EFF Warns That FCC Net Neutrality Rules Are A Bad, Bad Idea
from the good-for-them dept
We've been pointing this out for years, but it seems that many of the "tech elite" are so focused on the phrase "net neutrality" that they're willing to jump on any sort of regulation that says it's "net neutrality." So, it's nice to see that the EFF is not following suit, but instead is warning that the FCC does not have the regulatory mandate to do what it's trying to do with net neutrality -- and if it is given that control, it will inevitably lead to much more internet regulation that we will all come to regret.We're wholly in favor of net neutrality in practice, but a finding of ancillary jurisdiction here would give the FCC pretty much boundless authority to regulate the Internet for whatever it sees fit. And that kind of unrestrained authority makes us nervous about follow-on initiatives like broadcast flags and indecency campaigns. In general, we think arguments that regulating the Internet is "ancillary" to some other regulatory authority that the FCC has been granted just don't have sufficient limitations to stop bad FCC behavior in the future and create the "Trojan horse" risk we have long warned about.In discussing this stance with Wired, Abigail Phillips, a staff attorney at the EFF said she wasn't sure what "the right solution is" to the question of keeping the basic end-to-end principles of the internet in place. I still don't think the "solution" is that complex. For over five years I've been pointing out that if there was real competition in the marketplace, net neutrality wouldn't even be an issue, because customers would go to ISPs that didn't discriminate. The real problem is how deeply connected our government is to a very small number of giant broadband providers. They've set the game up so that there's very little real competition, which allows those ISPs to pull stunts like trying to doublecharge, favor certain content, and do metered billing. Get more competition, and none of those things fly.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: broadband, net neutrality
Companies: eff, fcc
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
And where did the monolithic communications providers come from?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And where did the monolithic communications providers come from?
What is needed is a regulation that allows neutral access to the infrastructure - in particular this last mile - to multiple competing providers. This is what we are supposed to have in the UK and we do (seem to) have rather more ISPs than you seem to have in the US.
I repeat thought that there does have to be some "net neutrality" regulation - but it should be at a b2b level rather than consumer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: And where did the monolithic communications providers come from?
Hmmm, if there are 5 or 6 'natural monopolies competing with one another, are they really monopolies (natural or otherwise)?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: And where did the monolithic communications providers come from?
In most areas, there is only one wired broadband provider available. What Richard is suggesting is common-carrier status for wired broadband. I tend to agree with him, because the barrier to entry for competitors is billions of dollars in capital.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: And where did the monolithic communications providers come from?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: And where did the monolithic communications providers come from?
If you are referring to the FCC data that only tested if at least one housing unit within a zip code had broadband, then its pointless. That measurement is so widly inaccurate that it should be used as a basis for any conclusion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: And where did the monolithic communications providers come from?
/oops
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: And where did the monolithic communications providers come from?
monopoly, oligopoly, six of one, half dozen of another.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: And where did the monolithic communications providers come from?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Monopoly
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Sharing lines is mandatory.
- Building of public IXP - Internet Exchange Points that are not owned by the same people providing the lines that is a clear case of conflicting interests.
- People who sell lines or rent them should not be also the owners of content.
- A clear regulation saying that nobody can prioritize traffic.
- No exclusive deals for line sharing or access to critical infra-structure should be allowed.
- The building of infra-structure should be about building tunnels bellow too, the government should own those tunnels and others should be able to put cables there to theirs hearts content.
With that competition flourishes without any of that, plans for an internet competitivity in the U.S. are just pipe dreams, that means legislation will have to be changed and there is no political will to do so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What about corporate buyers of bandwidth? What about resellers operating in this rich market that you think you can create?
I agree with all your points but that one. Traffic prioritization will work itself out without having to open the prohibition-can-of-worms if all the other points are setup to create a healthy market, as opposed to the gimpy one we have now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
And I don't think I can create it, I know for a fact that is how Japan did it, France did and now Australia is doing it.
If you are part of the core infra-structure you are not allowed to discriminate against traffic beyond reasonable needs, that means if you are slowing down just Youtube to force them to pay you, you are breaking the rules, that means if you are slowing down every other traffic to gain advantage over other offerings you are breaking the rules.
If people wanted dedicated services they would pay for dedicated fiber not for the public infra-structure to allow that.
If anyone wants priority they put a dedicated router at both ends and don't screw with the general traffic on other lines.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
First, we can't create a dedicated connection from everyone to everyone. We must coordinate and share.
Second, if the public roads "owner" could pick how much to charge anyone on that road, then you would find a sure way to leverage that into many "monopolies" (or at least very biased advantages) in adjoining businesses. We would also find that small stakeholders would lose out.
Our public leverage (for the "little people") is exercised through our government or at least that is the intent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Metered Billing
Yeah, that's what the power, water and gas companies pulled. In the summertime my electric bill is several times more than my flat-rate internet bill, because it's metered! I think all the services (power, water, gas, etc.) should be flat rate. Every time I adjust the thermostat I worry about how much it's costing me. Ditch the meters!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Metered Billing
And my heat payments are actually now based on the size of my apartment and not how much I actually use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Metered Billing
Those wires are there regardless of whether or not any power is being sent over them and those pipes are there regardless of whether or not any water or gas is being sent through them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Metered Billing
Bandwidth is NOT a finite resource. As long as they keep on laying more fiber, bandwidth can scale near infinitely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Metered Billing
I wish you'd point me to where I can connect to this infinite source of internet connectivity. I'd like to start up an ISP off of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Metered Billing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Metered Billing
Just like the lights, the T1 will go dry when I try to get more than it can give.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Metered Billing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Metered Billing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Metered Billing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Metered Billing
In the power case there is a fairly even balance between the two - so you should expect your bill to be a combination of a fixed connection charge and a per/unit charge.
In the internet case the marginal cost of using bandwidth is minimal (and mostly consists of the actual cost of metering so you should expect a flat charge unless they make the decision to meter it - in which case your connection will be metered in order to pay for the cost of metering it!
The water case is somewhere in between.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Metered Billing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Metered Billing
So is the bandwidth of any given internet connection.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Metered Billing
More you want to see what happens when metered is institured, look no further than Canada, where prices got way up and bandwidth got capped to ridiculous low amounts is that progress?
And the f'ing ISP's keep posting billions of dollars in profits every quarter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Metered Billing
A cap on the amount of data for the ISP is meaningless though despite that this is what they often try and sell. It's not the amount of data you pull it's the amount of contention on the line and the overall data rate across the contendign users. If one downloads 5GB of data during peak hours you'll have far more effect on their network than if you pull 30GB in low usage hours. I deliberately paid a little more for my internet line to get a lower contention rate that means I get a (theoretically) reasonable amount of bandwidth even in peak hours no matter who else is thrashing their connection.
The problem is not the bandwidth it's the way ISPs sell it to consumers as something it's not. They tout the peak figure of "Super fast 20Mbps broadband" and sell you it, carefully putting the 50-1 contention rate that means what you're actually buying is 400Kb with burst capability in very tiny letters with an asterisk. Then, when it turns out it only goes at 400K because people actually wan tto use the product they pay for, the ISPs profess to be all suprised and blame it on "bandwidth hogs" when people complain that they're not getting what they bought. Then they mutter about caps and charge you more for something that has little effect on the problem but sounds useful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Metered Billing
Imagine if you got charged for phone calls whether you answered them of not. Now imagine you gets calls internationally all the time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Metered Billing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Except the free market doesn't guarantee real competition. An unregulated market does nothing to prevent monopolies and oligopolies, and those are exactly the kinds of things that may lead to a non-neutral Internet.
What we need is a set of narrow regulations that guarantee neutrality on the Internet without also giving the likes of the FCC the power to regulate content. It's not rocket science, but it does require a spine. If only there weren't so many spineless politicians.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
True competition without restriction would likely mean that many Americans would see their cable, phone, and internet bills rise significantly, as they are in rural areas that are served only because of mandates. Competitive marketplaces exist only where there is money to be made, and that is not going to be in areas where houses are a mile apart and the backhaul to the nearest CO is 30 miles.
Americans want to live the suburban dream but want to pay in town prices. These are two things that are not compatible. If you decouple the rural areas from exclusive mandates granted in the city, there would be few companies wanting to offer service outside of the major centers, and they would do it only on a "cost plus" basis, as they wouldn't have the same income from the city to support their rural networks.
If your goal is "reasonable internet for everyone", that isn't compatible with "increased competition". You only have to look at the wireless business to understand that competition alone isn't enough to push companies to serve rural areas properly.
http://coverage.sprint.com/IMPACT.jsp?ECID=vanity:coverage
EFF talks a good game, but their goals isn't at all compatible with the reality on the ground.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hmmm...
Intresting how often we're told here that the mere fact that something is related to the Internet should not cause it to be treated any differently than its non-online precursors. BUT, when you're talking about authority to regulate online activity, suddenly the Internet is this totally dfferent realm that is not addressed adequately by existing laws.
HM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ein Minuten Bitte
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ein Minuten Bitte
The FCC don't regulate the cables between Britain and Germany or the connections to UK or German consumers so it isn't an international issue - although individual countries will have their own local versions of this debate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ein Minuten Bitte
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Ein Minuten Bitte
However I'm inclined to think that the set of people who are pushing for those worrying things have their counterparts in Europe and elsewhere - so we will have these battles on our own turf before (plus as well as) we have to fend off the US attempts to push the agenda.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Trust Me, We Don't Need Regulation
Yes, there are serious issues with regulated net-work neutrality. There isn't a regulation that can't be circumvented.
What seems to be consistently missing in this whole debate is an offer by those who will be benefiting from regulatory freedom is an actual guarantee of net neutrality. There is nothing stopping them from implementing net-neutrality. They are free to choose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Net Neutrality and the FCC
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Possible Regulatory Model
The internet is the postal network of the 21st century. The rights and concerns voiced during the creation of the postal service are just as relevant to the transmission of electronic communications. The internet needs to be prompt, reliable, and efficient, servicing all patrons in all areas and all communities.
I don't disagree that more competition among ISPs will lead to network neutrality, but without public government oversight, your going to see the continued growth of companies such as Phorm.
Personally I want my internet, data agnostic and secure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Unnecessary
ISPs can't control data based on content without (logically) becoming liable for the content. That's just common sense. It's stupid that they should even think they could get away with that for a second. It should be made clear by statute.
I guarantee that none of them will get anywhere near violating true network neutrality if we do this, and it doesn't require any regulations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]