I find it interesting because, on a purely technical level, the question of the Doe being unmasked should have been rendered before the judgement was made. The lower court clearly used a bit of bootstrapping to say "well, since the plaintiff got what they want, we won't bother". Yet, that doesn't satisfy all that the plaintiff was seeking.
Yes, the unmasking is vindictive on many levels. It is also the leverage. The Doe would likely not have complied if he felt his identity would have been hidden even after a losing judgement. That he capitulated with the DMCA notice to avoid exposing himself is in itself a problem.
If the guy (or girl) is so desperate to hide their identity, you have to wonder why. If complying under duress with the DMCA notice is preferable to exposure, then their identify is significant. Could it be that there would be the basis for a much larger lawsuit if that identity was exposed? Is the Doe perhaps a former employee, a regulator, a public figure, or a litigator?
The reason for the Doe to remain anonymous must be balanced against what exposure would bring. If the plaintiff is denied their "full bite of the apple", then justice is not served.
"What part of Title II standing would kick the FTC to the curb? Heck, the FTC took action against AT&T (and are being sued for it) while Title II was in effect."
That wasn't related to internet service, rather related to "cramming" on mobile bills (voice / text message services)
"As this article and many others have iterated, the "overview of the FTC" is not stringent. There is already a legal question about whether the FTC will have the legal basis to deal with ISPs at all. Moreover, the FTC is already overburdened and must choose its battles. The ISPs are counting on that."
This is true in some senses, but misleading in others. The egregious issues forecast if NN is removed would most certainly rise to a level that the FTC would get involved. The use of monopoly power to favor one over another, to promote your own products at the detriment to others, the denying of access to websites or products, all would situations that the FTC would best address. More important, the FTC has the power to enforce tougher resolutions to issues, including using anti-trust measures to break up monopolies.
With Title II and NN rules in place, the FTC has their hands tied. Provided ISPs respect those rules (no matter how poorly), the FTC is unlikely to have anything specific to take action on. The end result is that monopoly power stays with the incumbent players and there is little reason to move ahead.
"Finally, NN doesn't "lock the current system in" in any way. It's a set of rules of what ISPs are not allowed to do, not a set of rules about what ISPs must do. "
While it is written like the former, it actually ends up creating the latter. It very much puts ISPs into a mode of maintaining their internet services at a reasonable but not impressive level, and to move on to other things.
The vast majority of improvements made at Comcast, example, is to support their X1 cable box. That is internal reserved bandwidth (as per standard) and not really an internet improvement per se. Improvements are made only as they benefit the companies themselves, and no others - and certainly not consumers. They will instead be pushing forward with payTV solutions that don't invoke the NN rules, essentially stunting the internet side in favor of their own services.
"I applaud your attempt to appear reasonable, but you read like an industry shill. Go find some other venue; TD readers are too well-informed to fall prey to this kind of rhetoric."
First, a personal attack isn't needed. I am not an industry shill.
Second, and this is important: Mike's opinion is that, an opinion. With only a few minor blips (quickly dealy with, it should be noted) the internet has had 20 years of incredibly strong growth without regulation. It is without dispute that without NN style regulations, the internet has flourished around the world. Some of the most unregulated markets have some of the fastest internet speeds and are powering forward. The US is engaged in regulatory navel gazing, and is rapidly falling behind.
Would it not be better to choose a better battle? The whole pole / one touch make ready situation is perhaps the biggest hinderance to true competition in the ISP world. The Title II declaration of 2015 purposely avoided that issue. Isn't that where the most energy needs to be spent? If Google and others could easily roll out fiber in every major city in the next few years, don't you think that "net neutrality" would be better served in that manner? Consumers with choice don't need a nanny state to regulate services.
While your post and your thoughts are measured and thorough, I think you missed one measurement that changed it all:
Is Title II standing worth kicking the FTC to the curb, and are the supposed offenses of the past not better served and dealt with within existing laws and legal frameworks.
As an example, would blocking a big part of the internet and denying certain companies access to products not be an anti-trust violation? You (and Karl) often repeat that ISPs are monopoly players. In that situation, would not the stringent overview of the FTC be better to assure a fair and level playing field? Is there a reason to essentially lock the FTC out?
Moreover, isn't the longer term goal the concept of either getting competition in the last mile or turning the last mile into a commons where many companies can compete? NN would seem to instead lock the current system in and make it harder to move forward.
Re: If Amazon Prime requires that I use Amazon hardware to access it...
Amazon has something that Microsoft really didn't, which is the power of a marketplace already made for them. Amazon has worked to develop their prime service and have some unique programming not available on other services. You need either their hardware or to use their app to view it, an app which works on many / most modern smart TVs.
Google and Amazon don't play nicely together. That isn't uncommon for two companies who's basic business models clash. They are fighting for your viewership and fighting to retain you as their viewer. Amazon doesn't want Google to profit from their efforts (essentially using Amazon prime as a selling point for Chromecast) and Google as a result won't let Amazon users see Youtube as a get back.
Then again, I can't get certain models of disc brakes to install on my mountain bike unless I also change the hub to match the manufacture. Bastards.
You only have to look at Obamacare to understand how much the difference between agency regulations and laws and their durability.
The Republicans have spent almost every second since Obamacare was passed trying to get rid of it. It has taken all the way until the last week for them to have any success in making a change, and that has been through the nasty concept of "defunding".
What really needs to happen is that Congress needs to pass law that would create "Title Internet" (whatever number they would be up to) that directly addresses the concept of the internet, ISPs, and the like.
Otherwise, the FCC and it's partisan leadership will forever flap back and forth on issues like NN.
One look down the list of Wheeler addresses (he made about 2 dozen in 2015 alone, and that doesn't account for other appearances, meetings, etc) I am pretty sure that he was in front of one or another industry group with "sponsorship" from one of the many companies involved.
The event was sponsored in part by Verizon. The event in an annual event for the industry. Wheeler has spoken at it before.
In fact, if you look at the full agenda (rather than a few cherry picked lines) you will see that other commissioners of the FCC, from the FTC, the World Bank,the US state Department, and a whole bunch of others are on there:
Re: Re: It's 200 pages to explain why we don't need the previous 400 pages.
If you read the story, that is the explanation given for the previous 400 page tome. I quote for you:
"Of course, that ignored that the actual "rules" take up just a few pages in the order. It's actually eight pages. You can see them on pages 283 through 290 of the 400 page document. All the rest of it just explains the rules -- as is required by law -- responding to comments that had been raised during the open comment period."
it is reasonable to assume that there about about the same ratio of "rule" to explanation.
All the net neutrality in the world won't stop this stuff from happening either. You still end up with the same problems you fear, just further up the chain in places that the FCC cannot regulate.
It's 200 pages to explain why we don't need the previous 400 pages. It's not new regulation, rather it's a long and detailed explanation of why the previous government power grab needs to be rescinded.
If it was published as only the rules part (probably a few pages at most) you would be leading the "where's the beef?" bandwagon. So there is no winning here.
I notice that as the day approaches, you have turned up the personal attacks, much like Pai. Are you learning anything from him?
This is a weird story, mostly because I think you miss the point:
the FTC isn't allowed to enforce because of Title II. Remove Title II (as Pai is planning to do) and suddenly the FTC is back in the game, and AT&T's legal argument goes out the window.
So repealing the Title II stuff seems to resolve the issue. With Title II, it appears that the the FTC would be powerless, and thus would have no way to enforce any consumer laws on ISPs.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: NN: The tail wagging the dog
Wrong, because of how Netflix works.
Netflix is it's own ISP in the sense that it runs it's own data centers and then it chooses how and who it peers with.
In the case of Netflix, then went one step further, back in 2010 signing an exclusive deal with Level 3 to be their connectivity supplier and also to be their CDN.
Part of the problem is that not every ISP peers directly with level 3, often only getting connectivity to them via others. Some had peering but it wasn't very large.
So sorry, it's important to understand how they operate(d) and how they connect to the internet, as well as how your local residential ISP connects as well.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: NN: The tail wagging the dog
Peering is how things are connected to the internet. Netflix at the time chose to use a single peering provider (to get a better price), and not all ISPs used the same peering. It doesn't mean they can't connect, it just means that it has to go through other intermediary peering (often public peering) before it gets to your ISP.
The stuff from Netflix has to get one the net somehow. ;)
Actually, if you go back and read the whole story about Netflix, you will find that they made a deal with a single provider (I think it was Level3) which not all ISPs peer directly with. Netflix apparently refused to use any others. So in many cases, they completely overloaded the peering that ISPs had with Level3 or "mixed peering" situations.
Netflix could have improved their delivery by assuring that they were peered at their end with more providers, which would have given them more potential routes to every ISPs.
ISPs who didn't peer with Level3 were at the mercy of peering points between the major providers, which were being overloaded.
Again, no ISP is obligated to buy peering with anyone. NN does not specify size of pipe or bandwidth ratios.
I would suspect that most (if not all) of the cases are still pending, and thus would fall into ongoing investigations, or would touch national security. Most investigations and court cases can go for years and years, so unless they are looking at stuff from, say, 2005 or so, they are likely to bump up against active cases, active prosecutions, active investigations, or cases that are actively in appeals.
They would likely have to find a specific case that is none of the above and try that. They would likely have more success. Just wide net fishing doesn't seem to lend itself to the courts suddenly exposing everything.
On the post: Appeals Court Can't Decide Whether It Should Protect Critic's Anonymity, Boots Free Speech Case Back To Lower Court
Yes, the unmasking is vindictive on many levels. It is also the leverage. The Doe would likely not have complied if he felt his identity would have been hidden even after a losing judgement. That he capitulated with the DMCA notice to avoid exposing himself is in itself a problem.
If the guy (or girl) is so desperate to hide their identity, you have to wonder why. If complying under duress with the DMCA notice is preferable to exposure, then their identify is significant. Could it be that there would be the basis for a much larger lawsuit if that identity was exposed? Is the Doe perhaps a former employee, a regulator, a public figure, or a litigator?
The reason for the Doe to remain anonymous must be balanced against what exposure would bring. If the plaintiff is denied their "full bite of the apple", then justice is not served.
On the post: Why I Changed My Mind On Net Neutrality
Re: Re: Measured
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/technology/348529-after-the-fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-the -ftc-wont-leave
On the post: Why I Changed My Mind On Net Neutrality
Re: Re: Measured
That wasn't related to internet service, rather related to "cramming" on mobile bills (voice / text message services)
https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2016/12/ftc-providing-over-88-million-refund s-att-customers-who-were
"As this article and many others have iterated, the "overview of the FTC" is not stringent. There is already a legal question about whether the FTC will have the legal basis to deal with ISPs at all. Moreover, the FTC is already overburdened and must choose its battles. The ISPs are counting on that."
This is true in some senses, but misleading in others. The egregious issues forecast if NN is removed would most certainly rise to a level that the FTC would get involved. The use of monopoly power to favor one over another, to promote your own products at the detriment to others, the denying of access to websites or products, all would situations that the FTC would best address. More important, the FTC has the power to enforce tougher resolutions to issues, including using anti-trust measures to break up monopolies.
With Title II and NN rules in place, the FTC has their hands tied. Provided ISPs respect those rules (no matter how poorly), the FTC is unlikely to have anything specific to take action on. The end result is that monopoly power stays with the incumbent players and there is little reason to move ahead.
"Finally, NN doesn't "lock the current system in" in any way. It's a set of rules of what ISPs are not allowed to do, not a set of rules about what ISPs must do. "
While it is written like the former, it actually ends up creating the latter. It very much puts ISPs into a mode of maintaining their internet services at a reasonable but not impressive level, and to move on to other things.
The vast majority of improvements made at Comcast, example, is to support their X1 cable box. That is internal reserved bandwidth (as per standard) and not really an internet improvement per se. Improvements are made only as they benefit the companies themselves, and no others - and certainly not consumers. They will instead be pushing forward with payTV solutions that don't invoke the NN rules, essentially stunting the internet side in favor of their own services.
"I applaud your attempt to appear reasonable, but you read like an industry shill. Go find some other venue; TD readers are too well-informed to fall prey to this kind of rhetoric."
First, a personal attack isn't needed. I am not an industry shill.
Second, and this is important: Mike's opinion is that, an opinion. With only a few minor blips (quickly dealy with, it should be noted) the internet has had 20 years of incredibly strong growth without regulation. It is without dispute that without NN style regulations, the internet has flourished around the world. Some of the most unregulated markets have some of the fastest internet speeds and are powering forward. The US is engaged in regulatory navel gazing, and is rapidly falling behind.
Would it not be better to choose a better battle? The whole pole / one touch make ready situation is perhaps the biggest hinderance to true competition in the ISP world. The Title II declaration of 2015 purposely avoided that issue. Isn't that where the most energy needs to be spent? If Google and others could easily roll out fiber in every major city in the next few years, don't you think that "net neutrality" would be better served in that manner? Consumers with choice don't need a nanny state to regulate services.
On the post: Why I Changed My Mind On Net Neutrality
Measured
Is Title II standing worth kicking the FTC to the curb, and are the supposed offenses of the past not better served and dealt with within existing laws and legal frameworks.
As an example, would blocking a big part of the internet and denying certain companies access to products not be an anti-trust violation? You (and Karl) often repeat that ISPs are monopoly players. In that situation, would not the stringent overview of the FTC be better to assure a fair and level playing field? Is there a reason to essentially lock the FTC out?
Moreover, isn't the longer term goal the concept of either getting competition in the last mile or turning the last mile into a commons where many companies can compete? NN would seem to instead lock the current system in and make it harder to move forward.
On the post: Google And Amazon Are Harming Consumers And Behaving Like Obnoxious Toddlers
Re: If Amazon Prime requires that I use Amazon hardware to access it...
Google and Amazon don't play nicely together. That isn't uncommon for two companies who's basic business models clash. They are fighting for your viewership and fighting to retain you as their viewer. Amazon doesn't want Google to profit from their efforts (essentially using Amazon prime as a selling point for Chromecast) and Google as a result won't let Amazon users see Youtube as a get back.
Then again, I can't get certain models of disc brakes to install on my mountain bike unless I also change the hub to match the manufacture. Bastards.
On the post: The FCC Tried To Hide Net Neutrality Complaints Against ISPs
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The Republicans have spent almost every second since Obamacare was passed trying to get rid of it. It has taken all the way until the last week for them to have any success in making a change, and that has been through the nasty concept of "defunding".
What really needs to happen is that Congress needs to pass law that would create "Title Internet" (whatever number they would be up to) that directly addresses the concept of the internet, ISPs, and the like.
Otherwise, the FCC and it's partisan leadership will forever flap back and forth on issues like NN.
On the post: Days Before Doing Verizon's Bidding, Ajit Pai Gives A Talk At Verizon
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The event was sponsored in part by Verizon. The event in an annual event for the industry. Wheeler has spoken at it before.
In fact, if you look at the full agenda (rather than a few cherry picked lines) you will see that other commissioners of the FCC, from the FTC, the World Bank,the US state Department, and a whole bunch of others are on there:
https://www.iicom.org/events/item/tmf-washington-2017-event-programme
Verizon is a sponsor of the event, but in no means appears to control it.
Tom Wheeler addressed the same group last year, also sponsored by Verizon - the very same group he was regulating! Oh, the SHAME!
You are smarter than that, have a look at the bigger picture and don't get tricked by cherry picking facts to try to build a narrative.
On the post: What Happened To Everyone Complaining About The Length Of The 2015 Net Neutrality Rules?
Re: Re: It's 200 pages to explain why we don't need the previous 400 pages.
"Of course, that ignored that the actual "rules" take up just a few pages in the order. It's actually eight pages. You can see them on pages 283 through 290 of the 400 page document. All the rest of it just explains the rules -- as is required by law -- responding to comments that had been raised during the open comment period."
it is reasonable to assume that there about about the same ratio of "rule" to explanation.
On the post: Google And Amazon Are Harming Consumers And Behaving Like Obnoxious Toddlers
Congrats for fighting the wrong war!
On the post: What Happened To Everyone Complaining About The Length Of The 2015 Net Neutrality Rules?
200 pages?
It's 200 pages to explain why we don't need the previous 400 pages. It's not new regulation, rather it's a long and detailed explanation of why the previous government power grab needs to be rescinded.
If it was published as only the rules part (probably a few pages at most) you would be leading the "where's the beef?" bandwagon. So there is no winning here.
I notice that as the day approaches, you have turned up the personal attacks, much like Pai. Are you learning anything from him?
On the post: Days Before Doing Verizon's Bidding, Ajit Pai Gives A Talk At Verizon
Re: Re:
On the post: Days Before Doing Verizon's Bidding, Ajit Pai Gives A Talk At Verizon
Re: Re:
On the post: Ajit Pai Doesn't Want You Talking About Court Ruling That Undermines His Bogus Claim That The FTC Will Protect Consumers
Wierd story
the FTC isn't allowed to enforce because of Title II. Remove Title II (as Pai is planning to do) and suddenly the FTC is back in the game, and AT&T's legal argument goes out the window.
So repealing the Title II stuff seems to resolve the issue. With Title II, it appears that the the FTC would be powerless, and thus would have no way to enforce any consumer laws on ISPs.
Seems a win to kill Title II status.
On the post: Days Before Doing Verizon's Bidding, Ajit Pai Gives A Talk At Verizon
https://www.fcc.gov/document/chairman-wheeler-international-institute-communications-event
OH SNAP!
On the post: ISPs Are Already Using The FCC's Planned Net Neutrality Repeal To Harm Consumers
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: NN: The tail wagging the dog
https://openconnect.netflix.com/en/peering-locations/
Mic drop.
On the post: ISPs Are Already Using The FCC's Planned Net Neutrality Repeal To Harm Consumers
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: NN: The tail wagging the dog
Netflix is it's own ISP in the sense that it runs it's own data centers and then it chooses how and who it peers with.
In the case of Netflix, then went one step further, back in 2010 signing an exclusive deal with Level 3 to be their connectivity supplier and also to be their CDN.
Part of the problem is that not every ISP peers directly with level 3, often only getting connectivity to them via others. Some had peering but it wasn't very large.
So sorry, it's important to understand how they operate(d) and how they connect to the internet, as well as how your local residential ISP connects as well.
On the post: ISPs Are Already Using The FCC's Planned Net Neutrality Repeal To Harm Consumers
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: NN: The tail wagging the dog
The stuff from Netflix has to get one the net somehow. ;)
On the post: ISPs Are Already Using The FCC's Planned Net Neutrality Repeal To Harm Consumers
Re: Re: Re: Re: NN: The tail wagging the dog
Learn about peering here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peering
On the post: ISPs Are Already Using The FCC's Planned Net Neutrality Repeal To Harm Consumers
Re: Re: NN: The tail wagging the dog
Netflix could have improved their delivery by assuring that they were peered at their end with more providers, which would have given them more potential routes to every ISPs.
ISPs who didn't peer with Level3 were at the mercy of peering points between the major providers, which were being overloaded.
Again, no ISP is obligated to buy peering with anyone. NN does not specify size of pipe or bandwidth ratios.
On the post: Seattle Newspaper Files Petition To Peel Back Layers Of Court-Aided Surveillance Secrecy
Re: Re:
They would likely have to find a specific case that is none of the above and try that. They would likely have more success. Just wide net fishing doesn't seem to lend itself to the courts suddenly exposing everything.
Next >>