Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is the problem that a lot of people have with the FCC regulatory approach, specifically abusing Article 2 of the 1996 communications act. Net neutrality is essential for the internet to continue to thrive and flourish as it has done since 1996. But using Article 2 for that purpose is like using a sledgehammer on a finishing nail. Article 2 was aimed at the true AT&T telecom behemoths of the world. But it is not…
> But using Article 2 for that purpose is like using a sledgehammer on a finishing nail. Is it? I don't think it's unreasonable at all to define, what is often the only ISP in a whole region, as a common carrier. It's practically the definition. > Article 2 was aimed at the true AT&T telecom behemoths of the world. And here we are with new telecom behemoths! Commissions like the FCC and FTC exist to create regulation…
Mozilla Files Suit Against FCC to Protect Net Neutrality
71–80 of 205 posts
Re: Mozilla Files Suit Against FCC to Protect Net Neutrality
#72Re: Mozilla Files Suit Against FCC to Protect Net Neutrality
#73Good luck! One more vote in the senate and they can pass a bill to do this. It seems the major providers are holding off on any large changes until they feel it is safe from political blowback. I find this interesting.
> One more vote in the senate and they can pass a bill to do this Which would matter a lot more if the US had a unicameral legislature with no executive veto; the Senate passing a CRA bill shooting down the FCC repeal of open internet rules would be a potent symbol, but have no binding effect since it has near zero chance in the House and, doesn't have the supermajority in either chamber needed to survive a near-cert…
Nothing is certain with Trump :)
(we can think about whether that's good or bad)
Re: Mozilla Files Suit Against FCC to Protect Net Neutrality
#74Earlier quoted context omitted.
Their motto may as well just be “Be evil” now imo. It seems like they’re on the wrong side of basically every issue.
"Make money", perhaps?
Being a publically traded company, they have a duty to make money for their shareholders (I think but am not sure that duty might even be legal).
If they were a Social Benefit Corp, then they wouldn't have such a duty, and so could choose to not make money when doing so would cause evil.
Re: Mozilla Files Suit Against FCC to Protect Net Neutrality
#75Earlier quoted context omitted.
Check again, Google isn't the one most people are worried about. They are worried about Comcast, Cox, AT&T and the like that own ISPs/broadband, content and control your privacy on every site you go to with the ISP privacy bill they put through, which they moved to the FTC from the FCC so they could control it better. You don't have to go to Google, you are stuck with your ISP and the other fake competitive ISP that…
I found it pretty easy to switch ISPs, but it would be pretty hard for me to quit Google. Nobody expects my IP address to be static, and that’s the only thing I lose when I switch. I get that some people can’t switch. The ISPs suck, they are the most hated companies in the world and all. The suckage takes the form of “they don’t show up for the appointment on time” or “they raised my bill by $20” which produces a lot…
I'm sorry, but I'm really not getting your vibe here. If I remember correctly, Facebook tried to make sure Indian market never saw net neutrality, and repeatedly spread FUD through their platform.
Re: Mozilla Files Suit Against FCC to Protect Net Neutrality
#76Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google is a global monopoly with it's hands in literally everything. A significant percentage of all inter-human communication, whether voice, internet, email, or messaging goes through Google. Possibly a majority. Regional/local monopolies are barely a concern worth mention in comparison. It's as if you're worried about the street dealer, and not worried about the head of the cartel.
Look up the definition of a "monopoly." Google is giant, sure, but it's not the only search provider, or email provider, or anything else that it does (aside from some random niche things.) And everyone has perfect freedom to switch from Google to another provider of these services, which isn't true for ISPs if only one company has fiber going to your house.
Re: Mozilla Files Suit Against FCC to Protect Net Neutrality
#77Earlier quoted context omitted.
I found it pretty easy to switch ISPs, but it would be pretty hard for me to quit Google. Nobody expects my IP address to be static, and that’s the only thing I lose when I switch. I get that some people can’t switch. The ISPs suck, they are the most hated companies in the world and all. The suckage takes the form of “they don’t show up for the appointment on time” or “they raised my bill by $20” which produces a lot…
> If you think it’s about freedom of information or something, check out Facebook’s stance on net neutrality in India. I'm sorry, but I'm really not getting your vibe here. If I remember correctly, Facebook tried to make sure Indian market never saw net neutrality, and repeatedly spread FUD through their platform.
Re: Mozilla Files Suit Against FCC to Protect Net Neutrality
#78Earlier quoted context omitted.
there's a lot of practical uses for more limited types of Internet plans being available in world of IoT, especially Can you clarify what you mean by this?
Not the parent poster, but for instance, but think having a dozen data loggers out in the field that only need to transfer a few 100k of data each day. No need for 4G or multi gigabyte packages plus hefty per-device line/access fee.
If they restricted the services you could access or their relative speeds, then you get into trouble.
Re: Mozilla Files Suit Against FCC to Protect Net Neutrality
#79Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But using Article 2 for that purpose is like using a sledgehammer on a finishing nail. Is it? I don't think it's unreasonable at all to define, what is often the only ISP in a whole region, as a common carrier. It's practically the definition. > Article 2 was aimed at the true AT&T telecom behemoths of the world. And here we are with new telecom behemoths! Commissions like the FCC and FTC exist to create regulation…
Then why didn't they step in to break up Ma Bell? That happened under anti-trust.
Re: Mozilla Files Suit Against FCC to Protect Net Neutrality
#80Earlier quoted context omitted.
> ..isn't it for the FTC to intervene and bust up throttling and content blocks under restraint of trade doctrine Assuming the FTC isn't a regulatory capture agency, it is. FTC does very little here, it was in the FTC before 2015 it went Title II and the FCC. The FTC also can't make it a utility, the FCC can via Title II, thus the reason it ended up there from the FTC in 2015. FTC was fighting against net neutrality…
I agree with your statements (not sure though, about the partisanship issue of any particular agency). The FTC's enforcement (in concert with the DoJ's) is responsive, not prescriptive, except under the interpretation of anti-trust law, which to my understanding is very robust for checking what NN proponents are fearful of happening, if ISPs in fact should make those moves. Defining ISPs as Common Carriers makes me m…
Responsive is not ok for a needed utility that many other companies run business on.
Scenario: 2025 Comcast is found to have hindered x amount of small to medium sized businesses, of which 1% may be big innovations/companies that could have provided jobs and advancement. For this they have to pay a double digit million dollar fine ($25m let's say) from the FTC in after-the-damage fines. Small beans for controlling competitive threats which we know is where every large fish goes in capitalism as a natural course. Monopolies need to be checked upfront when it comes to a utility that the entire country runs off of now. ISPs are hindering innovation currently, companies built on top of the network are not.
> Are you so sure there would be no potential risks to innovation and a bequeathing of great power to ISPs by having them declared utilities?
Eventually we will go to Open-access networks/muni broadband[1] where lines will be upgradable and commonly owned, municipal maybe because of the ISPs greed overreach. When the lines are utilities owned by the cities/localities like water, power lines then companies that improve the services get benefits and there can be multiple actual competitive companies competing for your customers through customer service, pricing and improvements to the networks.
I think that making it Title II, common carrier as well as taking ownership of the lines allowing companies to service them will lead to a more solid internet foundation.
In the 90s, cable/broadband companies were innovative and improving speeds. Getting on cable internet in '96 and the leap from 56k was revolutionary, it innovated and changed everything. Currently we should be getting gigabit and higher, but the ISPs are greedily bleeding us dry and stealing markets that could be. They are not the innovative companies that brought broadband speeds in the late 90s/00s, they are actively a weight on American innovation. Google Fiber competition changed everything for a year or two, Cox here even came out with gigabit which they can easily provide removing some channels as well. But they stopped expanding it when Google Fiber left due to ISP thuggery.
ISPs are our gateway to the internet, we need that to be innovative and how you do that is competition, there is no true competition. We want innovative companies running networks like the companies they were in the 90s.
The vast majority US only has 0 or 1 valid ISP with decent speeds if that at 25-100 Mbps[2][3].
ISPs are the biggest monopoly threat regarding open internet as they control the levers, not a company that operates on top of the internet in the market.
It can't get worse in terms of our ISPs.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Municipal_broadband
[2] https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/08/us-br...
[3] https://consumerist.com/2014/03/07/heres-what-lack-of-broadb...