Our Net Neutrality Comments To The FCC: We Changed Our Mind, You Can Too
from the don't-kowtow-to-the-most-hated-company dept
Earlier today, we published Mike Godwin's excellent post about why why everyone should file a comment with the FCC about their views on net neutrality (and, again, we highly recommend reading Gigi Sohn's excellent advice on what to include in your comment if you do). I see a lot of comments on that post with the defeatist and cynical response of "it doesn't matter, Pai's already decided what he's going to do."
This is self-defeating, dumb and wrong for a variety of reasons. First, everyone was saying the same damn thing about Tom Wheeler three years ago, and that turned out to be wrong. Despite being a former lobbyist for the cable and wireless industries, and his initial indications that his proposed rules would be weak and allow all sorts of mischief, Wheeler was eventually convinced to go in a different direction. Second, this goes beyond just this current FCC. Even if (as is widely expected) Pai ignores these comments and reclassifies broadband anyway, there is still a court case that will follow -- as well as Congress considering what to do. In both cases, having strong, clearly thought out arguments concerning net neutrality on the record that we can show Pai ignored will help possibly stop Pai's plan from moving forward. Pai is not the end of the story.
Third: it's the right thing to do. This is a chance to make your voice heard and participate in the process -- and you should take advantage of that. If you don't, and then you whine about how no one listens to you and how the bureaucrats and politicians don't pay attention to the people -- then you are a big part of the problem. You have a chance to weigh in here and you should.
With that said, below is what I just submitted to the FCC. My comments talk about how we, as a company, have relied on an open internet, but also why the existing rules have shown real promise in increasing competition. But, more important, it also discusses why I changed my mind on this issue. Many people here -- even long term readers -- may forget that in the mid-2000s, Techdirt was against having official open internet rules, either via Congress or the FCC. We were afraid that these rules would be bad and harmful. We worried that they would be written in a way that would stifle internet innovation. And, most importantly, we felt that they were missing the point: that the true problem was the lack of competition in broadband access. If there was a real focus on competition, net neutrality would fade away as a problem, as there would be competitive reasons to keep the internet open.
But, as we note in our comment, over the past couple decades things have changed. We've seen less and less competition, and now near-total domination of the broadband market by a few players. Even worse, those players have long histories of anti-consumer behavior and have repeatedly made it clear that they wish to end some of the basic principles of the open internet in order to put in place additional toll booths, charging extra to successful internet companies for merely carrying traffic. Finally, with the rules of 2015, we've seen a decrease in bad behavior by internet providers -- such as throttling Netflix upstream via interconnection disputes (even though that's not technically a part of the open internet rules). Similarly, we've seen that the new rules have inspired third parties like Sonic and Ting to increase their competitive broadband buildouts.
Given all of that, while we're generally worried about any kind of "regulation" for the internet, this was a case where the market had clearly failed to deliver a truly competitive and innovative market, and light touch rules as blessed by multiple courts under a Title II regime clearly made sense, and they have been working for the past two years. Changing that now makes no sense. And if we could change our mind concerning such rules, so can the current FCC.
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: ajit pai, competition, fcc, net neutrality, open internet
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
To be fair, Ajit Pai was also there three years ago and wasn't convinced then.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Wonder why he is NOW convinced? You shot yourself in the foot, lol.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
what about...
What about those that talked to their congress critters? Talking to an agency IS pointless. If "We the People" want proper representation in congress those are the folks we talk too.
The FCC should not even bother with operating a website taking opinions from the public, there are people that ALREADY have that job, but we sorta keep giving them a sizeable pass, now don't we.
Keep playing that game tho... you won't lose will you?
"The game is afoot!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: what about...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: what about...
If congress told Walmart to collect your opinions in the restroom at the back where they make the paper for people to wipe their asses with, would you go there?
If you are so willing to allow Congress to escape its responsibility then you get what you deserve. As per the constitution, Congress makes law, the agencies they create are only allowed to enforce them.
Another citizen that does not know how government works... SHOCKER!
Here is a bit of wisdom. Congress specifically did this to appear to provide good will, all it did was cause people with low intelligence to instead focus on the FCC when issues arise instead of Congress.
Go fish!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: what about...
I'm willing to bet a lot of TD readers did contact their reps to voice their opinions. Even I did, and I'm a cynical, lazy-ass defeatist. Besides, like Mike said, I can't bitch about it later if I don't put in a little effort now... and I really like to bitch about stuff.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So, how many days until website is allegedly 'hacked'?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I put together the best argument I could manage and sent it this morning, fully intending it to be my official mark on the history of this topic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
As far as I can tell Pai's view when it comes to regulations involving the companies he's supposed to be keeping in check is that there shouldn't be any. Not from the FCC, not from the states, no-one should be allowed to tell Comcast or it's 'competition' 'No' in any way that might impact their profits, and the matter should be left entirely to the wonderful(and entirely mythical) 'free market' to deal with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The tone of his voice when he kept saying that, I don't know what is worse: that he's so malevolent that he can repeat that with such sincerity in his voice, or that he actually buys into that crap argument.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Free the internet! Regulate ISPs!
ISPs (like AT&T last week) are very good at framing the discussion and claiming that they are for net neutrality only because they are opposed to both government regulation of the internet and of ISPs. I think it would clarify the discussion if instead we talked about regulation of service providers. It fits the pattern of other utility companies that most Americans are well aware of. For example, the government defines how the electric grid works but public utility commissions regulate how utility companies can operate. The key part really is regulating service providers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Free the internet! Regulate ISPs!
Regulate the ISPs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think this is well-intentioned, but naive
These are not ordinary circumstances. This administration doesn't care about the law, the Constitution, ethics, longstanding practice, or anything EXCEPT perpetuating its own power, enriching its principals, and dismantling the country we've known our entire lives.
Go read this:
https://twitter.com/Khanoisseur
It happens to be -- right now, Monday, 7/17/2017 -- a good, hard, cold look at where this is going. Adam Khan has pulled together information from disparate sources into a cogent summary.
You think you can save net neutrality with comments? You can't. It's not even a speedbump on their way to where they're going. They're going to roll over it without slowing down for even a moment and while you're busy reacting to that, they'll be on their way to the next one, and the next one, and the next one.
You're watching the systematic dismantling of the Republic and its institutions by people hand-picked for exactly that task. You think a future FCC might circle back around to this? If these people have their way, and so far there is every sign that they will, there won't BE an FCC.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I think this is well-intentioned, but naive
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/07/17/vice-chair-of-trumps-voter-fraud-commis sion-wants-to-change-federal-law-to-make-it-harder-to-vote-email-shows/
The story is that the vice-chair of the "voter fraud" commission wants to change federal law to make it harder to vote.
The commission has had no meetings. It's held no public hearings. It has performed no studies. It has produced no evidence showing that voter fraud is anything other than a microscopic problem. It has consulted no experts. It has published no research. It's done NOTHING.
But that doesn't matter, because the conclusions were written before the commission was even announced. They're going to ignore the facts, the experts, the law, the Constitution, the states, the public, they're going to ignore everything and everyone and do what they want...which in this case is to disenfranchise as many poor, rural, and/or minority voters as they possibly can.
The FCC is going to behave in precisely the same manner -- well, as long as the FCC exists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I think this is well-intentioned, but naive
The FCC is going to behave in precisely the same manner -- well, as long as the FCC exists.
I find this line of reasoning... weird. We agree that regulatory capture is a massive problem when it comes to government agencies. That's why we tend to worry about setting up new ones. But... this government agency ALREADY exists AND on top of that it actually set up good rules in 2015.
So your argument that it will always be co-opted in the interest of industry is provably false. It didn't happen in 2015. The conclusions here were not pre-drawn.
And either way, saying that because you're worried about how the agency will rule, so you won't even participate makes NO SENSE AT ALL. Not participating guarantees your cynical result. Sure, maybe you're one of those people who is so cynical that you're happy when the bad stuff you predicted happens, in part because of your own failure to act. But, man, buck the fuck up. If you think there's a problem, DO SOMETHING about it rather than sitting on your ass and bitching about it.
As for your claim that "you think comments will save net neutrality." Well, they might. Again, as we stated multiple times and which you seem to ignore, this is a long and involved process, and even if Pai rules one way, the comments likely will play into the lawsuit. And they could have a major impact.
And, again, doing fuck all -- as appears to be your plan -- doesn't help a damn thing. I get that it's "cool" to appear all savvy and cynical, but it's not. It makes you look like a slacker jackass who can't be bothered to help create necessary change.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I think this is well-intentioned, but naive
And it's not the first time I've weighed in. (I think it may be the fourth, but that's just a guess after a long Monday.)
However I suspect that this time it's just an empty gesture.
Believe me, I'd love to be wrong. Completely, totally, absolutely wrong. I'd like to think that thoughtful comments will be read and evaluated and weighed carefully, and that the FCC will decide this on the basis of what's best for the long term and for the country.
But based on six months of observation, I'm firmly convinced that this administration is going to do whatever the hell it wants whenever the hell it wants until either (a) the Republicans in Congress grow a conscience and a spine or (b) a significant number of administration officials, starting with the President, are marched out in handcuffs.
Like I said, I hope I'm wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I think this is well-intentioned, but naive
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I think this is well-intentioned, but naive
Come one, this is NOT a Trump thing. Who tried to pass SOPA, PIPA? Who tried to kill net neutrality before even trump was in power? Who deported more persons and destroyed more families than anyone? Who carried out more drone strikes than ever before, in seven countries simultaneously, killing thousands of people? Obama. OBAMA!
So stop this non-sense about Trump or Hillary, red or blue, democrat or republican. Both are part of the same elite with the same tactics and the same results. The problem is NOT Trump. The problem is Trump, Hillary, Obama, Bill Blimpton, The Bush family, and all those company execs, miltary high ranks, etc who are in efefct the 1% who want more. The problem is a set of laws that are rigged.
"dismantling the country we've known our entire lives."
And what country have you known? A country that has always been at war, illegally invading other countries and stealing their resources and oil? A country that has been behind most change of regimes in the world? A country that has been the only one to use an atomic bomb against innocent people? A country that accumulates by far most of the wealth? A country that prosecutes drug production worldwide but is the biggest consumer of drugs? The main consumer, polluter and destroyer of this world?
A country with the highest levels of fat people? Highest levels of cancer and diabetes? Where police kill innocent people all the time?
That is the country you have know all your life?
Anyone who believes in this red team vs blue team crap is just stupid and ridiculous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I think this is well-intentioned, but naive
Remember slavery was legal in your "glorious" country? What happened to it?
Remember marijuana? How it was made legal for medical use on some states? Public pressure you fool.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This isn't accurate and it's a blatant misrepresentation of the facts. Please give me confidence Techdirt isn't going the route of Fox News.
Wheeler's premise has *ALWAYS* been to establish rules so all businesses have the same access to communications regardless of size.
Verizon's success as the first reclassification gave Wheeler *NO CHOICE* but to try with Title II. I wouldn't be surprised one bit if this wasn't by design.
Regardless of the final outcome, the white elephant still exists: Paid priority. Even Wheeler himself admitted this was a "wait and see" approach, and we all know how well this is turning out to be.
What's the point of "fighting" for a reclassification if the white elephant isn't shot and dead? Small business are *STILL* screwed with the current Title II classification.
It's extremely disappointing to see Techdirt admonish its reader base, basically calling us foolish for not wasting our time.
So with that, allow me to explain why this letter writing campaign is futile.
First and foremost: WHY THE HELL ARE YOU PEOPLE CLAMORING FOR A NEARLY CENTURY OLD CLASSIFICATION?
Title II isn't capable of supporting the technological advances of communication. It never has been. Title II only ensures the FCC has jurisdiction so that no one company can own all the communication platforms (even though AT&T did have a government sanctioned monopoly doing just that).
The *ONLY* time Title II has ever been enforced was, ironically, due to AT&T's breakup, which the FCC reminded AT&T they had to share their lines whether they liked it or not.
Title II was put together only to give the FCC regulatory control, not to actually prevent companies from charging what they wanted over those lines.
Furthermore, to say these comments may be helpful for Congress begs the question: WHY THE HELL ARE YOU WASTING TIME WITH THE FCC INSTEAD OF SENDING THESE LETTERS TO THAT VERY CONGRESS?
Imagine what an impact 16 million comments to *EVERY* Congressperson would have done three years ago, and what the additional 8 million (and growing) would do *NOW*.
Instead, you rely on Pai, notoriously against reclassification three years ago, to change his mind?
You'd have to be a damned fool to believe this.
If anything, it's time to put Title II to rest and have Congress enact NEW LAWS which govern how our communications plaform exists TODAY, not what was around nearly a century ago.
This means crafting laws making it illegal to throttle or price control (no paid access) any and all communication platforms today.
This means adding price control and clear disclosure of the fees and prices set by ISPs (or OSPs, for that matter).
This means getting the laws to represent 2017, not 1917.
But go ahead and waste your time. It's your business.
Just don't make the rest of us feel ashamed just because we know you're wasting your damn time on a pointless crusade.
Are there windmills in California?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yes, if only Techdirt had already made the point that the net neutrality fight is going to end up in Congress. And written an entire article about it. And linked to that article in this one.
I submit that a guy who just spent 500 words saying "I don't wanna" is perhaps not in the best position to criticize other people for using their time in a less-than-efficient manner.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
this is not just about TD producing an article that lets it save face. It's about the trend over time, and yes TD is not doing this justice like it should either.
TD is firmly in "regulate all the things" territory here making their pro government, anti free market stance.
the government has HEAVILY regulated this sector into capture without a single doubt, you all STILL insist that there is not enough regulation.
You folks are furiously sucking on the kool-aid bottle, much to the ISP's AND governments desire! They have to you well fooled! Big Business FEARS a free market model because they know for a fact they can get government to entrench their monopolies!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
TD is firmly in "regulate all the things" territory here making their pro government, anti free market stance.
You keep saying this. We keep pointing out that it's not even remotely close to true... and yet you repeat it?
Why?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
They absolutely hate people who take a middle-ground position because, the way they see it, if you're not explicitly for them you're against them.
It's attitudes like this that poison political discourse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Complete lies. It is exactly the opposite. Political discourse is what poisons attitudes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Blather Blather Blather Burp Blather Blather Blather; repeat to induce our nausea.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I believe the popular phrase to use in this sort of situation is “show the receipts”.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"If anything, it's time to put Title II to rest and have Congress enact NEW LAWS which govern how our communications plaform exists TODAY, not what was around nearly a century ago."
So you don't believe AT&T and such will write these new laws in their favor? This my friend is where you are out of your mind.
If there is no problem why not leave everything as is?
But agree in the rest with you Techh Dirtt has been lately very rare in their comments and ideas.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How are Sonic and Ting affected?
(btw, I would be mighty peeved if the 3rd party wireless market went the way of the CLEC market in the 2000's.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This ain't gonna help
But parroting something else you've read here on TechDirt or heard on John Oliver, or relating a personal story, no matter how true and heartfelt, is neither useful nor really the point of the comment policy. Rulemaking is not up for vote, and not subject to the whims of grass-roots campaigns (real or fake) from either side.
When the inevitable lawsuit over the new rules takes place, the number of comments is irrelevant. All that matters is that the FCC took into account things it was required to take into account, and that means the law and court precedent.
There are useful acts of political advocacy that can be performed (like working through the legislative process to have actual laws passed), but writing comments consisting of the same "hard" information that's being repeated in thousands of other comments isn't one of them; it's about as effective as "Change Your Facebook Status to Raise Awareness of X" or "Sign this online petition about Y".)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This ain't gonna help
Perhaps the dissent cannon should be aimed at congressmen and senators? It seems to me that is where the power actually is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This ain't gonna help
You realize you can take the fight everywhere it can be fought? And as to "wasting time" (mentioned upthread): Surely you can't be serious. Is it that much harder to comment to the FCC than it is to _waste one's time here, writing endless screeds to the army of "leftists" who just don't "get it", even though you have told us a million times?_ Who, pray tell, is then wasting time per their own definition?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who said anything about "leftists"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Who said anything about "leftists"?
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=leftists+site%3Atechdirt.com&t=ffsb&ia=web
One of the anonymous trolls says "leftists" all the time, SirWired.
Was orbitalinsertion's response to you? Because it looks to me like it was to an anon. Maybe I'm mistaken; I hide anonymous comments, so maybe he was agreeing with the anon and talking about you?
But if he was talking to the anon, presumably he thought it was the "leftists" guy. (I'm guessing it wasn't, because "leftists" guy never writes a subject line that's under 100 characters. But I can't blame him for having trouble telling anons apart.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This ain't gonna help
No, no, no. People are not stupid, don't treat them like they are. People know what is best for them. Government is not your father. You decide for yourself.
"Oh yes, lets take America to war, those idiot people don't know but this war is the best for them. "
Sure, sure, They could even do something wildly unpopular if it were the right thing to do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This ain't gonna help
Just one simple rule. Have prices gone down or up? There you go. So much for your "They could even do something wildly unpopular if it were the right thing to do."
They haven't done the right thing ever, not congress not companies regulating themselves, that is why inequality is greater than ever!
Remember: has your cable/internet bill gone down, or up?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Going down fighting vs A self-fulfilling prophecy of defeat
For those that say that sending in comments is a waste of time because Pai isn't going to change his mind or pay the slightest bit of attention to what the public wants(despite his claims to the contrary):
You know what, I totally agree with half of that.
Pai has already decided what he's going to do, and whether three hundred, thirty thousand or three hundred million people sent in comments that were supporting of network neutrality rules, I don't for one second think that he'd change his mind.
However...
Pai is not the only person in the FCC.
Pai is not the final and ultimate authority on the matter.
More than just the FCC are going to be looking at and considering the amount of support real network neutrality rules have with the public. Whether that be the politicians who have to worry about all those pro-network neutrality people voting for someone else if they put forth or support the wrong bill, the judges who are going to be ruling on the current set of rules and looking at how many people support them and how well the FCC's actions are benefiting the public or others, how many people chime in and make their position known is likely to have an impact, whether small or significant.
It's entirely possible that this particular vote is already a done deal, that nothing will sway Pai and the other members of the FCC from the choice they've already made and are now farcically 'asking for comments' about, but saying nothing could be the difference between 'losing this battle but winning the next one' and 'giving up in this battle and losing in all of them as a result'.
The person who goes to war expecting to lose and sure of their defeat will, more often than not, end up being beaten as a result. This applies whether the battlefield is one of physical weapons, ideas or any other you might think of.
If you are sure of your defeat then you've lost from the get-go, better to fight for a possible victory than concede and ensure defeat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Going down fighting vs A self-fulfilling prophecy of defeat
Women voting was illegal.
Marijuana for medical use is now legal.
Gay have rights now.
Things can change but it will actually take effort and pressure from the Organized Civil Society. Change has never come from government or corporation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Your comment here....
There is nothing (and I mean nothing) out there that suggests you would have to ask permission for an ISP to "carry" your website. It seems to be one of the little lies that net neutrality supporters play with, the idea that ISPs are suddenly going to block off huge parts of the internet and make much of it inaccessible, while selling you over priced "over the top" services.
The truth is much more in business common sense. An ISP who did such a thing would be creating the perfect atmosphere for competition to move in. It would also very likely put them in a position where all the paid politicians in the world wouldn't be able to justify supporting them. All of the regulatory capture that you and Karl (especially Karl) go on and on about would disappear under intense pressure from the public to get their internet back.
The ISPs have little choice. As a monopoly or near monopoly player, they cannot afford to take the chance of screwing things up and having to deal with true competition. You could picture local politicians fast tracking new service setups and waving all sorts of regulation to move forward with muni internet services or to permit a new player (ala Google Fiber or Amazon whatever it might be) to swoop in and upend the market. It would almost certainly assure the politicians who do it re-election.
Quite simply, the internet isn't suddenly going to stop being open and free. The 20 plus years of public internet access has shown otherwise, and this without any regulation and any oversight except the pressure of public demand.
Will ISPs have "over the top" services that will have better connections? Yes. They have those now. Many companies from Netflix to Facebook and Google have all built out private networks and provide private peering to ISPs. Some of them have appliances inside ISP data centers to serve content and do other things for them, without any need for peering. This is not a new thing, this is not something special.
Remember, the Net Neutrality fight started because Netflix (and it's bandwidth intensive business model) couldn't get enough peering because they chose to use a single provider that wasn't always well liked by ISPs. Some ISPs had no direct peering (so traffic had to go to another peer before getting to the ISP, or the ISP had limited peering because it is a "pay for access" peering situation.
Since then Netflix has moved aggressively to build out their network and make deals with ISPs to improve their lot in life.
If you want true net neutrality, it should work like this: ISPs should be obligated to obtain peering via third party companies. These companies would be the only sources of internet connections. Nothing could exist inside the ISP network that does not come through these peers. Netflix and all other internet services would be required to use these companies on an equal footing to get their products to the consumer. They would not be allowed to deal with the ISPs in any manner.
Since we have already jumped that shark, net neutrality really isn't possible without some huge clawbacks that nobody wants to deal with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Your comment here....
You jumped it. Nobody in your head wants to deal with what YOU perceive as clawbacks. There's so much bullshit in your comment that's hard to reply in a short one.
"There is nothing (and I mean nothing) out there that suggests you would have to ask permission for an ISP to "carry" your website."
Of course, that would be going too far. But charging a toll to be delivered in time, with no throttling? Without NN they can. That's almost like having to ask permission but with money.
"All of the regulatory capture that you and Karl (especially Karl) go on and on about would disappear under intense pressure from the public to get their internet back."
It's been explained time and time again to you but intelligence is not your strong trait. If the ISPs were properly regulated like Karl has suggested there would be more competition or at the very least better service with no bullshit like zero rating and throttling. The precise lack of regulation and action by the govt is what allowed the whole sector to undergo a concentration. If there was no regulation at all we would be back to 1984 with a giant Comcast royally screwing customers with nobody to protect them.
"and this without any regulation and any oversight except the pressure of public demand."
No. Just no. It's been already explained to you, there was regulation till the 2000's. Then some moron thought "we need less regulation" and we have Comcasts and Verizons of the world as the product.
"Will ISPs have "over the top" services that will have better connections? Yes. They have those now. Many companies from Netflix to Facebook and Google have all built out private networks and provide private peering to ISPs. Some of them have appliances inside ISP data centers to serve content and do other things for them, without any need for peering. This is not a new thing, this is not something special. "
And this has NOTHING to do with NN. It's a matter of natural network topography. And it was already explained here.
"Remember, the Net Neutrality fight started because Netflix (and it's bandwidth intensive business model) couldn't get enough peering because they chose to use a single provider that wasn't always well liked by ISPs."
No, it's much older than that. This was one episode of the ISP abusing its last mile dominance to screw Netflix by refusing to add a 20k equipment that would provide better services to thousands of customers. Netflix offered to pay for the equipment. Level 3 had a very thorough explanation of how they had shitloads of capacity to spare and the culprit was Verizon (if memory serves).
The next paragraph is a huge pile of crap that I'm not even quoting. If we want NN ISPs should be forbidden from providing content while owning the pipe and should be mandated via regulations to provide equal paths to whoever was using their structure. The customers PAID to get the pipe and they should use it the way they desire.
Seriously.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Your comment here....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Your comment here....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Your comment here....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Your comment here....
There is no assurance of any particular speec between you and any website.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Your comment here....
Wait, so you think Netflix (and other big bandwidth users) should be allowed to obligate an ISP to add equipment, maintain it, and so on just because Netflix business model depends on it?
I think you miss a really important point here: net neutrality doesn't suddenly mean an ISP will be obligated to add peering or connectivity. NN requires everyone to get an equal chance, but it doesn't specify that an ISP has to build up it's network in support of it.
Nor for that matter can NN force an ISP to peer with anyone. So if Netflix chooses to use only level3, and your ISP chooses not to directly peer with them, then your connection to them might not be that good. The ISP isn't obligated by law to peer.
"Of course, that would be going too far. But charging a toll to be delivered in time, with no throttling? Without NN they can. That's almost like having to ask permission but with money."
An ISP who fails to deliver the internet reasonably runs the risk of competition in their marketplace. If the public is outraged, the politicians won't be able to run interference for them. Instead, the elected critters might actually make it easier for competition to come in.
Moreover, and this is key: Not a single ISP has even suggested anything like this.
" If we want NN ISPs should be forbidden from providing content while owning the pipe and should be mandated via regulations to provide equal paths to whoever was using their structure. The customers PAID to get the pipe and they should use it the way they desire."
This is another area I think you are half right and half wrong on. I don't think ISPs should be content companies, but that ship sailed a very, very, very long time ago and there isn't any coming back from it. Forced divestiture isn't in the cards any time soon.
As for "paid for the pipe" you have to remember that no ISP sells you access with any assumption of 24 hour per day 100% usage. Generally they run anywhere from 6 to 1 to 100 to 1 on connectivity depending on the ISP. That means as an example they may sell 1000 customers on 10 meg per second modems, connected to one CO that is connection with a 1 gig connection. They have a 10 to 1 ratio. Most of the time it's not an issue, but certain apps such as Netflix and other video streaming technology tend to push the limits for many consumers. That overloads the network (both at the peering and all through the distribution network of the ISP themselves). It's not an easy fix without throwing a whole lot of money at it.
Simple truth is that Google, with absolute bucket loads of cash came in, tried to be an ISP, and quickly figured out it was expensive to do and a real money loser for them. Google usually keeps bad things going for years, but they have stopped Fiber dead in it's tracks, and there have been some suggestions they may even be trying to offload the whole thing back to one of the incumbent players. Being a bare ISP isn't all it's cracked up to be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Your comment here....
More like Google run into the administrative nightmare called access to utility poles, where the Incumbents make it almost impossible for a competitor to come into the market.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Your comment here....
No, the ISP should be obliged to add equipment to better serve the customer who wants to use Netflix. Which is the same as this site, Youtube, Hulu and whoever. The customer is paying to get the access, if they use or not it's their problem. The ISP MUST provide a decent service and if it means adding more ports then it should. It MUST. While network topography has little to do with NN, an ISP abusing their last mile in order to screw other services into paying what the customer is already paying is clearly a problem.
"An ISP who fails to deliver the internet reasonably runs the risk of competition in their marketplace."
No they don't in a good portion of the US who can't have broadband from more than 1 ISP.
"Moreover, and this is key: Not a single ISP has even suggested anything like this. "
No? Data caps with exemptions to their own services? Throttling of whatever services (torrents, streaming) unless its their own? Addition of zombie packets? No need to suggest when you are already doing it.
"This is another area I think you are half right and half wrong on. I don't think ISPs should be content companies, but that ship sailed a very, very, very long time ago and there isn't any coming back from it. Forced divestiture isn't in the cards any time soon."
Nah, it can be done, it's just difficult, complex and will have a huge lobbying against. That's why we need though NN rules in the absence of that separation.
"As for "paid for the pipe" you have to remember that no ISP sells you access with any assumption of 24 hour per day 100% usage."
I don't care, they sold me X speed they should deliver me that speed whenever I want. It's quite amusing to see you ranting about 100% usage all of the time so I'll give my own example: I have the 4 screen plan and a 50/30mbit (down/up) connection (lucky to live in a large urban area). At any moment there will be at least 1 Netflix connection running because it's college break and my partner is at home most of the day. When I get home I turn mine on. There's also bittorrent. I'm constantly seeding anything from 200 to 400 torrents 24/7. My consumption if you count both upload and download blasts over 1Tb very easily any given month. My ISP doesn't have caps and doesn't throttle anything even though it's been selling aggressively for the last 2 years (and benefiting from cord cutting because it is a standalone service, they just offer fixed line via voip). So, if my ISP doesn't see a problem with such heavy users (and most of my heavy using friends came to this ISP) then your argument is simply flawed.
"Simple truth is that Google, with absolute bucket loads of cash came in, tried to be an ISP, and quickly figured out it was expensive to do and a real money loser for them."
Let's ignore the fact that the incumbent ISPs fought tooth and nail to make the deployment as hard and expensive as possible. Let's ignore the state laws ISPs wrote to prevent new competition from entering. Let's forget that Google decided to find ways to deploy their services without having to use poles and other utility structure so it's not like they abandoned it, it's just that they got fed up of getting screwed by the incumbent ISPS. Let's ignore that where Google Fiber deployed the other ISPs magically started offering better services. Right?
I know you'll keep ignoring facts and spewing your bullshit but at the very least don't use obviously debunked arguments.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Your comment here....
No, ISPs are obligated to do it, so I, the customer, get a great experience. It could be Netflix, it could be Hulu, it could be Youtube or any other video delivery company. If any ISP cannot do it then why not just GTFO? Where is the consumer in all your conversation? Nowehere.
Netflix (or whoever other for that matter) is bringing the video, the video that people actually demands.
People is bringing the money, the money to religiously pay month after month the bills that ISPs demand.
ISPs are NOT bringing the required capacity that video delivery services and people demand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Your comment here....
Woo hoo!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Techdirt and the EFF were right before
You had it right the first time. I complained when Techdirt and the EFF both flipped positions for what seems like public pressure rather than on principle. You were once skeptical about bureaucrats dictating what is and isn't legal on the internet.
Competition has overall increased during this time (Google Fiber, FioS, AT&T Fiber and more have all expanded to areas introducing more competition), it's just very slow since everyone is focusing on net neutrality rather than putting the focus on the need to increase of competition. Net neutrality literally does absolutely nothing about competition.
History has shown that this type of legislation leads to regulatory capture that benefits the legacy companies strengthening their monopoly. It's government getting involved that got us into this, them getting involved more while not removing their previous involvement will lead to even less competition. Any new ISPs needs to follow the previous rules and also these new net neutrality rules making a larger barrier of entry and leading to less competition.
Here is a quote from the head of Google Fiber about net neutrality.
The FCC should be abolished, it has done nothing good for society. I wouldn't in a million years think that most people online would be fighting for this terrible and corrupt organization to regulate the internet.
Now I will wait for the replies from armchair economists, IT professionals, and policy analysis telling me with my decades of relevant experience that I don't know what I'm talking about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Techdirt and the EFF were right before
Increased in very select areas you mean. And the competition part can't be addressed with serious money and regulatory fixing. NN is just a blanket to cover those customers that will never have many options, real competition to choose from. So yeah, we should be focusing on NN as well.
"also these new net neutrality rules making a larger barrier of entry and leading to less competition."
Please explain me why. Let's take a smaller ISP that successfully installs their network. They provide no other service so they don't have any interest in giving priority to any other service. In fact they want to be chosen by the public so they'll focus on giving a better service for a better price. NN says they have to do.. NOTHING to the traffic, they have to let it be. So what's the barrier?
That Google statement just highlights how Google was unaffected by the rules. Because it was already following them. The focus of NN isn't providers that are doing it right, it's Comcast, Verizon, ATT etc..
"The FCC should be abolished, it has done nothing good for society."
I'm not so sure. Who would regulate a market in dire need of proper regulation?
"telling me with my decades of relevant experience that I don't know what I'm talking about."
Armchair? Really? I don't need to reply to you, there are plenty fo excellent texts by people that actually have technical expertise and are well known in the EFF, here and in other places proving you wrong. Or at the very least misguided.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Techdirt and the EFF were right before
I would think with your decades of relevant experience, you would understand that ISPs are not the Internet, Blake.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Techdirt and the EFF were right before
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Techdirt and the EFF were right before
I never said they were however regulating ISPs is regulating the internet. If it isn't why do you think net neutrality would save the internet? After all, ISPs are not the internet...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Techdirt and the EFF were right before
Because network neutrality rules keep the ISP's from screwing with the internet by deciding who gets special treatment(such as zero-rating) and who doesn't. The rules have nothing to do with the internet itself, instead they're focused on keeping the ISP's from messing with it.
'You must treat all traffic equally' does not in any way negatively impact the internet itself, instead it allows sites both small and large to operate under an equal footing, without an outside party deciding to give one or the other favorable treatment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Techdirt and the EFF were right before
Counterpoint: no, it isn't.
For the same reason that if I need to drive to the store, regulations on the roads affect my ability to get there. That doesn't make them regulations on the store.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Techdirt and the EFF were right before
"...regulating ISPs is regulating the internet."
Not even close. Nothing about rules governing ISP behavior even touch the actual content on the Internet.
"If it isn't why do you think net neutrality would save the internet? After all, ISPs are not the internet..."
Do you think anybody outside of the US gives a shit about what US ISP's are doing? Of course not, because US ISP's are not the Internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt and the EFF were right before
I live in a country with NN and I still look on with worry at the fight for NN in the US.
Just because we have, and have had NN for a long time, doesn't mean that ISP's and bad politicians aren't looking for a way to dismantle it and they are waiting for a precedent they can use.
Whether we like it or not, the US does influence a lot of regulation and small countries, particularly in the tech industry.
I fear that the loss of NN in the US would fire a starting-shot for the ISP's to try and get it removed in other countries as well.
So even though I am a not native to the US, or have ever even been there, I follow and support your fight for NN and I try to inform as many as possible here as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Techdirt and the EFF were right before
No they are not the Internet, but they can control where you go on the Internet. They often also provide a cable service over the same physical network, and the Internet provides a lot of competition to that service, which they would like to either minimize, or charge their customers and that competition to more than make up for falling cable subscriptions.
That is the classic situation where regulation is needed to prevent abuse of a near monopoly business to harm potential competitors.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Techdirt and the EFF were right before
If you argued that title II is overreaching, you may have some good points, but that is another issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Techdirt and the EFF were right before
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Techdirt and the EFF were right before
Has your cable/ISP bill gone up or down?
It has been going up and up. There is less and less competition.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is self-defeating, dumb and wrong for a variety of reasons. First, everyone was saying the same damn thing about Tom Wheeler three years ago, and that turned out to be wrong.
i'm one of those who said this but i think the thing you're missing is that Pai was against Wheeler then and has always maintained what he wanted to do. why do you think Trump put him in charge? he's doing exactly what everyone that Trump has given important positions to, whatever he/she can to aid businesses! the people dont matter to him or those he has given lofty positions to and as long as he is President, he will continue, with their help, to screw the people as much and as often as he can!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
When was SOPA tried to pass? PIPA? There was also an attack to Net Neutrality under Obama.
Inequality has kept growing, under both parties. Same for war. Same for people incarcerated for petty offenses. Same for police killing innocents.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Busy day at work, but I made it...
IMHO, I put my own reasons why I felt self defeated into my comment, any why this is actually against the FCC Charter. Hell, it's written on the first line: "The Federal Communications Commission regulates interstate and international communications". If they are going to allow blocking of communications, they better damn well have a reasonable and lawful reason to allow it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Speak up
https://www.s9.com/charter/blog/how-charter-spectrum-is-handling-the-net-neutrality-debate/
It is not about what is going to happen in the future, it is about did you make the slightest of efforts to stop it from happening.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]