I'm all in favour of treating Internet access as the "fourth utility". It's clear it's become almost as essential to modern life as electricity.
I do however find the doom and gloom prognostications around Title II repeal to be incredibly hyperbolic and unhelpful. Fact is, Title II was only introduced in 2015. It's not like repeal in 2017 is going to end the Internet overnight.
There are three problems here:
1. The US has a harebrained notion of "competition" in creating regional monopolies.
2. It actually doesn't make much sense to build multiple last-mile networks. This is called an overbuild and is rather wasteful given the capex involved. It's also why strict rules are in place for utilities: it underscores the fact that utilities are monopolies and seeks to prevent overbuilds.
3. ISPs have been allowed to frame the debate on peering with outright falsehoods. Specifically, the likes of Comcast claim that it's "unfair" that the likes of Netflix can "push" data onto their network for free no less. Netflix of course isn't pushing anything. Comcast's customers are requesting it.
It's all just a thinly-veiled attempt to stifle VOD providers to prop up dying (yet profitable) cable TV businesses. The fact that politicians aren't able to or don't want to see through this is both unsurprising and disappointing.
Adopting net neutrality laws at a state level is an interesting idea that may force Federal regulatino. I mean what's worse that one set of Federal rules for a large company? 50 sets of state rules, that's what.
Even if just CA and NY adopt this, that's already a sizable amount of the population.
I'm also in the pro-NN camp, and have been for a very long time, and my observations match yours: the pro-NN propaganda this year is definitely a lot more about hype and emotions than it is about facts.
I think it's really just because it was successfully made into a mainstream political issue. So now you have to appeal to the mass audience, not just IT nerds; and we're just seeing the same tactics that is routinely used to whip up support (or opposition) to other stuff.
I'm actually weirdly uncomfortable about this. It's like being the guy who has cried wolf for many years, and now half of the village is there with you; but you see them pointing at rocks, logs etc, and insisting that these are all wolves, and we're all going to die now. It really made me question just how many people who happen to share my political positions, do so because they genuinely understand and agree with the policies, and not because it's just what you're supposed to do when you have a certain identity (liberal etc).
Title II was only introduced as a result of the Open Internet Order (from 2010) being overturned. Net neutrality principles have been sanctioned by the FCC since 2005; removing title II designation and moving away from these principles is a shift that should not be understated.
I remember a time when you couldn't text to other carrier, while Europe had it since the 90s.
I remember how your carrier would not let you use facetime/skype etc....
Anyway, you are paying for access to internet and you should have it.
This is akin to letting a private entity building a private highway on a public ground, and the owner of the highway can say: Only Audis and BMWs are allowed here...
> I do however find the doom and gloom prognostications around Title II repeal to be incredibly hyperbolic and unhelpful. Fact is, Title II was only introduced in 2015. It's not like repeal in 2017 is going to end the Internet overnight.
So when you say "it was only introduced in 2015", what you really mean is "it was a heavily disputed situation for 20 years in with multiple court cases being won and lost by ISPs".
So yeah, this is the first time the regulatory framework is basically _gone_ even if it wasn't "Title II".
1996 Telecommunication Act: It was a legal gray area, particularly given dial up / dsl over telephone lines.
2002: FCC exempts NCTA by declaring it an information service, not telecommunications.
2005: NCTA wins at the Supreme Court
Open Internet Principles: 2005-2010 (i.e. Threatening to regulate)
Open Internet Order: 2010-2015 (Regulating, legally overturned)
It was treated as such prior to that, implicitly (without the force of law). Policy was established to enforce it, formally. It wasn't just "introduced", it was tacitly accepted until there were known bad actors, because there was an expectation that acting in opposition would birth policy (it did). Pretending that traffic was treated equally before and after, is just another piece of mischaracterization. A piece that is used to distract from, and minimize, the problems with removing the policy.
> It actually doesn't make much sense to build multiple last-mile networks. This is called an overbuild and is rather wasteful given the capex involved.
Yes, obviously. Just like roads. Which is why local governments should design and operate all residential internet networks.
Or: Yes, obviously. A house really only needs one electrified wire, which is why we should turn over internet service to the power company.
Or: Yes, obviously. We don't want an internet that's wasteful in any part of its operations, which is why it should be run entirely by the federal government. In fact, it's about communications, so let's combine it with the USPS.
Or: Yes, obviously. Given its vital role in society and its origins as a DARPA project, it should be entirely built and operated by the US Army.
On the other hand, maybe what we need is a proper market in internet connectivity, with multiple providers using different technologies and approaches to meet consumer needs, and a strong regulator that keeps large companies from driving the small ones under.
As somebody who lives in one of the few competitive ISP markets in the US and pays $50/month for my gigabit home fiber connection, I think I prefer the latter.
One reason to be in the doom and gloom camp is that we now have an administration and an FCC that is openly hostile to net neutrality. The previous FCC was engaged in multiple rulings (against Comcast and others) in favour of neutrality, long before the Title II classification. There's every indication that, if presented with similar complaints in the future, the current FCC will not make similar rulings.
In the AMA we had with the New York State attorney, he said that the title II regulation came about because the courts struck down the usage of title I for the same thing. So we haven't actually had much experience with unregulated ISPs at this point.
> This is called an overbuild and is rather wasteful given the capex involved.
Wasn't the original phone system vastly over built and that is the reason that things like DSL were possible without having to run new wiring in many homes?
So far today I've learned that a two year old policy being repealed is anti-gay, will stop women from getting abortions, will stop the black lives matter movement from speaking freely, and will prevent the #metoo movement from growing. Yes, all because the internet before 2015 was completely censored and prevented free speech.
If anything, I've seen a significant rise in censorship since NN was passed.
The real solution to the problem, as I see it, is not even Net Neutrality (though I strongly support Net Neutrality).
The solution is to break the monopolistic stranglehold on last-mile internet service.
If it were possible to have competition in the last-mile ISP space, then consumers could vote with their wallets and choose those ISPs who supported Net Neutrality.
An alternate partial solution would be to force companies breaking net neutrality to report it on their customer's bill.
These are orthogonal issues. Net neutrality is important regardless of isp options. Not only on principle either, not everywhere will naturally have competition.
Neither one of those is a true solution. For one, we currently do not live in a climate where competition is happening. Every NN supporter would love for that to happen, but for now it's not. Second, not every place can support competing ISPs. Do the people who live in the inner city or out in rural areas not deserve a neutral net?
The FCC voted in 2015 to preempt state restrictions in Tennessee and North Carolina against municipal broadband [1][2], in response to a petition brought by the cities of Chattanooga, TN and Wilson, NC. This was struck down by the Sixth Circuit in 2016 [3].
It's going to be interesting to see this idea tested again.
Funny, I was listening to oral arguments on the Supreme Court last night on the way home from work. I'm not a lawyer, but my layman interpretation of what they were arguing (specifically in reference to sports betting) is that if the federal government chooses not to regulate something, they cannot also preempt state regulations.
I reserve to right to have completely misunderstood the legalese that I was hearing :)
Given that the FCC only recently lost a court case about its authority to preempt state laws banning muni broadband, how would this situation be any different?
I was under the impression that the majority voice in this argument (i.e. mortal American citizens) was completely against this. Yet it still ended up that they dismantled net neutrality.
If it's true that the majority wanted to keep net neutrality, then how come the majority was ignored? Maybe I'm missing something but this seems like a good example that our voice in the US doesn't matter beyond local things like whether or not your town will allocate money towards a new public swimming pool.
Go vote on whether or not you get a nice new swimming pool. The monopolists are the only ones that have a voice in grown-up topics. That's what I'm gathering from this. Accurate or alarmist nonsense?
> If it's true that the majority wanted to keep net neutrality, then how come the majority was ignored?
Because the majority (at least, as weighted for electoral influence in both political branches of government) has prioritized other things in voting for representatives. Legislation, whether direct votes or through representatives, involves not only opinions on particular questions, but opinions on the relative priority of questions, which effects how questions are aggregated and how those aggregated questions are answered.
The majority wants net neutrality, sure, but continuously says (by voting) that they care about it much less than they care about other things, and that they are willing to sacrifice NN tomget those other things.
> If it's true that the majority wanted to keep net neutrality, then how come the majority was ignored?
Because the FCC isn't accountable to the public, majority or not. If a majority protest was directed at a congress person, you can be sure they would listen – we're the ones who vote them in/out. And that's exactly what we're going to do to get NN enacted as law.
The FCC is effectively controlled by 3 Republican appointees[1] who aren't accountable to anyone by Trump. They do not care about the will of the people. Pai is a former telecom exec and his only concern is lining the pockets of his cronies with more cash.
[1] Yes, I know Pai was appointed by Obama, on Mitch McConnell's advice. That's how these things work: 5 members, split between the two parties, with the incumbent administration's party getting the extra seat.
Forget about Net-Neutrality, it's gone, it's a dead horse. Let's see some competition.
I cannot believe that I live in the middle of the infamous Silicon Valley and only have a single choice when it comes to fast broadband, and that one goes down every other month for 3-8 hours.
I took the time today to inquire (again) with Wave/Astound, Sonic, AT&T about FTTH.
AT&T gave me the worst rep humanly possible. I spent 20mins on the phone with her for her to still utterly misunderstand my question, as she was apparently unable to understand or speak english. I already knew Gigapower was not available, I just want SOMEONE to tell me when they plan to offer service at my house, less than a mile from the Redwood City / Spring St CO. No luck.
Sonic did the usual "maybe if you sign up for DSL and you talk all of your friends and neighbors into signing up, we'll vaguely consider bringing FTTH in 2050".
Wave actually had me enter my info and said someone would check my neighborhood (!?) and get back to me within a couple of days.
I'd love to pay, whatever, $1000 to get someone to bring some FTTH here and subsequently make it available to neighbors, improve their local service offerings, etc.
I am pretty soon that it'll be right back as soon as the FCC is turned blue again, additionally it is still important to discuss the fallout of this decision.
The inter-state commerce clause allows Federal Law to preempt state law in this case. Congress has imbued the FCC with the power to regulate(see Chevron v EPA) exactly this. States have no reserved power to regulate the behavior of telecoms.
Well that is not really true depending on if the state has ever regulated something in the past. For example cars used to come with CA emissions standard as an item because CA regulated air quality before the federal government. It is not in cache right now but I believe they way it came down was if the state has regulated in the past and the state rules are stronger then the federal then the state wins.
I suppose CA could set net neutrality regulations for web users in CA connecting to web services in CA. I guess you could implement this if CA got their own internet country code; I think .ca is already taken though.
California is most definitely within its rights to regulate businesses operating within the state. If an ISP wants to sell its service to CA residents, it can abide by CA laws.
Can you elaborate on how this would fall under interstate commerce? As I see it, they'd be regulating how they treat in-state customers and their connections, not anything coming across the state-lines. i.e. They aren't saying Comcast isn't allowed to do things to a line for a customer in Utah.
Definitely an interesting subject, but I would think with how heavily regulated cable and phone lines are, that California could enforce it on ISPs for their residents, at least.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
IANAL, but near the end he says he'll be including it as a condition to certain things that the state has control over. maybe that's how they get around that issue?
If you've seen my previous posts, you'll know I'm anti Title II, because I think it's a terrible way to achieve the goal. I think state laws, relative to local context, are absolutely the way to go.
The current NN repeal is working out exactly the way Pai said it would. As he cited, the problem is lack of competition. The solution is competition. All the discussion happening today is about how to start an ISP to prevent cable monopolies abusing their position.
The repeal is working exactly the way Pai said it would. It is encouraging new ISP entrants. Startup ISPs are the answer. NN supporters still don't realize they've been on the wrong side the entire time.
I am trying extremely hard to not purely lash out at you, but to civilly converse, here. But you're completely wrong.
Yes, competition would absolutely be better for everyone. There is not a single NN supporter out there who would not love more competition. But we still have to live in the real world. And in the real world, there flat out is no competition. And in many places, particularly rural and inner-city areas, there likely is not enough of a customer base to support multiple ISPs. And, as I said, we do not have competition now. Repealing Net Neutrality is this environment is nothing more than an anti-consumer move. It absolutely is required now, to protect consumer interests. If we were in an environment where market forces could work, then you would have an argument that NN is not needed. But, once again, to stress the point, we do not live in that environment. Getting rid of NN before that environment comes is utter foolishness, and does nothing but serve to turn the internet into Cable TV.
Until the line infrastructure is no longer owned by the monopolistic ISP / cable companies, talking about competition is all pie in the sky.
The problem is a portion of the US has no good network infrastructure. Another significant portion of the US has only 1 provider servicing them with decent internet connectivity.
A new market entrant will need years to dig and install adequate coverage for even urban US locations. Meanwhile, the US consumer will suffer shit service and outright market manipulation.
cletus|8 years ago
I do however find the doom and gloom prognostications around Title II repeal to be incredibly hyperbolic and unhelpful. Fact is, Title II was only introduced in 2015. It's not like repeal in 2017 is going to end the Internet overnight.
There are three problems here:
1. The US has a harebrained notion of "competition" in creating regional monopolies.
2. It actually doesn't make much sense to build multiple last-mile networks. This is called an overbuild and is rather wasteful given the capex involved. It's also why strict rules are in place for utilities: it underscores the fact that utilities are monopolies and seeks to prevent overbuilds.
3. ISPs have been allowed to frame the debate on peering with outright falsehoods. Specifically, the likes of Comcast claim that it's "unfair" that the likes of Netflix can "push" data onto their network for free no less. Netflix of course isn't pushing anything. Comcast's customers are requesting it.
It's all just a thinly-veiled attempt to stifle VOD providers to prop up dying (yet profitable) cable TV businesses. The fact that politicians aren't able to or don't want to see through this is both unsurprising and disappointing.
Adopting net neutrality laws at a state level is an interesting idea that may force Federal regulatino. I mean what's worse that one set of Federal rules for a large company? 50 sets of state rules, that's what.
Even if just CA and NY adopt this, that's already a sizable amount of the population.
int_19h|8 years ago
I think it's really just because it was successfully made into a mainstream political issue. So now you have to appeal to the mass audience, not just IT nerds; and we're just seeing the same tactics that is routinely used to whip up support (or opposition) to other stuff.
I'm actually weirdly uncomfortable about this. It's like being the guy who has cried wolf for many years, and now half of the village is there with you; but you see them pointing at rocks, logs etc, and insisting that these are all wolves, and we're all going to die now. It really made me question just how many people who happen to share my political positions, do so because they genuinely understand and agree with the policies, and not because it's just what you're supposed to do when you have a certain identity (liberal etc).
lumisota|8 years ago
ardit33|8 years ago
I remember a time when you couldn't text to other carrier, while Europe had it since the 90s.
I remember how your carrier would not let you use facetime/skype etc....
Anyway, you are paying for access to internet and you should have it.
This is akin to letting a private entity building a private highway on a public ground, and the owner of the highway can say: Only Audis and BMWs are allowed here...
AFNobody|8 years ago
So when you say "it was only introduced in 2015", what you really mean is "it was a heavily disputed situation for 20 years in with multiple court cases being won and lost by ISPs".
So yeah, this is the first time the regulatory framework is basically _gone_ even if it wasn't "Title II".
1996 Telecommunication Act: It was a legal gray area, particularly given dial up / dsl over telephone lines.
2002: FCC exempts NCTA by declaring it an information service, not telecommunications.
2005: NCTA wins at the Supreme Court
Open Internet Principles: 2005-2010 (i.e. Threatening to regulate)
Open Internet Order: 2010-2015 (Regulating, legally overturned)
Regulatory framework repealed today: 2015-2017
jack9|8 years ago
It was treated as such prior to that, implicitly (without the force of law). Policy was established to enforce it, formally. It wasn't just "introduced", it was tacitly accepted until there were known bad actors, because there was an expectation that acting in opposition would birth policy (it did). Pretending that traffic was treated equally before and after, is just another piece of mischaracterization. A piece that is used to distract from, and minimize, the problems with removing the policy.
wpietri|8 years ago
Yes, obviously. Just like roads. Which is why local governments should design and operate all residential internet networks.
Or: Yes, obviously. A house really only needs one electrified wire, which is why we should turn over internet service to the power company.
Or: Yes, obviously. We don't want an internet that's wasteful in any part of its operations, which is why it should be run entirely by the federal government. In fact, it's about communications, so let's combine it with the USPS.
Or: Yes, obviously. Given its vital role in society and its origins as a DARPA project, it should be entirely built and operated by the US Army.
On the other hand, maybe what we need is a proper market in internet connectivity, with multiple providers using different technologies and approaches to meet consumer needs, and a strong regulator that keeps large companies from driving the small ones under.
As somebody who lives in one of the few competitive ISP markets in the US and pays $50/month for my gigabit home fiber connection, I think I prefer the latter.
lobster_johnson|8 years ago
garfieldnate|8 years ago
thesagan|8 years ago
zer00eyz|8 years ago
Wasn't the original phone system vastly over built and that is the reason that things like DSL were possible without having to run new wiring in many homes?
jethro_tell|8 years ago
jayess|8 years ago
If anything, I've seen a significant rise in censorship since NN was passed.
The hyperbole today is just off the charts sad.
ruffrey|8 years ago
The solution is to break the monopolistic stranglehold on last-mile internet service.
If it were possible to have competition in the last-mile ISP space, then consumers could vote with their wallets and choose those ISPs who supported Net Neutrality.
An alternate partial solution would be to force companies breaking net neutrality to report it on their customer's bill.
jimktrains2|8 years ago
s73ver_|8 years ago
russdill|8 years ago
SamReidHughes|8 years ago
uptown|8 years ago
http://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=2282&Year=2017
http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2017-18/Pdf/Bills/Hou...
dsr_|8 years ago
(tl;dr: fcc-will-also-order-states-to-scrap-plans-for-their-own-net-neutrality-laws/ )
niftich|8 years ago
It's going to be interesting to see this idea tested again.
[1] https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-releases-order-preempting-t... [2] https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/02/fcc-o... [3] http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/16a0189p-06.pdf
cabaalis|8 years ago
I reserve to right to have completely misunderstood the legalese that I was hearing :)
curt15|8 years ago
dawnerd|8 years ago
warent|8 years ago
If it's true that the majority wanted to keep net neutrality, then how come the majority was ignored? Maybe I'm missing something but this seems like a good example that our voice in the US doesn't matter beyond local things like whether or not your town will allocate money towards a new public swimming pool.
Go vote on whether or not you get a nice new swimming pool. The monopolists are the only ones that have a voice in grown-up topics. That's what I'm gathering from this. Accurate or alarmist nonsense?
dragonwriter|8 years ago
Because the majority (at least, as weighted for electoral influence in both political branches of government) has prioritized other things in voting for representatives. Legislation, whether direct votes or through representatives, involves not only opinions on particular questions, but opinions on the relative priority of questions, which effects how questions are aggregated and how those aggregated questions are answered.
The majority wants net neutrality, sure, but continuously says (by voting) that they care about it much less than they care about other things, and that they are willing to sacrifice NN tomget those other things.
simplify|8 years ago
Because the FCC isn't accountable to the public, majority or not. If a majority protest was directed at a congress person, you can be sure they would listen – we're the ones who vote them in/out. And that's exactly what we're going to do to get NN enacted as law.
kelnos|8 years ago
[1] Yes, I know Pai was appointed by Obama, on Mitch McConnell's advice. That's how these things work: 5 members, split between the two parties, with the incumbent administration's party getting the extra seat.
toomim|8 years ago
If net neutrality really IS good/bad, you'll notice it when you cross state borders and go online.
m52go|8 years ago
Which is probably why the courts have been rejecting the FCC's attempts at enforcing net neutrality for the past 12 years.
bo1024|8 years ago
noncoml|8 years ago
I cannot believe that I live in the middle of the infamous Silicon Valley and only have a single choice when it comes to fast broadband, and that one goes down every other month for 3-8 hours.
rconti|8 years ago
I took the time today to inquire (again) with Wave/Astound, Sonic, AT&T about FTTH.
AT&T gave me the worst rep humanly possible. I spent 20mins on the phone with her for her to still utterly misunderstand my question, as she was apparently unable to understand or speak english. I already knew Gigapower was not available, I just want SOMEONE to tell me when they plan to offer service at my house, less than a mile from the Redwood City / Spring St CO. No luck.
Sonic did the usual "maybe if you sign up for DSL and you talk all of your friends and neighbors into signing up, we'll vaguely consider bringing FTTH in 2050".
Wave actually had me enter my info and said someone would check my neighborhood (!?) and get back to me within a couple of days.
I'd love to pay, whatever, $1000 to get someone to bring some FTTH here and subsequently make it available to neighbors, improve their local service offerings, etc.
We'll see.
munk-a|8 years ago
AndyMcConachie|8 years ago
shmerl|8 years ago
myrandomcomment|8 years ago
sureshv|8 years ago
doggydogs94|8 years ago
_-david-_|8 years ago
unknown|8 years ago
[deleted]
kej|8 years ago
r00fus|8 years ago
Where is libertarianism?
Aloha|8 years ago
UncleEntity|8 years ago
rosser|8 years ago
Posibyte|8 years ago
larrik|8 years ago
wavefunction|8 years ago
The modern 'conservative' stance towards the affairs of the day.
AndyMcConachie|8 years ago
Steeeve|8 years ago
godgod|8 years ago
[deleted]
VeronicaJJ123|8 years ago
[deleted]
sova|8 years ago
cantrip|8 years ago
rosser|8 years ago
gruez|8 years ago
fjabre|8 years ago
exabrial|8 years ago
If you've seen my previous posts, you'll know I'm anti Title II, because I think it's a terrible way to achieve the goal. I think state laws, relative to local context, are absolutely the way to go.
danjoc|8 years ago
The repeal is working exactly the way Pai said it would. It is encouraging new ISP entrants. Startup ISPs are the answer. NN supporters still don't realize they've been on the wrong side the entire time.
s73ver_|8 years ago
Yes, competition would absolutely be better for everyone. There is not a single NN supporter out there who would not love more competition. But we still have to live in the real world. And in the real world, there flat out is no competition. And in many places, particularly rural and inner-city areas, there likely is not enough of a customer base to support multiple ISPs. And, as I said, we do not have competition now. Repealing Net Neutrality is this environment is nothing more than an anti-consumer move. It absolutely is required now, to protect consumer interests. If we were in an environment where market forces could work, then you would have an argument that NN is not needed. But, once again, to stress the point, we do not live in that environment. Getting rid of NN before that environment comes is utter foolishness, and does nothing but serve to turn the internet into Cable TV.
jandrese|8 years ago
johncolanduoni|8 years ago
rabboRubble|8 years ago
The problem is a portion of the US has no good network infrastructure. Another significant portion of the US has only 1 provider servicing them with decent internet connectivity.
A new market entrant will need years to dig and install adequate coverage for even urban US locations. Meanwhile, the US consumer will suffer shit service and outright market manipulation.