Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

FCC Chairman: This Is How We Will Ensure Net Neutrality

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 437 posts

Re: FCC Chairman: This Is How We Will Ensure Net Neutrality

#121

Post by dragonwriter »

joshuaheard wrote: post #92
dpierce9 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The FCC is an 'independent' agency which means that while congress can ask questions, make suggestions, apply pressure, and vote on members of the commission it cannot force the FCC to introduce, accept, or reject any proposed rule-making. Like most regulatory agencies, the purse power is limited since the FCC is funded by regulatory fees (I say limited and not zero because I believe the fees are paid by industry to…

The FCC exists by authority of Congress. Congress can expand or limit this authority at will, including any regulations promulgated by the FCC. So, Congress can basically do what it wants. This is true of any federal agency. The "independent" part means independent of the President, as they are not part of the executive branch. However, I don't think Congress will act in this case. One reason Congress delegates regul…

> Congress can expand or limit this authority at will

Congress can do so only by passing new laws, which mean with the consent of the President or over the President's veto.

> As a Republican, it seems to me the FCC has taken a balanced approach to regulation in this case, so I don't see much negative feedback by Congress.

The Republicans in Congress (and the Republican minority on the FCC, as well) have been fairly consistently opposed to any FCC regulation in the direction of net neutrality, including the previous and much weaker actions the FCC has taken in the past, and have, in fact, already initiated efforts to head this off based on the discussions which indicated that the FCC was considering something in this direction and explicitly deny the FCC authority to make rules regarding net neutrality.

So, assuming the FCC actually passes Wheeler's proposal, I expect substantial pushback in Congress. I don't think opponents of neutrality have the votes to pass a law on the matter over the President's veto, though.

Re: FCC Chairman: This Is How We Will Ensure Net Neutrality

#122

Post by 0x5f3759df-i »

revscat wrote: post #56
radioact1ve wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same here. It almost seems to good to be true. I don't want to sound gloomy doomy when this is excellent news, but I can't help but think what are we missing. I keep waiting for the "but...".

Ok, here it comes: but AT&T and Verizon are going to bring lawsuits immediately in response to this action, and due to years of stonewalling judicial appointments by Republicans, this suit is very likely to land in a court that is corporation-friendly, even if it does not wind up in the (also corporate friendly) Supreme Court. There is also the separate-but-related political reality that the Internet, as a vehicle of…

This argument doesn't make any sense. The court ruling that overturned the old rules specifically did so because ISPs were not classified as a common carrier and they deemed net neutrality rules can only be applied to a common carrier.

Re: FCC Chairman: This Is How We Will Ensure Net Neutrality

#123

Post by pyre »

myth_buster wrote: post #101
mikegioia wrote: post #6

Using this authority, I am submitting to my colleagues the strongest open internet protections ever proposed by the FCC. These enforceable, bright-line rules will ban paid prioritization, and the blocking and throttling of lawful content and services. I propose to fully apply—for the first time ever—those bright-line rules to mobile broadband. My proposal assures the rights of internet users to go where they want, wh…

This reads exceedingly well but the devil is in the detail. As we have seen countless times that there is significant difference between what gets proposed and what gets passed. As others have stated > will ban paid prioritization, and the blocking and throttling of lawful content and services. the keyword here is lawful. Will all content be lawful unless proven otherwise?

Does this mean that (e.g.) specific cities can petition ISPs to block (e.g.) Uber in their area because it's not "lawful?"

Re: FCC Chairman: This Is How We Will Ensure Net Neutrality

#124

Post by gnoway »

eggnet wrote: post #60
legutierr wrote: post #25

I personally learned the importance of open networks the hard way. In the mid-1980s I was president of a startup, NABU: The Home Computer Network. My company was using new technology to deliver high-speed data to home computers over cable television lines....But NABU went broke while AOL became very successful....While delivering better service, NABU had to depend on cable television operators granting access to thei…

How then, with this powerful backstory, did Wheeler choose not to unbundle last mile access? The cable networks are still closed.

I wonder about that too. In my mind at least, there is a distinction between requiring neutral treatment of traffic routing through a network and requiring an operator to let a competitor hook up their equipment in your facilities and sell a competitive service using infrastructure you laid.

The latter IMO is a lot less fair, even though my personal experience is that I had more choices for service when it was done w/ DSL.

Re: FCC Chairman: This Is How We Will Ensure Net Neutrality

#125

Post by rmac »

wtallis wrote: post #55
rmac wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wireless last mile might be an option if the FCC actually opens up the 3.5ghz "innovation band" : http://www.fcc.gov/blog/35-ghz-new-ideas-innovation-band

That proposal seems to be for a 150MHz block. If you try to offer broadband speeds to multiple customers simultaneously with that little spectrum you'll end up needing to use cell sizes so small that it would essentially become a fiber to the curb deployment, at which point you might as well finish off with a handful of ethernet segments instead of several radio links that won't work well.

LTE seems to work well enough with less bandwidth (~60MHz). However I'm not sure what kind of range you can get with 3.5ghz. Surely at least a few city blocks?

Re: FCC Chairman: This Is How We Will Ensure Net Neutrality

#126

Post by supergeek133 »

a8da6b0c91d wrote: post #66
supergeek133 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stuff like that is pretty interesting to me too. It's also a nice real-world description of why there is little to no competition in the market. The only reason Google accomplished it is by throwing money at the problem and laying new infrastructure, bypassing the existing in most cases. The barrier to entry of a competitor is so high from the infra cost alone.

It's said a lot that infrastructure cost is the barrier to entry but I don't think that's true. Tacking cable to telephone poles is not terribly expensive. There's no good reason a great many households couldn't have two or three different cables running past their homes. As I understand it the issue is the local governments that issue permits for such things are bought off by the providers. It's a problem of corrupt…

In some areas, that might be the case. But then there is routing, provisioning equipment, people to handle customer support, modems themselves, etc.

Not to mention all the old wiring in everyone's house, especially in the city.

Oh and if for some reason you actually do decide to invest in infrastructure, you get to fight local, city, county, AND state government for permits, taxes, etc.

Sometimes government good, sometimes government bad. Haha.

Re: FCC Chairman: This Is How We Will Ensure Net Neutrality

#127

Post by dragonwriter »

noobermin wrote: post #58
0x5f3759df-i wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The lobbying has been in full effect for a year, looks like they already lost this one.

I'm curious, how much effect do lobbyists have on the FCC, since they aren't exactly elected officials?

> I'm curious, how much effect do lobbyists have on the FCC, since they aren't exactly elected officials?

The members of the FCC are all political appointees of elected officials, and, like most regulators, two of their primary future employment prospects after their term ends are (1) further political appointments, and (2) employment, often as lobbyists, in the industry regulated by the regulatory body they currently serve on.

So, while they may not be amenable directly to the same kind of campaign-support influence that elected officials are, there are good reason to think that lobbyists can influence them in ways beyond the persuasiveness of their substantive policy arguments.

Re: FCC Chairman: This Is How We Will Ensure Net Neutrality

#128

Post by pyre »

shmerl wrote: post #64
mikegioia wrote: post #6

Using this authority, I am submitting to my colleagues the strongest open internet protections ever proposed by the FCC. These enforceable, bright-line rules will ban paid prioritization, and the blocking and throttling of lawful content and services. I propose to fully apply—for the first time ever—those bright-line rules to mobile broadband. My proposal assures the rights of internet users to go where they want, wh…

> These enforceable, bright-line rules will ban paid prioritization, and the blocking and throttling of lawful content and services. My concern is, how are they going to define lawful content and services, and more importantly, how are they going to determine it in practice? It can easily translate into some heavy handed surveillance systems which analyze the lawfulness of the whole network.

The devil in the details is whether or not this will be proactive. E.g. what happens if Comcast decides to block a service claiming that it is unlawful? Does said service need to wind its way through the courts to gain access to Comcast customers? Or does Comcast need to wait until the service is deemed unlawful by the courts before actually blocking?

Re: FCC Chairman: This Is How We Will Ensure Net Neutrality

#129

Post by nostromo »

Apparently I'm in the minority here, but I have some concerns.

1) The problem this fixes is largely non-existent today. The threat of fast and slow-lanes is one I've yet to experience.

2) Opening the door for more internet regulation seems risky. At first, things may go swimmingly, but I suspect regulatory capture will creep up on this industry, just as it has so many others. You may trust Obama and the current FCC head, but if and when the next Nixon comes to power, will you be as comfortable with his appointee?

3) The language "lawful content and services" seems like the kind of opening that could be the death of services like Bit Torrent or Tor.

4) Holding up the old telephonic lines as having been improved by regulation seems specious. In fact, the telephone system has been frozen in amber for decades. Perhaps overregulation is part of the reason we get our high-speed internet via the much less regulated cable lines and not phone lines.

Re: FCC Chairman: This Is How We Will Ensure Net Neutrality

#130

Post by rayiner »

jonny_eh wrote: post #95
rayiner wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Title II includes several sorts of provisions that apply to "common carriers" very similar to, e.g., how railroads were regulated back in the day. The government sets the prices for carriage (rate regulation), and carriers have to lobby the government to change prices (tariffs). Last-mile unbundling means that carriers must lease out their physical infrastructure to competitors at some wholesale price. These things a…

Canada has cable broadband unbundling and the big guys (Rogers + Shaw) are doing just fine. But it's allowed for smaller ISPs to get a foothold, like Teksavvy, which I used to use back in Canada. Now that I'm in the US, I don't see why Comcast can't lease out the last mile to other ISPs for reasonable wholesale rates.

Source that Canada has mandatory line-sharing for cable (not just DSL)?
Post reply on HN