Court strikes down FCC’s net neutrality rules(gigaom.com)
gigaom.com
Court strikes down FCC’s net neutrality rules
http://gigaom.com/2014/01/14/breaking-court-strikes-down-fccs-net-neutrality-rules/
9 comments
I'm not sure how you think this wouldn't affect you. If a website can't survive because the fees to "carry it" are too high, and they are frozen out of the market, we all lose. It's only one internet, after all.
but you miss the point - if they don't pay, it doesn't affect my ability to visit them (unless Verizon et al are part of the backbone network on the route between their server host and my house).
I'm not saying it's a good thing - it's a very bad thing to have no NN law! - just that my browsing will be largely unaffected.
I'm not saying it's a good thing - it's a very bad thing to have no NN law! - just that my browsing will be largely unaffected.
I'm saying the chilling effect means you won't have an option at all. American content creators/web app makers aren't going to start with a global product; they simply don't have the capital to bootstrap something globally. They would normally stick to just an American market, but now they can't because the barriers to entry are now too high. So it dies in its infancy.
So yeah, creators in other parts of the world will be largely unaffected, but -- not to be xenophobic -- how much of the internet is created by Americans?
So yeah, creators in other parts of the world will be largely unaffected, but -- not to be xenophobic -- how much of the internet is created by Americans?
I don't know who you think will stop publishing content online, just because their website loads slower? Most websites aren't businesses, (I have about 8, none of which are) and as long as cheap/free hosting (e.g. outside the US) still exists, Americans will continue to publish blogs and hobby sites, even not-for-profits like wikipedia will still work. It'll load slower in the US, but it will still exist (and, if they host it outside the US, the global community will still be able to contibute normally - unless I've misunderstood IP routing, which is not a subject I know very much about.)
"Loading slower" is an absolute 100% deal breaker for a Youtube competitor or streaming music service or VoIP or many other applications.
> if they don't pay, it doesn't affect my ability to visit them
Obviously, without net neutrality this is not guaranteed. That's the entire point to all of this.
Obviously, without net neutrality this is not guaranteed. That's the entire point to all of this.
Sure you can visit them but from my understanding they will go very slowly unless they pay for preference. Is this not the case?
Wouldn't VPN companies be affected as well? That would greatly affect my browsing.
[deleted]
If this crap goes through, you can bet it'll hinder net neutrality discussions in the UK
NN discussion in the UK is a joke - our parliamentarians are quite happy to recommend "banning" protocols if it looks like criminals use them some of the time (notably, Dom Foster (government minister)'s position on bit torrent).
I did give a speech in opposition to it/him once[1], but unfortunately Lib Dem conferences are not the place to make a difference here (sadly).
[1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7CMSqxIw1E
I did give a speech in opposition to it/him once[1], but unfortunately Lib Dem conferences are not the place to make a difference here (sadly).
[1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7CMSqxIw1E
I think the gist of it is that the FCC exceeded it's authority in deeming ISPs Common Carriers. Legislation from congress and signed by the executive will be needed.
No, that's wrong. They specifically did not call ISPs common carriers - they tried to give them the obligations of common carriers without reclassifying them, because they wanted to avoid a lengthy legal fight from the ISPs (who certainly do not want to be common carriers, because that eliminates their ability to charge troll tolls.)
I don't think that's right. The ruling is that the FCC was regulating broadband companies as common carriers even though they're not classified as common carriers. But the FCC is the one who has the authority to classify them as common carriers. I don't really understand why the FCC didn't do that from the start.
> I think the gist of it is that the FCC exceeded it's authority in deeming ISPs Common Carriers.
No, the ruling specifically found that the problem is that the FCC has: 1) declared that broadband providers provide an "information service" (on which common carrier requirements can not be imposed) rather than a "telecommunication service" (on which they can be imposed), and 2) imposed the kind of regulations that are essential to treatment of common carriers.
I.e., that the FCC has both declared that ISPs are not common carriers but than regulated them (in some respects) as if they were.
There's obviously two ways to resolve this contradiction.
No, the ruling specifically found that the problem is that the FCC has: 1) declared that broadband providers provide an "information service" (on which common carrier requirements can not be imposed) rather than a "telecommunication service" (on which they can be imposed), and 2) imposed the kind of regulations that are essential to treatment of common carriers.
I.e., that the FCC has both declared that ISPs are not common carriers but than regulated them (in some respects) as if they were.
There's obviously two ways to resolve this contradiction.
But the article implies that the only reason the regulations are invalid is that they didn't designate them CCs. At least, that's how I read it.
I'm trying to find it. but my point is, the FCC did not have the authority to designate them as Common Carriers. as Common Carrier status is defined by the Communications Act of 1930 something and Telecommunications act of 1996.
I can see it now "All Amazon hosted websites have been blacked out from Time Warner Cable while we enter contract negotiations. Thanks for your patience, here's a free Video on Demand for the inconvenience"
Folks, today's ruling should come as no surprise. Congress never gave the FCC the authority to impose Net neutrality regulations on the Internet. That means the FCC's regulations were illegal. The same court already slapped down the FCC once, in 2010, remember:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-20001825-38.html
Legislation granting regulatory authority to the FCC came up for a vote in Congress, and it came close to passage: it was reported favorably out of a Senate committee but was defeated in a House floor vote in 2006: http://news.cnet.com/2100-1028_3-6081882.html
Even if you adore the principle of Net neutrality, it's reasonable to demand that federal regulatory agencies stick to what Congress authorized them to do. Otherwise you have illegal regulations and bureaucratic turf-grabbing that will not treat the Internet well. Remember Hollywood's successful efforts to lobby the FCC to impose "broadcast flags" on computers by bureaucratic fiat? A federal appeals court correctly struck it down as exceeding the agency's legal authority, as I wrote here in 2005: http://news.cnet.com/2100-1030_3-5697719.html
If Net neutrality violations become an actual problem, there's no shortage of publicity-hungry politicians in Congress (hi, Ed Markey!) who will hold hearings and push legislation forward. Obama will happily sign it. Until then, other government debacles including NSA domestic surveillance and Obamacare should make us wary of federal agencies exceeding their legal authority -- especially after Congress considered and rejected a law that would have given it to them in the first place.
Legislation granting regulatory authority to the FCC came up for a vote in Congress, and it came close to passage: it was reported favorably out of a Senate committee but was defeated in a House floor vote in 2006: http://news.cnet.com/2100-1028_3-6081882.html
Even if you adore the principle of Net neutrality, it's reasonable to demand that federal regulatory agencies stick to what Congress authorized them to do. Otherwise you have illegal regulations and bureaucratic turf-grabbing that will not treat the Internet well. Remember Hollywood's successful efforts to lobby the FCC to impose "broadcast flags" on computers by bureaucratic fiat? A federal appeals court correctly struck it down as exceeding the agency's legal authority, as I wrote here in 2005: http://news.cnet.com/2100-1030_3-5697719.html
If Net neutrality violations become an actual problem, there's no shortage of publicity-hungry politicians in Congress (hi, Ed Markey!) who will hold hearings and push legislation forward. Obama will happily sign it. Until then, other government debacles including NSA domestic surveillance and Obamacare should make us wary of federal agencies exceeding their legal authority -- especially after Congress considered and rejected a law that would have given it to them in the first place.
> If Net neutrality violations become an actual problem,
Net neutrality violations had become an actual problem (and source of case-by-case FCC issues) before the FCC set out its open internet principles, much less issued the Open Internet Order.
> there's no shortage of publicity-hungry politicians in Congress (hi, Ed Markey!) who will hold hearings and push legislation forward.
There's more money-hungry politicians that are in bed with the entrenched interests that oppose neutrality that will act to prevent any net neutrality action.
> Obama will happily sign it.
Which would be significant, if it would ever get through Congress. Which it won't, particularly the House.
Net neutrality violations had become an actual problem (and source of case-by-case FCC issues) before the FCC set out its open internet principles, much less issued the Open Internet Order.
> there's no shortage of publicity-hungry politicians in Congress (hi, Ed Markey!) who will hold hearings and push legislation forward.
There's more money-hungry politicians that are in bed with the entrenched interests that oppose neutrality that will act to prevent any net neutrality action.
> Obama will happily sign it.
Which would be significant, if it would ever get through Congress. Which it won't, particularly the House.
There were some scattered and quickly resolved problems, and Comcast certainly acted foolishly (and arguably dishonestly) in the case of BitTorrent throttling. But there was no evidence of widespread problems, and the Comcast-BitTorrent issue was resolved six years ago without the FCC playing referee: http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9904689-7.html
The reality is that Net neutrality became politicized long ago. It was embraced by pro-regulation left-leaning groups, who were in part funded by Silicon Valley companies who seeking a competitive advantage through the political process. And yes, AT&T and Comcast and other providers played defense by funding advocacy groups on the other side. You may remember that I was the first to disclose some of this dodgy stuff, back in 2008: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10016960-38.html
Once that politicization happened, rational thought in DC ended and it became something that a certain subset of politicians said "WE MUST HAVE," no matter what the law actually allows, which is a dangerous precedent. So welcome to today's state of affairs. On HN, however, I'd hope that we can be a bit more rational about this.
PS: If you think that a bunch of Tea Party conservatives in the House are going to defend AT&T, Comcast, VZ, etc. if they start blocking web sites, etc., you're badly mistaken. Also remember antitrust laws still apply even if the FCC vanishes tomorrow.
The reality is that Net neutrality became politicized long ago. It was embraced by pro-regulation left-leaning groups, who were in part funded by Silicon Valley companies who seeking a competitive advantage through the political process. And yes, AT&T and Comcast and other providers played defense by funding advocacy groups on the other side. You may remember that I was the first to disclose some of this dodgy stuff, back in 2008: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10016960-38.html
Once that politicization happened, rational thought in DC ended and it became something that a certain subset of politicians said "WE MUST HAVE," no matter what the law actually allows, which is a dangerous precedent. So welcome to today's state of affairs. On HN, however, I'd hope that we can be a bit more rational about this.
PS: If you think that a bunch of Tea Party conservatives in the House are going to defend AT&T, Comcast, VZ, etc. if they start blocking web sites, etc., you're badly mistaken. Also remember antitrust laws still apply even if the FCC vanishes tomorrow.
Wouldn't the FCC clearly have this authority if they simply choose to reclassify the internet as a telecommunications service subject to common carrier rules instead of an information service? (A decision that they can apparently make unilaterally.)
> Wouldn't the FCC clearly have this authority if they simply choose to reclassify the internet as a common carrier service instead of an information service?
They'd have to reclassify broadband as a telecommunication service instead of an information service to regulate broadband providers as common carriers.
This would be reviewable by the courts under the definitions of those terms in the Telecommunications Act, but looking at the definitions, it seems that this would likely be reasonable. (Most ISP provide some components of service that are clearly more like an "information service" than a "telecommunication service", but the basic of internet access seem to be more like a "telecommunication service", and regulating different components of packaged services differently is something that the FCC has done other places before.)
They'd have to reclassify broadband as a telecommunication service instead of an information service to regulate broadband providers as common carriers.
This would be reviewable by the courts under the definitions of those terms in the Telecommunications Act, but looking at the definitions, it seems that this would likely be reasonable. (Most ISP provide some components of service that are clearly more like an "information service" than a "telecommunication service", but the basic of internet access seem to be more like a "telecommunication service", and regulating different components of packaged services differently is something that the FCC has done other places before.)
Limited scope as well - believe mobile is completely separate (?) - and imo mobile is the more interesting and important domain for NN.
I saw New Shiny Thing and wanted to play.
Thank you for reminding me to "Stay on Target"
Thank you for reminding me to "Stay on Target"
I like the idea of net neutrality conceptually, but the ulterior motives of its proponents bugs me. It strikes me as just a way for the Youtubes and Netflixes of the world to get a bigger piece of the pie for themselves.
Consider the basic streaming transaction: consumer tunes in to watch an episode of their favorite show on some streaming service. Several companies are involved in the transaction: the streaming service, the broadband provider, and the content company that made the show. But the consumer doesn't really care about any of that, he's willing to pay $X for the experience of watching that episode.
How that $X is split up amongst the companies in play is the subject of a lot of legal wrangling. Each party has an incentive to try and turn the contributions of the other parties into a commodity. The streaming service and the broadband provider have an interest in weaker copyright protections, so the content company has less leverage. The streaming service and the content company have an interest in net neutrality, because that prevents broadband companies from differentiating their services from each other, and forces them to compete only as "dumb pipes."
It's not clear what the "proper" division of that $X should be. Arguably the content creation is the least fungible from the consumer's point of view. If they want to watch "House" that's what they want, not some substitute. The broadband provision is arguably the most technically complicated and the one that involves the greatest capital expenditure. Distribution is, in my opinion, relatively simple. Computing power and commercial bandwidth are commodities thanks to AWS and the like. So all that differentiates Netflix from Hulu from Youtube is the software. The software isn't easy per se, but it's easier than making a blockbuster movie or building a fiber network. That's why streaming sites are a dime a dozen but it takes the likes of Amazon or Netflix to even attempt to compete with NBC, etc, in developing AAA content.
That's almost certainly why Netflix is getting into the content business, and why Youtube has always been in the content business (through user generated content). That's what's hardest to turn into a commodity.
Consider the basic streaming transaction: consumer tunes in to watch an episode of their favorite show on some streaming service. Several companies are involved in the transaction: the streaming service, the broadband provider, and the content company that made the show. But the consumer doesn't really care about any of that, he's willing to pay $X for the experience of watching that episode.
How that $X is split up amongst the companies in play is the subject of a lot of legal wrangling. Each party has an incentive to try and turn the contributions of the other parties into a commodity. The streaming service and the broadband provider have an interest in weaker copyright protections, so the content company has less leverage. The streaming service and the content company have an interest in net neutrality, because that prevents broadband companies from differentiating their services from each other, and forces them to compete only as "dumb pipes."
It's not clear what the "proper" division of that $X should be. Arguably the content creation is the least fungible from the consumer's point of view. If they want to watch "House" that's what they want, not some substitute. The broadband provision is arguably the most technically complicated and the one that involves the greatest capital expenditure. Distribution is, in my opinion, relatively simple. Computing power and commercial bandwidth are commodities thanks to AWS and the like. So all that differentiates Netflix from Hulu from Youtube is the software. The software isn't easy per se, but it's easier than making a blockbuster movie or building a fiber network. That's why streaming sites are a dime a dozen but it takes the likes of Amazon or Netflix to even attempt to compete with NBC, etc, in developing AAA content.
That's almost certainly why Netflix is getting into the content business, and why Youtube has always been in the content business (through user generated content). That's what's hardest to turn into a commodity.
I like the idea of net neutrality conceptually, but the ulterior motives of its proponents bugs me.
The ulterior motives of the opponents of net neutrality bother me much more. I can't help but imagine a world where companies like Comcast have complete control over the internet. They pick the winners, whether it's the next Google, Facebook, or Netflix. With, of course, Comcast receiving a hefty percentage for allowing said winner to succeed if they don't have complete control over the winners outright.
The ulterior motives of the opponents of net neutrality bother me much more. I can't help but imagine a world where companies like Comcast have complete control over the internet. They pick the winners, whether it's the next Google, Facebook, or Netflix. With, of course, Comcast receiving a hefty percentage for allowing said winner to succeed if they don't have complete control over the winners outright.
I think the bigger issue is really increasing competition in markets where cable companies have monopolies. The only way to limit the control of the internet is make sure more companies have a chance to compete.
This should in theory, drive down prices and increase the quality of the product offered to customers.
This should in theory, drive down prices and increase the quality of the product offered to customers.
Companies like Comcast are the internet. Without their massive capital investment in building networks, there is nothing but a bunch of software running on computers that can't talk to each other. Why shouldn't they get to control it however they want?
If the Googles and Facebooks of the world don't want to abide by the terms set by the Comcasts of the world, they should build their own networks. If there are regulatory barriers to doing that, those should be the target of regulatory reform.
If the Googles and Facebooks of the world don't want to abide by the terms set by the Comcasts of the world, they should build their own networks. If there are regulatory barriers to doing that, those should be the target of regulatory reform.
> Companies like Comcast are the internet. Without their massive capital investment in building networks, there is nothing but a bunch of software running on computers that can't talk to each other. Why shouldn't they get to control it however they want?
Because its not a freely competitive market. They didn't acquire the infrastructure and access -- particularly the last mile access -- by freely negotiating with property owners, nor, even if they had, is there unlimited capacity for new competitors to do so. Incumbent major broadband providers all got the basic access essential to provide infrastructure as CATV and telephone providers, as locally or regionally regulated monopolies, and there is pretty much no way for direct competition with fixed broadband providers on equal footing.
Fixed broadband providers aren't an ideal market for the same reason "road providers" or "sewer service providers" aren't.
> If the Googles and Facebooks of the world don't want to abide by the terms set by the Comcasts of the world, they should build their own networks.
Google's been working very hard on that for many years, because they knew that their preferred regulatory framework wasn't something that they could count on.
OTOH, I don't see why the Comcasts and AT&Ts of the world now ought to be free to capture all the profit from business done over the internet any more than the AT&Ts of the telephone age were allowed to do so for all business done over the telephone.
Because its not a freely competitive market. They didn't acquire the infrastructure and access -- particularly the last mile access -- by freely negotiating with property owners, nor, even if they had, is there unlimited capacity for new competitors to do so. Incumbent major broadband providers all got the basic access essential to provide infrastructure as CATV and telephone providers, as locally or regionally regulated monopolies, and there is pretty much no way for direct competition with fixed broadband providers on equal footing.
Fixed broadband providers aren't an ideal market for the same reason "road providers" or "sewer service providers" aren't.
> If the Googles and Facebooks of the world don't want to abide by the terms set by the Comcasts of the world, they should build their own networks.
Google's been working very hard on that for many years, because they knew that their preferred regulatory framework wasn't something that they could count on.
OTOH, I don't see why the Comcasts and AT&Ts of the world now ought to be free to capture all the profit from business done over the internet any more than the AT&Ts of the telephone age were allowed to do so for all business done over the telephone.
Clearly that's part of the answer, but I don't think that's the whole answer. While the existing broadband providers certainly did benefit from growing out of locally or regionally regulated monopolies, they haven't been that for quite some time, and much of their capital investment in infrastructure has happened after deregulation. Indeed, I wouldn't hesitate to say that the vast majority of investment in telecoms networks has happened since deregulation of the industry in 1996. Is a blanket neutrality order legitimate for companies whose networks are say 15% regulated monopoly and 85% private?
> Clearly that's part of the answer, but I don't think that's the whole answer. While the existing broadband providers certainly did benefit from growing out of locally or regionally regulated monopolies, they haven't been that for quite some time, and much of their capital investment in infrastructure has happened after deregulation.
The monopoly condition and the public position they had with it is how they acquired a lot of the permanent property rights (easements, etc.) necessary for the infrastructure. That advantage doesn't ever go away, even if the regulated monopoly status does.
And it doesn't change the fact that wireline broadband, because of the physical access requirements, is inherently not a kind of service for which a real competitive free market is possible, for the same reason that it isn't with road networks or sewer systems or electric power delivery.
The monopoly condition and the public position they had with it is how they acquired a lot of the permanent property rights (easements, etc.) necessary for the infrastructure. That advantage doesn't ever go away, even if the regulated monopoly status does.
And it doesn't change the fact that wireline broadband, because of the physical access requirements, is inherently not a kind of service for which a real competitive free market is possible, for the same reason that it isn't with road networks or sewer systems or electric power delivery.
Sure the advantage of those property rights doesn't go away, but what's the value of that advantage as a proportion of the total private investment into these networks?
> Sure the advantage of those property rights doesn't go away, but what's the value of that advantage as a proportion of the total private investment into these networks?
The value is a substantial barrier to entry to competition -- why even Google Fiber, backed by the vast stockpiles of cash at Google, is often seen as a risky proposition against the entrenched providers and why you see very few providers of actual connections (as opposed to resellers) to those who have access developed as CATV or telephone monopolies.
The value is a substantial barrier to entry to competition -- why even Google Fiber, backed by the vast stockpiles of cash at Google, is often seen as a risky proposition against the entrenched providers and why you see very few providers of actual connections (as opposed to resellers) to those who have access developed as CATV or telephone monopolies.
Because its not a freely competitive market. They didn't acquire the infrastructure and access -- particularly the last mile access -- by freely negotiating with property owners, nor, even if they had, is there unlimited capacity for new competitors to do so. Incumbent major broadband providers all got the basic access essential to provide infrastructure as CATV and telephone providers, as locally or regionally regulated monopolies, and there is pretty much no way for direct competition with fixed broadband providers on equal footing.
Exactly this. To me, it ceases being a property rights issue when the rights given to the carriers were not granted under market conditions to begin with.
Does that give the government the ability to impose on the carriers whatever it wants in an arbitrary fashion? No. But it does mean that there should be some elasticity in terms of regulatory structure.
Exactly this. To me, it ceases being a property rights issue when the rights given to the carriers were not granted under market conditions to begin with.
Does that give the government the ability to impose on the carriers whatever it wants in an arbitrary fashion? No. But it does mean that there should be some elasticity in terms of regulatory structure.
Seems poor practice to attack the symptom instead of the problem, though.
Lets do it the other way. Consumers let Comcast use their land, so Comcast can serve them with internet and earn profit. If Comcast doesn't want to give consumers full and neutral internet, Comcast shall not profit from the land.
If this is how things go, we'll end up with no Internet at all. The Internet exists because of government investment. The Comcasts of the world did everything they could to prevent it from becoming accessible to the typical user. If you value the Internet at all, strong net neutrality is essential.
"The Comcasts of the world did everything they could to prevent it from becoming accessible to the typical user."
How so? Buying a big ISP and expanding it seems like an odd way to do so.
The ARPANET project was great, but expanding it to homes was never in the plans.
How so? Buying a big ISP and expanding it seems like an odd way to do so.
The ARPANET project was great, but expanding it to homes was never in the plans.
[deleted](1)
[deleted]
They shouldn't get to control it however they want because it's not in the best interests of the commonwealth.
Never really thought of that.. this could get Google Fiber to more cities in a smaller time frame.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Your summary of the incentives is not wrong, but I fail to see how it argues against net neutrality. The dumb pipes are basically that. If providing a commodity service, even with local monopoly power, is not sufficiently lucrative to meet the needs of the greater economy, then perhaps we should admit that broadband is, like roads, water pipes, and power lines, a common good that a free market will fail to provide and which therefore needs to either be owned by governmental entities or heavily regulated and subsidized by them.
Doesn't the same logic say it should be ok for a postal carrier to charge more for more valuable items, or for a water company to charge more to luxury houses, or the like? My view is that the broadband companies are natural monopolies, and thus should be required to carry all content equally; there's meaningful competition between Netflix/Hulu/Youtube because customers have a choice, but for many people there's no meaningful competition between broadband providers.
And sure, everyone has an agenda, the companies arguing for net neutrality aren't doing so out of the goodness of their hearts. That doesn't make them wrong.
And sure, everyone has an agenda, the companies arguing for net neutrality aren't doing so out of the goodness of their hearts. That doesn't make them wrong.
You're complicating the issue:
1) I pay for the dumb pipe to give me all the internet fluid I care to pay for, regardless of its makeup.
2) I pay either one of or both of the content provider and service for the content.
All of these pieces have to work together. The internet is nothing without content, and the content is ungettable without the internet. A Mutually-assured destruction relationship between these three elements should be quite sufficient.
1) I pay for the dumb pipe to give me all the internet fluid I care to pay for, regardless of its makeup.
2) I pay either one of or both of the content provider and service for the content.
All of these pieces have to work together. The internet is nothing without content, and the content is ungettable without the internet. A Mutually-assured destruction relationship between these three elements should be quite sufficient.
> I pay for the dumb pipe to give me all the internet fluid I care to pay for, regardless of its makeup.
You're assuming that broadband networks should be a dumb pipe to begin with. Why can't Verizon just decide to get out of the "dumb pipe" business, and say that they won't sell you a dumb pipe, but a pipe with whatever restrictions they want to impose?
You're assuming that broadband networks should be a dumb pipe to begin with. Why can't Verizon just decide to get out of the "dumb pipe" business, and say that they won't sell you a dumb pipe, but a pipe with whatever restrictions they want to impose?
> You're assuming that broadband networks should be a dumb pipe to begin with. Why can't Verizon just decide to get out of the "dumb pipe" business, and say that they won't sell you a dumb pipe, but a pipe with whatever restrictions they want to impose?
Why couldn't AT&T do that when they provided pre-internet landline telephone service?
Why couldn't AT&T do that when they provided pre-internet landline telephone service?
Because AT&T was a regulated monopoly, with all of the benefits that come from being a regulated monopoly (guaranteed rates of return, etc). The net neutrality proposals today amount to imposing obligations on carriers as if they are a regulated monopoly without giving them all the benefits of being a regulated monopoly.
> It's not clear what the "proper" division of that $X should be
Your hidden assumption that X is constant is what clouds the picture. It's easy to see that maximizing competition at every stage is in the consumer interest.
Your hidden assumption that X is constant is what clouds the picture. It's easy to see that maximizing competition at every stage is in the consumer interest.
The problem I have with NN is the completely arbitrary way companies abide by it.
For instance Google was all about NN when they were sued by AT&T after they set up Google Voice. Then, when they got into the broadband game, all the things they were for with NN, instantly went out the window.
It appears companies are usually for something until they're against it. The FCC isn't much help either, since they really don't have any muscle to enforce the NN existing rules anyways.
For instance Google was all about NN when they were sued by AT&T after they set up Google Voice. Then, when they got into the broadband game, all the things they were for with NN, instantly went out the window.
It appears companies are usually for something until they're against it. The FCC isn't much help either, since they really don't have any muscle to enforce the NN existing rules anyways.
That fickle corporate stance on NN is exactly why we should support it at the policy level so everyone has to follow fair, consistent rules that maintain the integrity of the internet.
This is horrible. Being a developer, I make money off building fast web based applications. It sucks because the fast part is now out of my control. I can write the best code ever and it will run slow unless I pay for provider preference. This will cost small companies dearly and rewards large ones unfairly. Why must our courts and political system line the pockets of the already rich? Now is the time to aid and promote innovation not stunt and slow it.
It's like indirectly saying the provider can charge for any content they want. You don't pay, then they won't traffic it. It's like censorship, protectionism and a bunch of other old world BS rolled into one. I'm livid.
You make money building web based applications that rely entirely on someone else's very expensive communications networks. Their networks have value without your applications, but your applications have no value without their networks. Why shouldn't they be able to dictate whatever terms they want? Why should the government intervene to artificially give you more leverage?
I already pay to use the networks. I pay monthly, and very dearly. Why should I pay again? Isn't traffic just traffic? Why must it be differentiated?
A first class ticket on an airplane costs a lot more than a coach seat. Lot's of similar services have different prices.
Well, to keep it in the analogy, this is what the world without nn sounds like - "I bought a economy ticket but I am reaching lot late than the one who bought a coach ticket." It's not that I am getting a tight seat or shitty service. I am reaching late to my destination. That means eventually everyone would have to pay more depending on the whim of the carrier.
Express service on Amtrak costs more than the slower service.
It's not the whim of the carrier. It's what the carrier can negotiate. Why should the US Gov't be part of that negotiation?
It's not the whim of the carrier. It's what the carrier can negotiate. Why should the US Gov't be part of that negotiation?
But if I don't mind arriving later to pay less for a ticket, why should I be prevented by the State from doing so?
The issue isn't the speed, it's what this arrangement can lead to. I believe the inherent right to information supersedes the wants of a few corporations. What we are really talking about is potentially losing access to valuable information. To me the internet is a public domain and limiting traffic like this is the equivalent of limiting speech.
But the internet is not a public domain; most of the infrastructure was built and paid by private actors.
If society considers it a real priority, should an actual public ISP be built, instead of forcing rules onto others'?
If society considers it a real priority, should an actual public ISP be built, instead of forcing rules onto others'?
Public ISP would be a great idea. After all it is just a utility.
First class and coach still arrive at the same time though. That isn't the case with different levels of traffic.
Actually, their networks have no value without access to applications.
There was a time when these online companies had to pay other companies to develop applications for their networks. Now they get them for free and want to charge the companies on top of that.
Maybe Facebook's new business model could be charging $$ for "access to their pipes" from ISPs.
There was a time when these online companies had to pay other companies to develop applications for their networks. Now they get them for free and want to charge the companies on top of that.
Maybe Facebook's new business model could be charging $$ for "access to their pipes" from ISPs.
Maybe that should be FB's model. Maybe they could negotiate that with the ISPs. Or maybe not.
Why should the US gov't be involved in this business negotiation between two companies?
Why should the US gov't be involved in this business negotiation between two companies?
The gov't should be involved, when those negotiations could potentially form cartels to the detriment of the majority of the population.
> Actually, their networks have no value without access to applications.
Sure, but applications are easier and cheaper to build than pipes. That's the nature of such systems. The step in the chain that's hardest to build with the greatest capital expensive required will have the least competition and thus make most of the profits.
Sure, but applications are easier and cheaper to build than pipes. That's the nature of such systems. The step in the chain that's hardest to build with the greatest capital expensive required will have the least competition and thus make most of the profits.
Typically because they want to avoid having legal responsibility for the traffic crossing their network. Otherwise, they would be legally complicit in all the kiddie porn in the world. Avoiding that means they have to at least pretend not to be inspecting every packet that traverses their wires.
That's an interesting question. Is FedEx or UPS prevented from having special arrangements with particular shippers? USPS has a special agreement with Amazon for Sunday delivery.
Being a developer you should really know the difference between "running speed", "network speed", and that total perceived speed has never been under your complete control. end user machines vary in power, end users have various latency and throughputs, networks get congested, etc.
But you are right, an internet without net-neutrality sucks balls.
But you are right, an internet without net-neutrality sucks balls.
This was needlessly pedantic. We all know what's within our control, and never accounted for a greedy carrier to choke the pipes.
I know, but now we can't even manipulate those things for better performance. You can have the best server, network and code but it won't matter if the provider doesn't give you preference. That's the issue. Takes what little control we have, as developers, away.
In fact, their proposal is that you'll have even more control. Just get a signed contract and they will bump your traffic on top of the rest of the peasants.
Given the state of the US telecom market (obsolete infrastructure, lackluster innovation, record profits) do you think that the extra money they get from you will go towards infrastructure or fat pockets?
"Create the sickness, sell the cure" is the business model I see being most profitable in this scenario. The contract you negotiate will be to avoid throttling, not to access speeds that would be unavailable in a parallel universe with net neutrality. Choice != control when someone else writes the rules.
"Create the sickness, sell the cure" is the business model I see being most profitable in this scenario. The contract you negotiate will be to avoid throttling, not to access speeds that would be unavailable in a parallel universe with net neutrality. Choice != control when someone else writes the rules.
I love this comment. Right on
If companies like Comcast offer telephone service over their cable lines, will this not place them in the realm of being a 'common carrier'?
I am a NN proponent but think this is good because I don't believe the FCC could effectively enforce NN. At best, FCC enforcement would be a waste of money. At worst, there would be negative unintended consequences.
What just happened? Common sense probably got stuck in the slow lane.
The FCC is free to make this choice (right?[1]), and it means they can regulate broadband companies the same way as they do phone companies now - it will have some penalty (which is why they've avoided doing it up to now), but hopefully they will have the guts to fight back.
(note, I'm in the UK, so this doesn't affect my home internet speed, although it could affect any of you 'mericans trying to read my rather obscure blog.)
[1] I don't actually know, so by all means correct me.