internet service providers’ conduct, which was meant to act as a catchall rule for any future behavior that might abuse consumers. That standard would be swapped out with potentially narrower language from 2010 rules that prevented “unreasonable discrimination.” A federal court tossed out those 2010 rules early last year, setting the stage for the FCC to write new rules.
The full text of the rules will not be revealed to the public until after the FCC’s vote on Thursday morning.
Clyburn declined to discuss specific changes she was supporting on Tuesday.
“This is a process that is an interaction with all five members of the commission and their offices,” she said after remarks at a policy forum hosted by Comptel, a trade group.
“I will just say that I am attempting to strike a balance and whatever you hear, whether it’s accurate or not, is a reflection of my enthusiastic willingness to do so.”
In a speech at the Federal Communications Bar Association last week, the commissioner said that she was “pleased” with the initial draft but also hinted that she might need some fixes to strike that balance between “strong” protections for consumers and “clarity” for investors.
“Some have expressed concerns about allowing private rights of action in court, failing to consider the impact on smaller [Internet service providers], that including interconnection goes too far or that the case-by-case approach does not go far enough, and that the new conduct rule may not be as strong as the previous unreasonable discrimination rule,” she said.
The requested changes come as FCC lawyers are spending hours poring over the text of the rules.
In keeping with FCC procedural rules, the four other commissioners got their first look at the rules just two and a half weeks ago outside of Wheeler’s office. Now they are scrambling to make edits ahead of the vote on Thursday morning.
Corynne McSherry wrote:Dear FCC: Rethink The Vague "General Conduct" Rule
For many months, EFF has been working with a broad coalition of advocates to persuade the Federal Communications Commission to adopt new Open Internet rules that would survive legal scrutiny and actually help protect the Open Internet. Our message has been clear from the beginning: the FCC has a role to play, but its role must be firmly bounded.
Two weeks ago, we learned that we had likely managed the first goal—the FCC is going to do the right thing and reclassify broadband as a telecommunications service, giving it the ability to make new, meaningful Open Internet rules. But we are deeply concerned that the FCC’s new rules will include a provision that sounds like a recipe for overreach and confusion: the so-called “general conduct rule.”
According to the FCC's own "Fact Sheet," the proposed rule will allow the FCC to review (and presumably punish) non-neutral practices that may “harm” consumers or edge providers. Late last week, as the window for public comment was closing, EFF filed a letter with the FCC urging it to clarify and sharply limit the scope of any “general conduct” provision:
[T]he Commission should use its Title II authority to engage in light-touch regulation, taking great care to adhere to clear, targeted, and transparent rules. A “general conduct rule,” applied on a case-by- case basis with the only touchstone being whether a given practice “harms” consumers or edge providers, may lead to years of expensive litigation to determine the meaning of “harm” (for those who can afford to engage in it). What is worse, it could be abused by a future Commission to target legitimate practices that offer significant benefits to the public . . .
Accordingly, if the Commission intends to adopt a “general conduct rule” it should spell out, in advance, the contours and limits of that rule, and clarify that the rule shall be applied only in specific circumstances.
Unfortunately, if a recent report from Reuters is correct, the general conduct rule will be anything but clear. The FCC will evaluate “harm” based on consideration of seven factors: impact on competition; impact on innovation; impact on free expression; impact on broadband deployment and investments; whether the actions in question are specific to some applications and not others; whether they comply with industry best standards and practices; and whether they take place without the awareness of the end-user, the Internet subscriber.
There are several problems with this approach. First, it suggests that the FCC believes it has broad authority to pursue any number of practices—hardly the narrow, light-touch approach we need to protect the open Internet. Second, we worry that this rule will be extremely expensive in practice, because anyone wanting to bring a complaint will be hard-pressed to predict whether they will succeed. For example, how will the Commission determine “industry best standards and practices”? As a practical matter, it is likely that only companies that can afford years of litigation to answer these questions will be able to rely on the rule at all. Third, a multi-factor test gives the FCC an awful lot of discretion, potentially giving an unfair advantage to parties with insider influence.
We are days away from a final vote, and it appears that many of the proposed rules will make sense for the Internet. Based on what we know so far, however, the general conduct proposal may not. The FCC should rethink this one.
Point 2 seems more like a case for legal reform than anything else, and point 3 worries about something that is already illegal. That leaves point 1, which reads to me as "we don't like heavy regulations, so they shouldn't exist because reasons".
Frazzled wrote: I for one welcome our new internet Overlords and am willing to rat out anyone who says otherwise.
Hey after all these are the same guys that gave us the Obamacare website. What could go wrong?
This is a completely different situation, you can't reasonably compare them. Also, CGI federal is not the FCC.
I'm quite happy with the ruling myself. The US is really behind a lot of countries in Asia, such as South Korea and Japan, when it comes to the internet.
Well... my brother is a network engineer at Charter... and he's been told that basically nothing changes with this proposal, since the current iteration of the implemented plan won't jack things up.
This simply gives the FCC more "legal standings" whenever their jurisdiction is challenged.
He does believe that Verizon and Comcast will challenge these rulings anyways.
*shrug*
Anyone know if the plan has been fully published yet?
whembly wrote: Well... my brother is a network engineer at Charter... and he's been told that basically nothing changes with this proposal, since the current iteration of the implemented plan won't jack things up.
I think he meant that your brother seem to have knowledge about what will happen even though he couldn't possibly have seen the proposal since it hasn't been released.
Personally, I'm fine with withholding an opinion on this until I see if there really is a devil hiding in the details.
Just looks like he is saying what everybody is feeling. Nobody wanted heavier regulations on the internet, but we had to have it because of the donkeycaves at Verizon and Comcast.
I'm over 30!
