The economist in me is happy, as this allows for greater investment incentives on the part of ISPs.
The FLOSS advocate in me is sad, as this is a compromise that I don't want to see go away.
Net neutrality is half-dead: Court strikes down FCC’s anti-blocking rules
61–70 of 131 posts
Re: Net neutrality is half-dead: Court strikes down FCC’s anti-blocking rules
#62Earlier quoted context omitted.
What are the other ramifications of being classified as a common carrier?
Congress specifically forbade the FCC from applying common carrier regulation to what the Telecommunications Act of 1996 calls "information services."
It's terrifying enough to think of congress today deciding the fate of the internet, much less the congress of 1996.
Re: Net neutrality is half-dead: Court strikes down FCC’s anti-blocking rules
#63Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Oh you say you can't pay $50M out of your garage? Well our internet isn't for people like you anymore. The fact that it doesn't work that way already is largely just an accident of history, and I don't know if its necessary to keep that status quo artificially. Small entities are just in a bad leverage position, especially when their "product" depends heavily on someone else's very expensive and hard to reproduce i…
That is an odd analogy, and I don't think infrastructure providers making all the money is "the natural state of things". The people actually building the infrastructure (Android) arent't making much any money with it, while those using it (Samsung) are. That is how its supposed to work; if power companies and utilities had been able to extract all the profit from manufacturing companies and discriminate against spec…
Android is part of the platform, but it's clearly not the capital intensive part of the cell phone infrastructure. That's be the CPUs, the DRAMs, the flash memory, etc.
And there is nothing cheap about providing internet access. AT&T and Verizon lead the country in annual capital expenditure: http://news.investors.com/technology/091913-671712-institute....
> Meanwhile, we are being reluctant to regulate internet providers to the point where they are the fast, dumb pipe we need
Why should we regulate the telecoms into being fast, dumb pipes because that is what best serves the Youtubes and Netflixes of the world?
> because lawmakers are clueless how this internet thing works
There is a difference between not understanding the internet, and having a different value structure with respect to the internet. Saying that telcoms should be "fast, dumb pipes" isn't a matter of technical fact. It's not a part of any RFC. It's a (very software-centric) normative judgment about how the ideal organizational structure of the internet. It's certainly more consistent with how most software people view the internet to treat the physical infrastructure as dumb pipes, but that view has no technical basis. TCP/IP works just fine if AT&T gives higher priority to packets originating from companies that pay to play.
Re: Net neutrality is half-dead: Court strikes down FCC’s anti-blocking rules
#64Earlier quoted context omitted.
What are the other ramifications of being classified as a common carrier?
No liability for how third parties using your network (e.g. for libel or violating copyrights). There may be other regulations that limit or eliminate this liability though.
So, right now, if someone detonates a bomb with a cell phone, Verizon/AT&T is basically a co-conspirator? You'd think they'd want to be a common carrier, at least if it weren't for the US's general lack of enthusiasm for holding corporations responsible for anything.
Re: Net neutrality is half-dead: Court strikes down FCC’s anti-blocking rules
#65Earlier quoted context omitted.
politics before ethics. sigh, it was always thus, it shall always be.
I understand your point, but I just don't see the ethical implications. Net neutrality, may be important, but it is a legal directive. Not supporting, or actively working to abolish net neutrality, isn't unethical.
> I understand your point, but I just don't see the ethical implications. Net neutrality, may be important, but it is a legal directive. Not supporting, or actively working to abolish net neutrality, isn't unethical.
So, according to you allowing a light weight to fight a heavy weight is ethical? In my view, it is not. Big corporations enjoy already great advantages that come from their size. If we let this go, we'll turn an oligopoly into a monopoly.
So imagine now if some ISP will have to BUY access to Netflix, Google, etc. So say 5 years from now, 1 carrier gives you Bing, Yahoo and Twitter while the other one gives you only Google. If you take the former you'll have to buy a proxy into Google because Google didn't pay the carrier and the carrier doesn't want free rides on his network. This could deteriorate faster then we might dare to think.
Re: Net neutrality is half-dead: Court strikes down FCC’s anti-blocking rules
#66>In its ruling against the FCC’s rules, the court said that such restrictions are not needed in part because consumers have a choice in which ISP they use.
in theory vs. in practice
Re: Net neutrality is half-dead: Court strikes down FCC’s anti-blocking rules
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
I understand your point, but I just don't see the ethical implications. Net neutrality, may be important, but it is a legal directive. Not supporting, or actively working to abolish net neutrality, isn't unethical.
without net neutrality we get an internet where the rich get preferential treatment, and where providers can pick and choose between people using their services. how is working towards that not unethical?
>without net neutrality we get an internet where the rich get preferential treatment
Net neutrality does nothing for rich or poor. The rich already benefit from better connectivity and internet access. Net neutrality doesn't automatically make internet cheaper either, in fact, it may make it more expensive because the telecoms cannot complement their internet fees with money collected from Youtube and Netflix for priority access. So at least theoretically, net neutrality could imply higher internet fees for the end-user.
I don't know which way you lean ideologically, but your line of reasoning is similar to arguing that cable packages are unethical, because the rich have better access and selection than the poor. You can argue it, but I'd disagree. The USA, along with most of the world, has a mixed economy which has capitalism as its foundation, complemented by a strong government which provides for common infrastructure, safety net, and regulation. There's a very good reason for having such a system, but it does mean that there will exist poor and rich (and everything in-between). Saying something is unethical just because there would be a difference between what the rich and the poor would have available to them is irrational. It most certainly doesn't apply to Net Neutrality.
//
For the record, I do support Net Neutrality, but I wouldn't characterize it as a moral or ethical issue. I see it as just good policy because it levels the playing field between big and small players, which makes everyone better off (rich and poor). Microsoft, Netflix, Google, Apple, Amazon are going to be fine in a non-net-neutral world, startups and mid-sized companies will be at a disadvantage.
Re: Net neutrality is half-dead: Court strikes down FCC’s anti-blocking rules
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
without net neutrality we get an internet where the rich get preferential treatment, and where providers can pick and choose between people using their services. how is working towards that not unethical?
> rich get preferential treatment It's comments like these that make me not like net neutrality. There is no way you are going to stop people who spend more money from being able to enjoy better Internet connections. On the other hand, ISPs ought to be stopped, in general, from discriminating against traffic based on a) their desire to sell their own service that competes with it, or b) who you are connecting to.
> It's comments like these that make me not like net neutrality. There is no way you are going to stop people who spend more money from being able to enjoy better Internet connections.
Agreed, so there's no need to give them more ways to enhance their advantage. They are too far ahead already. Because that's what is all about...
Re: Net neutrality is half-dead: Court strikes down FCC’s anti-blocking rules
#69Earlier quoted context omitted.
I understand your point, but I just don't see the ethical implications. Net neutrality, may be important, but it is a legal directive. Not supporting, or actively working to abolish net neutrality, isn't unethical.
> I understand your point, but I just don't see the ethical implications. Net neutrality, may be important, but it is a legal directive. Not supporting, or actively working to abolish net neutrality, isn't unethical. So, according to you allowing a light weight to fight a heavy weight is ethical? In my view, it is not. Big corporations enjoy already great advantages that come from their size. If we let this go, we'll…
>So, according to you allowing a light weight to fight a heavy weight is ethical?
It's neither ethical nor unethical, that's all I'm saying. It's like saying "tax-cuts are unethical because of one thing or another". You can try to argue that, sure, but I think it'd be irrational.
By the way, I do support Net Neutrality because it's a good policy that makes everyone better off.
Re: Net neutrality is half-dead: Court strikes down FCC’s anti-blocking rules
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not to argue your point (which is 100% right IMHO), but this decision is pretty right on the merits. They refused to classify the providers in a way that gave them express statutory authority to promulgate these regulations, and the court called them on it. I want to see this happen, but the right way is for the FCC to stop pussyfooting around and classify them as common carriers, which they are , so it can regulate…
Danny, in your view, what would the political ramifications be? Corporate lobbyists or actual politicians fighting against this label?
Both.
The last time anything like this was proposed (and then it had the support of Google, etc), there was a huge showdown.
The problem you have here is simple: The messaging is very hard to get to politicians in a way that makes it clear what a big deal this is, and how bad it's been.
They have no concept of things like "broadband speeds". On one side, they get told by the telecom union, verizon, comcast, ex-FCC chairs who are now lobbying, etc, that "if you impose these rules, we'll lose jobs and money, and it'll make the world a worse place. Plus, regulation has been stifling us for years. We want to do amazing things like increase speeds in your area, but we can't afford to invest if we have all these regulations, and if these guys won't pay their fair share" (The telecoms have their own made up presentations about how they really didn't waste billions of dollars and give people nothing in return but higher prices)
There is a lot inaccurate with this message, but it's still hard to counter. When what you mostly have is industry groups and tech companies arguing on the other side, it is hard for politicians to not believe their main beef is "we don't want to pay for this".
The "consumers are already paying these costs, people shouldn't pay twice" argument doesn't really fly.
If it affected politicians and their constituents ability to watch football, this would be easy.
Instead, it usually seems like it just affects some confusing and far away thing they don't want to bother understanding, or worse, take the telecom companies side on.
This would be a lot easier if there were millions of tech people arguing on the right side here, but that never actually happens
(I'll also point out Google took a huge hit back then for getting what it could out of this, when it was fairly clear even then that the FCC's position was going to be a loser in court. It was raked over the coals by everyone, including the same organizations now commenting on this court decision saying how the FCC should do something different. It was clear the FCC wasn't going to change its mind then, and Google at least got people something out of this nothing. Of course, i'm quite biased here).