FCC Chairman: This Is How We Will Ensure Net Neutrality(wired.com)
wired.com
FCC Chairman: This Is How We Will Ensure Net Neutrality
http://www.wired.com/2015/02/fcc-chairman-wheeler-net-neutrality/
424 comments
This is neutrality for big data sources only. "For example, there will be no rate regulation, no tariffs, no last-mile unbundling." This is a deal for Netflix and Google. It won't get you out from under AT&T forcing you to take their TV service to get their Internet service.
There was a time when you could rent a local loop from a regulated telco and have it connected to an independent Internet service provider. Remember independent DSL ISPs? I still have a connection through one, "Sonic.net". They no longer offer that to new customers.
There was a time when you could rent a local loop from a regulated telco and have it connected to an independent Internet service provider. Remember independent DSL ISPs? I still have a connection through one, "Sonic.net". They no longer offer that to new customers.
So, will this make it illegal for GoGo to block streaming video sites on airplanes during domestic flights?
200 people trying to stream Netflix over a satellite downlink? That should be a riot.
200 people trying to stream Netflix over a satellite downlink? That should be a riot.
This thread is old, and has tons of comments. I searched for "paid prioritization" to see if anyone else had the thought I just did about what may be happening here. I don't believe anyone has yet, so either I'm wrong about my assertion or I'm the first to post. :)
> These enforceable, bright-line rules will ban paid prioritization
'Prioritize' means arranging things in order of their relative importance. Paid prioritization means arranging delivery of goods (Internet services for example) by order of the relative amount you charge for things that are important to you. Revenue, for example. Or no revenue, more specifically.
My gut says that free Internet should be a basic human right. Period. Nobody should be able to charge for it. I'm not sure how in the hell we're going to put that into practice though. I'm thinking about it.
As for compute services, well, those aren't free to run. And those compute jobs require bandwidth to complete. Should those be free? I think not. Should someone be allowed to use their 'free' allowance of Internet when it takes away from the compute services interconnects? No.
I could be off on a wrong tangent, so I'll just stop now.
> These enforceable, bright-line rules will ban paid prioritization
'Prioritize' means arranging things in order of their relative importance. Paid prioritization means arranging delivery of goods (Internet services for example) by order of the relative amount you charge for things that are important to you. Revenue, for example. Or no revenue, more specifically.
My gut says that free Internet should be a basic human right. Period. Nobody should be able to charge for it. I'm not sure how in the hell we're going to put that into practice though. I'm thinking about it.
As for compute services, well, those aren't free to run. And those compute jobs require bandwidth to complete. Should those be free? I think not. Should someone be allowed to use their 'free' allowance of Internet when it takes away from the compute services interconnects? No.
I could be off on a wrong tangent, so I'll just stop now.
Serious question: I was under the impression that mobile data networks were exempted from this type of regulation, is what he proposing going to eliminated things like the throttling AT&T / T-Mobile / Sprint does above a certain data threshold?
Is usage-based internet billing a possibility now (e.g., $0.05 per gigabyte of data), just as electric companies charge per kilowatt-hour?
If millions of people can shut down SOPA/PIPA, millions of dollars can make this not happen, sadly.
[deleted]
Good to see someone make an effort in this regard.
This, to me, is one of the most interesting topics of our time, and I find it fascinating the similarities (both philosophically and economically) to that of the railroads at the turn of the 20th century.
Much like net neutrality is the topic of the FCC, cargo neutrality on rail lines was the topic of the ICC [1] in their day. The problem of the early 1900s began with a bounty of riches in the highly competitive American Railway sector. Merchants using the railways were demanding "rebates" from railway companies for large shipments threatening to take business elsewhere and driving their shipping costs down. Of course, the same leverage was not available to smaller shippers, making their rates much higher and forcing them to raise the prices of their goods. The system was out of balance.
In 1903, congress and President Theodore Roosevelt, passed the Elkins Act [2], which eliminated rebates, but had the unfortunate side-effect of increasing price collusion between shippers and the railroads. The Elkins act did not establish a fixed rate, leaving interests to make deals that, again, were disadvantageous for smaller businesses. The only metric of discrimination was the diverting from a fixed railway schedule [3].
To correct the problems of the Elkins Act, the Hepburn Act was passed in 1906 greatly expanding the power of the ICC to regulate the Railroad Industry. The result was fixed prices on shipping deemed "just and reasonable" by the ICC, increased penalties for non-compliance, and an open and standard accounting system for the railroad companies. (As an aside, the depreciation of railway companies contributed to the Panic of 1907. A good word on that here: [4])
If all this back and forth sounds familiar, it is because we are facing the same problem today shipping bits that we were shipping coal and shirts all those years ago. The idea of prioritized delivery is not new or novel, but was dealt with before Netflix and Verizon began suing one another. What interests me is whether we will see legislation similar to the Elkins and Hepburn act for digital goods and services. I doubt very seriously that we will get fixed $/(Mbps) or $/GB mandates from the FCC, but already we are seeing definitions being made and lines being drawn [5]. There is already language from Wheeler about "responsibility to the 20 percent [without 25down/3up]", just as there was strong language from Roosevelt about the railway industries.
2015 will be an interesting year indeed.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Commerce_Commission [2] http://www.theodorerooseveltcenter.org/Learn-About-TR/TR-Enc... [3] http://books.google.com/books?id=g-pCAAAAIAAJ&dq=elkins%20ac... [4] http://books.google.com/books?id=R3koAAAAYAAJ&hl=en [5] http://www.fiercetelecom.com/story/broadband-now-defined-25-...
Much like net neutrality is the topic of the FCC, cargo neutrality on rail lines was the topic of the ICC [1] in their day. The problem of the early 1900s began with a bounty of riches in the highly competitive American Railway sector. Merchants using the railways were demanding "rebates" from railway companies for large shipments threatening to take business elsewhere and driving their shipping costs down. Of course, the same leverage was not available to smaller shippers, making their rates much higher and forcing them to raise the prices of their goods. The system was out of balance.
In 1903, congress and President Theodore Roosevelt, passed the Elkins Act [2], which eliminated rebates, but had the unfortunate side-effect of increasing price collusion between shippers and the railroads. The Elkins act did not establish a fixed rate, leaving interests to make deals that, again, were disadvantageous for smaller businesses. The only metric of discrimination was the diverting from a fixed railway schedule [3].
To correct the problems of the Elkins Act, the Hepburn Act was passed in 1906 greatly expanding the power of the ICC to regulate the Railroad Industry. The result was fixed prices on shipping deemed "just and reasonable" by the ICC, increased penalties for non-compliance, and an open and standard accounting system for the railroad companies. (As an aside, the depreciation of railway companies contributed to the Panic of 1907. A good word on that here: [4])
If all this back and forth sounds familiar, it is because we are facing the same problem today shipping bits that we were shipping coal and shirts all those years ago. The idea of prioritized delivery is not new or novel, but was dealt with before Netflix and Verizon began suing one another. What interests me is whether we will see legislation similar to the Elkins and Hepburn act for digital goods and services. I doubt very seriously that we will get fixed $/(Mbps) or $/GB mandates from the FCC, but already we are seeing definitions being made and lines being drawn [5]. There is already language from Wheeler about "responsibility to the 20 percent [without 25down/3up]", just as there was strong language from Roosevelt about the railway industries.
2015 will be an interesting year indeed.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Commerce_Commission [2] http://www.theodorerooseveltcenter.org/Learn-About-TR/TR-Enc... [3] http://books.google.com/books?id=g-pCAAAAIAAJ&dq=elkins%20ac... [4] http://books.google.com/books?id=R3koAAAAYAAJ&hl=en [5] http://www.fiercetelecom.com/story/broadband-now-defined-25-...
Tom Wheeler for president
Make a deal with the Devil and you'll only get burned. The FCC regulating the internet, what could go wrong?
Holy shit. We did it.
No last mile unbundling: does it mean that every operator has to deploy its own cable from street to home?
"there will be no rate regulation, no tariffs, no last-mile unbundling"
Translation?
Translation?
Using this authority, I am submitting to my colleagues the strongest
open internet protections ever proposed by the FCC. These enforceable,
bright-line rules will ban paid prioritization, and the blocking and
throttling of lawful content and services. I propose to fully
apply—for the first time ever—those bright-line rules to mobile
broadband. 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.
I can't believe I'm reading those words!What does the phrase "bright-line rules" mean?
Well, I believe this kicks off the biggest lobbying effort seen in a long time to get this to not happen. I certainly hope that the US internet gets Title II.
I personally learned the importance of open networks the
hard way. In the mid-1980s I was president of a startup,
NABU: The Home Computer Network. My company was using new
technology to deliver high-speed data to home computers
over cable television lines....But NABU went broke while
AOL became very successful....While delivering better
service, NABU had to depend on cable television operators
granting access to their systems....The phone network was
open whereas the cable networks were closed. End of story."
A person can't go through an experience like this without having it fundamentally affect their worldview. I wonder why, with all of the coverage the lead-up to this decision has gotten, I have not read this story before.So as someone who has been lightly following the debate, and is not familiar with the FCC's process, what are the next steps to actually start enforcing mobile and landline broadband as Title II? I also wonder how long it will take for the reclassification to become enforceable, and how long the existing companies will have to "become compliant".
This looks much better than what I feared. I'm glad they're just not regulating it under Title II, but are modernizing it:
For example, there will be no rate regulation, no tariffs, no last-mile unbundling.This is all pretty great. For the first time in a while I feel optimistic about the future of the open internet. My only concern is a small detail: "These enforceable, bright-line rules will ban paid prioritization, and the blocking and throttling of lawful content and services."
The specification of 'lawful content and services' seems a bit ominous to me. Does this imply there may be ways to monitor/limit/restrict internet traffic? To use his example, would this language be used to describe the open phone network?
The specification of 'lawful content and services' seems a bit ominous to me. Does this imply there may be ways to monitor/limit/restrict internet traffic? To use his example, would this language be used to describe the open phone network?
Obama deserves some credit for pushing and supporting Wheeler on this!
Turns out that the cable company screwed him too...nice. This is turning out to be great news.
I violated Responsible Reading Of The Internet Rule #1 and accidentally looked at the comments. I am having a hard time reconciling the vehement anti-net-neutrality anti-government hair-on-fire screaming there with the reasoned discussion and general attitude here---I would have thought the majority of readers of Wired would be of similar mind to HN readers.
Thank you, Tom Wheeler. Today is a good day for the Internet.
Read the history of the FCC, folks. You're being lead on like sheeple. "I can't believe how good this sounds". No kidding.
The comments on this post are some of the most depressing things I've ever read in response to a regulatory decision. References to Tom Wheeler being a Nazi. Someone calling the plan "Obama-fi." A user who says this:
> tom wheeler, seriously, it would be a great thing if you and everyone like you contracted ebola and died a horrible death.
This is like giving the entire U.S. population free pizza for a year, and half the population complaining because there's cheese on it.
> tom wheeler, seriously, it would be a great thing if you and everyone like you contracted ebola and died a horrible death.
This is like giving the entire U.S. population free pizza for a year, and half the population complaining because there's cheese on it.
> my proposal includes a general conduct rule that can be used to stop new and novel threats to the internet. This means the action we take will be strong enough and flexible enough not only to deal with the realities of today, but also to establish ground rules for the as yet unimagined.
What does that mean? Sounds like a euphemism for an Internet kill switch?
What does that mean? Sounds like a euphemism for an Internet kill switch?
[deleted]
"To preserve incentives for broadband operators to invest in their networks, my proposal will modernize Title II, tailoring it for the 21st century..."
This concerns me. What kinds of changes are coming to Title II?
0 - http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/02/why-the-ex-cable-lob...