FCC Quickly Shoots Down The First (Incredibly Stupid) Net Neutrality Complaint
from the chicken-little-was-wrong dept
Back in June we noted how the very first net neutrality complaint had been filed and that it was notably stupid, but important. Basically, a small San Diego company by the name of Commercial Network Services (CNS) tried to complain that Time Warner Cable was abusing its monopoly power by refusing to give the company free peering. CNS operates a series of webcams in the San Diego area which, when visited, inform users that the reason they can't access the "ultra-HD" version of the cameras is because their ISP isn't a peering partner with CNS:But the FCC has apparently seen this complaint for what it is and acted accordingly, basically informing the company politely in a letter that it needs to shut up and go away:
"In this instance we regret that you were not satisfied with attempts by FCC staff to facilitate a more satisfactory resolution of the underlying issue. At this point, you might want to contact the company directly to see if you and the company can arrive at a resolution that is more acceptable to you. You will receive no further status on your complaint from FCC staff."While the net neutrality rules don't specifically cover interconnection, they do give the authority for the FCC to resolve complaints on a case-by-case basis. In this case, the FCC clearly found nothing wrong. And that's a good thing; one narrative of incumbent mega ISPs before the rules were passed was that the FCC would run amok, competitors would abuse the rules, and we'd be wandering a minefield of unintended consequences and protracted legal battles, decimating the telecom landscape as we know it. Yet here, the FCC quickly saw a stupid complaint and shot it down with minimal fuss.
Obviously that's only one complaint, and we'll need to watch the FCC closely to see just what trips the agency's definition of anti-competitive behavior. But so far so good, and none of it has required "heavy handed regulation." Simply having rules in place has already helped on the interconnection front, with companies like Netflix, Cogent, Level 3 and the mega ISPs (Comcast, AT&T, Verizon) getting along famously simply due to the threat that a regulator might just do its job.
CNS, meanwhile, insists it's going to proceed and file a formal net neutrality complaint, for whatever that winds up being worth (and it won't be much).
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: fcc, free peering, interconnection, net neutrality, peering, webcams
Companies: commercial network services, time warner cable
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
heh
The way the rules are written the FCC could have went off the reservation. It's good they did the correct thing this time, but if next time...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: heh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: heh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: heh
I WILL wake up from this dream NOW!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: heh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: heh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: heh
The "what if..." is completely nonsensical unless you have something specific in mind? If you have nothing to point to, you are spreading fear, uncertainty and doubt.
Don't do that. Think about what that does to our children and for terrorists! ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: heh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
CNS needs lessons...
Not to mention the various adult cam sites that can send 720x480 - or larger - live streams with audio.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: CNS needs lessons...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mutual peering
But let us presume that FCC view the evidence of how the tier 1 (and their ilk) act, and how and under which condition things work in more functional democracies. And let us presume that FCC considers the Internet to be vital for a large percentage of the citizens and corporations. And then wake up from the paralysis to help USA out of the quagmire.
FCC might mandate:
1)Mutual peering
2)Roaming
3)Right of way
4)Payback of money (heaps of money)
5)Federal rules allowing municipality networks
and more
or/and
6)Title II
If they did the incumbents would whine themselves hoarse. The cost of an Internet connection would half as a measure to stop citizens from migrating to new providers, and then it would approach the real world cost. As municipalities and other providers grow they would establish peer connections making the Internet more robust. More people would afford to be part of this vital part of society. It would help USA become more competitive again. And the new technology the added connectivity helps create, would help too.
The probability that FCC would actually do something that matters to help the citizens and USA is low. Just look at the previous comments to see how unlikely. Pink unicorn unlikely!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mutual peering
Not sure why it ended up on the main thread.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mutual peering
That's what the incumbents are terrified of.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My point is: Wouldn't a good solution be to define clear exchange-Points where the exchange is free. Then the ISPs have to serve every customer to this point to declare that they give them Internet-Access and Netflix has to pay someone to transfer the data there. If there is a congestion (as is now) then the costs are shared half-half and several rules apply when the exchange has to be expanded.
What do you think of this solution? Problems will be that anyone want access to this points since then the Internet is free, so there have to be rules. But I think it is a basis from where you can evolve and micro-enterprises like in this article will have a clear answer that, as long as they don’t deliver the data to this exchange-points, they have to deal with the ISP.
(Long-term solution would be to enable a state-founded or regulated backbone of the Internet to which everyone can peer for clear terms.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I got to ask
WE can all agree that it would be nice to be-able to keep an "accurate" eye on your house while away right? without having to rely or trust someone you may not know all that well?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]