In The FCC's Own Words: Chairman Wheeler Has Proposed Online Discrimination, Paid Prioritization, And Exclusive Deals
from the that's-not-net-neutrality dept
Last week, we showed how the Verizon court decision made it clear that without Title II reclassification, the internet would be open to discrimination, paid prioritization and exclusive deals. This week, we're looking at how FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler's claims back that up, despite his attempts to argue otherwise.Chairman Wheeler claims to oppose discrimination and a two-tiered Internet of fast lanes and slow lanes.
Chairman’s speech on 5/15/14: “This agency supports an Open Internet. There is ONE Internet. Not a fast internet, not a slow internet; ONE Internet. … The potential for there to be some kind of ‘fast lane’ available to only a few has many people concerned. Personally, I don’t like the idea that the Internet could become divided into ‘haves’ and ‘have nots.’ I will work to see that does not happen. In this Item we specifically ask whether and how to prevent the kind of paid prioritization that could result in ‘fast lanes.’”But his proposal would authorize discrimination and a two-tiered Internet of fast lanes and slow lanes.
Chairman’s proposal: “[W]e propose to adopt the text of the no-blocking rule that the Commission adopted in 2010, with a clarification that it does not preclude broadband providers from negotiating individualized, differentiated arrangements with similarly situated edge providers (subject to the separate commercial reasonableness rule or its equivalent). So long as broadband providers do not degrade lawful content or service to below a minimum level of access, they would not run afoul of the proposed rule. We also seek comment below on how to define that minimum level of service. Alternatively, we seek comment on whether we should adopt a no-blocking rule that does not allow for priority agreements with edge providers and how we would do so consistent with sources of legal authority other than section 706, including Title II.” (para. 89)That is, the rule proposed would allow for cable and phone companies to offer and cut new deals with websites and applications, and those deals do not have to treat similar companies similarly. These priority arrangements could be for a fee, and wildly different fees for each site. As an "alternative" to the proposal, the FCC agreed to ask whether it should adopt a rule that forbids "priority arrangements," but that is certainly not Wheeler's official proposal.
Further, Wheeler is also proposing exclusive deals, with merely a rebuttable presumption against a very small subset -- between an ISP and a website it owns. So Verizon-Amazon or Comcast-Apple exclusives would be legal.
In light of such concerns, we propose to adopt a rebuttable presumption that a broadband provider’s exclusive (or effectively exclusive) arrangement prioritizing service to an affiliate would be commercially unreasonable. (para. 126)What this means is that the FCC is presuming that all exclusive deals with websites and applications are reasonable -- except for a small subset where a cable company makes an exclusive deal with a company it owns. So if Comcast prioritizes NBC.com (which it owns) and one other company (say Apple or Facebook), then Comcast's deals are presumed reasonable. If Verizon makes an exclusive deal with one investment platform (e.g., E-Trade or TD Ameritrade), then the exclusive deal is presumed reasonable because Verizon does not own either of them.
As I noted in my previous post , if the FCC relies on the authority in Section 706, and not the one in Title II, the FCC must in fact permit discrimination, paid prioritization, and exclusive deals. Meaning, so long as the FCC grounds its rule in Section 706 and not Title II, Wheeler could not have even proposed a better rule.
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: discrimination, exclusive deals, fcc, net neutrality, open internet, paid prioritization, reasonable, section 706, title ii, tom wheeler
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Then we'd not have a few companies trying to find creative ways to get even more money instead of having to actually expand their networks to meet what they already sold.
So services will have to pay to travel over the the lines, customers will have to pay to access the line, and pay more when the data caps get put into place because they are jealous of the money wireless is pulling in.
And magically no money will be put into improving the service or underlying infrastructure, making sure that broadband is capped at 1024kbps and the fact no one is willing to pay the cost of a new car for faster speeds will be all the convincing the FCC needs that we shouldn't have better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cars
This is what is proposed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cars
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cars
http://www.thruway.ny.gov/ezpass/greentag.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Cars
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Cars
He loves that shit!
~Texan
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pay Attention to the Phrasing
Granted this gets into an area that I despise, the intersect of legal and technical definitions, but what what this sounds like to me is the preservation of the very common and long standing practice of peering agreements.
This is important because, in general, peering agreements have nothing to do with content. There are situations where the peering agreement does have to do with content, and I'm sure most of this site's readers will be familiar with the Netflix/Comcast agreement.
While the Netflix/Comcast agreement does give Netflix a "better" connection to Comcast's network, it is important to understand that this is an edge connection between two networks. I say this because most of the media attention(I include the blogosphere in this statement) illustrates a situation more similar to a QoS implementation prioritizing Netflix traffic.
This brings me to two important points:
1.) There is a world of difference between increasing throughput on an edge connection and implementing QoS.
2.) Without these peering agreements the internet as it exists today would cease to function.
What I think is the most important point to note is made in the last paragraph of the article, dealing with what authority the FCC is relying on. In reality, the FCC is on shaky ground making any attempt to regulate internet traffic in any way. The FCC knows this, and so do most other folks knowledgeable on the subject.
This is one of many reasons why I think most of what the FCC can/may do at this point is little more than lip service. What remains to be seen is whether or not they decide to pursue actions(undoubtedly with heavy opposition) that do make a significant impact.
This situation, in my opinion, also further underscores the need for significant internet related legislative actions far beyond the authority of the FCC.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Pay Attention to the Phrasing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Pay Attention to the Phrasing
The author really needs to take a step back and re-read the original FCC quote, and come to understand the issue.
Now, I personally think that such direct peering arrangements are still against the concept of net neutrality if you take it to it's absolute limit. My personal feeling is that ISPs should always obtain their peer connectivity from transit providers, and that services should do the same. In that manner, all services would generally have the same access to the ISPs network. However, peering is the very nature of the internet, and a direct peering arragement that doesn't cause other services to be degraded, blocked, or obstructed appears to be neutral enough.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Pay Attention to the Phrasing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who determines what's legal , Comcast and Verizon could decide that a site who's had a DMCA request sent to them as illegal , I'm not good with this wording, It's a dingo in a baby suit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
When the FCC references "minimum level of access" you really need to be concerned seeing as their "advanced" level of access is a whopping 4 Mbps...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're right, so far only one ISP has demonstrated a desire to do that. I mean, what are we worrying about right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Should point out too that even with Netflix being willing to purchase prefential service, it's still going to take a long while to get it all hooked up and working. There are no instant solutions... just Netflix blaming others for their business model failings.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, it was Comcast intentionally letting their links with Netflix's provider saturate.
Should point out too that even with Netflix being willing to purchase prefential service, it's still going to take a long while to get it all hooked up and working.
Wrong, speeds immediately recovered after Netflix paid up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So much wrong in that sentence...
First off, the conflict was between Verizon and Netflix (and Level3 after Verizon pulled them into it).
Verizon "fixed" the problem by spending 5 minutes and a couple thousand dollars for a new port card, but only after Netflix payed up.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140718/06533327927/level3-proves-that-verizon-is-absolutely-t o-blame-netflix-congestion-using-verizons-own-data.shtml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I was thinking it might have been Verizon, thanks for mentioning that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Perhaps that is the true intent of the govt. It might sound like tin-foil-hat thinking but what if the pesky internet was removed and instant, user generated content (read: dissent) were quashed?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
so...
That is what the future could turn out to be... oh my.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Truth About Chairman Wheeler...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wheeler-Dealer Tom
"Wheeler-Dealer Tom" knows which side of the bread to butter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
testing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]