FCC Chairman: This Is How We Will Ensure Net Neutrality • Hacker News Board

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

#201

Post by potatolicious » Wed, Feb 04, 2015, 6:41 PM UTC

OrwellianChild wrote: post #154

rayiner wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My complaint is that everyone's ignoring the economics of the situation. What becomes apparent if you dig into the numbers is that there's no money in building these networks, at least at scale--they are justified only when there's a money-making opportunity with respect to the content flowing through them. Historically, this has been the cable video service that brings in the lion's share of revenue. Even with Googl…

I understand that there may be some "hidden costs" that current consumers of broadband in the US don't see. I can also imagine the possibility that un-bundled broadband may be more expensive than current rates (though I can imagine other possibilities as well). What I have a hard time understanding is your implied argument here: that by forcing a bundle on consumers that includes a high-margin product (cable TV) as w…

You are working on a different notion of "bundling" than rayiner. He's not talking about selling you TV with your internet.

Bundling, in the sense that the FCC is referring to it, is the bundling of internet service with the physical infrastructure it's delivered on.

Un-bundling in this case doesn't mean they have to sell you ESPN without HBO, it means they have to let third-party operators operate on their wiring, switches, and other physical infrastructure for a regulated price.

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

#202

Post by dragonwriter » Wed, Feb 04, 2015, 6:41 PM UTC

pekk wrote: post #138

dragonwriter wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. A lot of the big proponents of net neutrality -- including specifically proponents of the…

What defines the defeat of net neutrality (like deregulation in general) as a corporate interest is that the predominant interest against net neutrality comes from big corporations, while the predominant interest for net neutrality is the general interest of individual consumers and other small fry. It makes no difference if a few competitors to Comcast come out for net neutrality, or if you can dig really hard to fi…

> What defines the defeat of net neutrality (like deregulation in general) as a corporate interest is that the predominant interest against net neutrality comes from big corporations, while the predominant interest for net neutrality is the general interest of individual consumers and other small fry.

Actually, I think the predominant interests -- at least, in terms of concentrated money devoted to lobbying and overall political pull -- for net neutrality comes from big online service and content providers that want to continue to be able to operate profitably rather than having the oligopoly of broadband ISPs engaging in rent-seeking behavior that extracts the profits from those service and content providers and uses the extracted profits to develop services that compete with them, and then outright blocks the other content/service providers to protect the ISPs own competing services.

> The defeat of net neutrality is still a corporate interest.

The interests of Google, Facebook, Netflix, et al., are as much corporate interests as those of Verizon, AT&T, etc.

> "Business-friendly" is politically coded language for favoring capital holders over employees, consumers, and unrelated but affected individuals.

Sure, but net neutrality isn't an issue that puts capital holders, in general, on one side and employees, consumers, on the other.

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

#203

Post by niels_olson » Wed, Feb 04, 2015, 6:42 PM UTC

Alupis wrote: post #184

metaphorm wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

this isn't an act of congress though. its regulations that the FCC has the authority to create and implement. if Wheeler says thats how it is, then that's how it is. regulations can be challenged at court but until that happens they will stick.

> if Wheeler says thats how it is, then that's how it is Not entirely. It's a proposal, which must be voted on by the rest of the FCC committee. It's unlikely everyone on the committee will agree 100%, but I'd also contend it's unlikely for this to not pass in and around it's current state.

Anyone care to bet the cable companies will take a no-holds-barred attempt to delay this until after the presidential election?

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

#204

Post by dragonwriter » Wed, Feb 04, 2015, 6:44 PM UTC

metaphorm wrote: post #197

obsurveyor wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Congress can gut FCC's power to decide these things though, that's what the Republicans want.

1. its not clear that that's what a congressional majority wants. there is a faction of congress that is aligned with ISPs that wants that, but there is also a large faction of congress aligned differently. i don't think this issue breaks along strictly D vs. R party lines. 2. an act of congress that diminishes the authority of the FCC would have to be signed by Obama, which he will not do. there is no faction in con…

> i don't think this issue breaks along strictly D vs. R party lines.

There's a little bit of fuzzing on the boundaries, but this issue has been the focus of lots of legislative action since it first became a controversy, and its pretty consistently been a large majority of Republicans opposing FCC action for neutrality and neutrality generally. And, over the years, the partisan alignment has increasingly solidified.

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

#205

Post by foobarqux » Wed, Feb 04, 2015, 6:45 PM UTC

potatolicious wrote: post #190

rayiner wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It does not. Canada has mandatory line-sharing only for "phone" companies - i.e., DSL. This has been a boon for small-time ISPs but a huge thorn in the side of phone companies like Bell and Telus, who are forced to compete with cable giants that are not playing under the same rules.

That's not true

"As retail Internet service demand has evolved to higher speeds, the Commission has required the large telephone companies and cable carriers (collectively, the incumbents) to make some of their high-speed access (HSA) services available to competitors to ensure that these services remain subject to competition and thus protect consumers’ interests."

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

#206

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Feb 04, 2015, 6:45 PM UTC

potatolicious wrote: post #190

rayiner wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It does not. Canada has mandatory line-sharing only for "phone" companies - i.e., DSL. This has been a boon for small-time ISPs but a huge thorn in the side of phone companies like Bell and Telus, who are forced to compete with cable giants that are not playing under the same rules.

[deleted]

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

#207

Post by nandhp » Wed, Feb 04, 2015, 6:46 PM UTC

coldpie wrote: post #153

dragonwriter wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So as someone who has been lightly following the debate, and is not familiar with the FCC's process, what are the next steps to actually start enforcing mobile and landline broadband as Title II? The next step is for the FCC to vote on the proposal Wheeler is submitting and officially propose the rules (depending on whether they choose to do so as an Notice of Proposed Rulemaking or as a Interim Final Rule with Com…

The unspoken next step will be the dozen lawsuits from Verizon, AT&T, etc. Comcast's actions actually seem to be on the right side, here, though maybe that's simply a side-effect of their NBC merger terms.

And Comcast still wants to merge with Time Warner, so there will be a certain amount of playing nice (at least for a while).

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

#208

Post by robkix » Wed, Feb 04, 2015, 6:47 PM UTC

nickthemagicman wrote: post #91

Why are libertarians so pro- free market when this is a perfect example of how the 'unregulated free market' has no problem manipulating in the name of greed and control at the expense of consumers? This seems to be strong evidence that government is better at keeping trade free than an 'unregulated free market'?

Not to dive too off topic, but the telecom industry has been heavily regulated and in no way represents a free market.

Through franchise fees, fighting public right of way sharing, and other forms of lobbying these large corporations have used law and regulation to their favor. This is not a position libertarians support and it is not a market anyone would point at and call "unregulated" in any sense of the term.

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

#209

Post by fnordfnordfnord » Wed, Feb 04, 2015, 6:47 PM UTC

mikeyouse wrote: post #162

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…

I love HN, but the echo chamber here about how Wheeler was some crony of the NACTA was impossible to drown out. If you look at the bottom of many of the previous Net Neutrality threads, there will be heavily downvoted posts (some of mine included) that Wheeler was previously an entrepreneur who was trying to disrupt traditional service providers, he was a VC who backed truly disruptive companies, and he had already b…

It is not ignorant to be sketical of a political appointee, on the contrary, anyone is wise to be skeptical. Observe the tremendous difficulty of either political party to find and appoint suitable people to these positions. Color me cautiously optimistic, but not yet ready to abandon all Wheeler/FCC skepticism. There are so many things in politics that are not what they appear to be; and, there has to be a tremendous amount of pressure on Wheeler from all sides. If Wheeler turns out to be a political appointee who manages to be a reasonable advocate for the citizenry despite the considerable pressure from all competing interests, I'll call him a remarkable exception.

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

#210

Post by andrewfong » Wed, Feb 04, 2015, 6:48 PM UTC

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?

In this context, "lawful" is probably intended to refer to categories of content than any particular instance. That is, it leaves the door open for blocking known categories of unlawful content like child porn, pirated software, malware, and maybe spam. Depending on implementation, this could definitely be problematic -- e.g. will Comcast interpret this as carte blanche to block BitTorrent if the majority of BitTorrent use is unlawful?

But it's still a huge net gain for startups, most of which fall safely on the lawful side of the line.