FCC and Net Neutrality

[El Guapo]

So what could stop him from going the Title II route? I mean, assuming he got the votes. Is there any legal wrangling the ISPs can do to prevent/stall it or is it strictly an FCC decision?

The ISPs have two options (aside from persuading the FCC to change its mind, but now that Wheeler's essentially committed himself to Title II reclassification that ship has probably sailed):

(1) File a lawsuit alleging that the new rules are illegal (outside FCC authority, contrary to a statute, etc.). This is probably their best bet for the next couple years at least (though it doesn't help that Obama has appointed a few new judges to the DC Circuit where I assume this would wind up).

(2) Get Congress to pass a bill blocking / undoing the rule. Since Obama has committed himself to net neutrality he would almost certainly veto any such bill, so this is unlikely until at least 2017 (if a Republican wins the Presidency and the GOP retains Congress). Until then it would have to be part of some sort of debt ceiling / government shutdown brinksmanship to become law (and I don't think the conservative grassroots care enough about this to make this a brinksmanship issue).

[Pyperkub]

The biggest piece - Wheeler is also going after Wireless data- which wasn't in the original proposal the telecoms nuked:

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, when they want, and the rights of innovators to introduce new products without asking anyone’s permission.

[GreenGoo]

He's talking the talk. We'll see.

It's such a turn around that I just can't believe it. Something, somewhere, is rotten. I just don't know what, yet.

[El Guapo]

He's talking the talk. We'll see.

It's such a turn around that I just can't believe it. Something, somewhere, is rotten. I just don't know what, yet.

It is and it isn't. The FCC tried to impose net neutrality several years ago, just without Title II reclassification (I think because of the perception that Title II reclassification would be a huge and potentially unnecessary fight). But that failed when it was struck down by the DC Circuit.

Once that happened, the FCC faced a choice: essentially, either settle with the telecom companies and get the best deal that they could (neutered net neutrality with "fast lanes"), or do Title II reclassification and gear up for a second (and probably bigger) fight. They initially chose the first one, which is defensible - you take what you can rather than risk the big fight where you could wind up with nothing - but the enormous pushback that engendered (probably bigger than Wheeler expected) made it less viable. So now it's Door #2.

Point is just that everything that the FCC has done so far on this is consistent with favoring net neutrality as much as seems viable to obtain it, so I don't really see this stuff as a big turnaround or flip flop.

[GreenGoo]

I'll take your word for what their motivation was for the last proposal (which brought down their comments website due to vocal protesting).

I'm amazed they are going after mobile. It makes sense, but up 'til now mobile service has been treated as a completely different entity. It's a ballsy move to try to drag it onto the playing field too.

I hope the telecoms are crapping their pants right now.

[El Guapo]

I mean, I have no inside info on Wheeler's motive, but when I put together their actions on net neutrality going back, that's the picture it paints for me.

I suspect that this is an "in for a penny, in for a pound" kind of thing. Title II reclassification is going to be a MASSIVE fight. As long as you're going to have to go through a massive fight anyway, why not dust off your perfect world wish list and shoot for the moon while you're at it? It's a marginal increase in resource expenditure, and a significant increase in terms of what you might get at the end.

[Rip]

OK, I am about as conservative as anyone, but this is just silly.

“President Obama’s plan marks a monumental shift toward government control of the Internet. It gives the FCC the power to micromanage virtually every aspect of how the Internet works,” Pai said. “The plan explicitly opens the door to billions of dollars in new taxes on broadband… These new taxes will mean higher prices for consumers and more hidden fees that they have to pay.”

In his initial cursory overview of the plan, the commissioner said it would hinder broadband investment, slow network speed and expansion, limit outgrowth to rural areas of the country and reduce Internet service provider (ISP) competition.

“The plan saddles small, independent businesses and entrepreneurs with heavy-handed regulations that will push them out of the market,” Pai said. “As a result, Americans will have fewer broadband choices. This is no accident. Title II was designed to regulate a monopoly. If we impose that model on a vibrant broadband marketplace, a highly regulated monopoly is what we’ll get.”

http://dailycaller.com/2015/02/06/repub ... -internet/

It is a monopoly and there are no "small, independent businesses and entrepreneurs" in the ISP marketplace. Such obvious Snake Oil salesman for the industry. Disgusting.

[Pyperkub]

yeah, seeing as how net neutrality will actually do a lot more to help small, independent businessmen get their businesses off and running without having to pay extortion just to have the ISP's use their monopoly power to steal the ideas and sell their own version (comcast on demand vs netflix anyone?) at a discount/advantage.

[Zarathud]

The small, independent businesses were chased out of the market a decade ago. How can there be fewer broadband choices than (1) your regional telephone monopoly and (2) your regional cable monopoly? But I'm all for a highly regulated monopoly. That's the whole point!

[Kraken]

The small, independent businesses were chased out of the market a decade ago. How can there be fewer broadband choices than (1) your regional telephone monopoly and (2) your regional cable monopoly? But I'm all for a highly regulated monopoly. That's the whole point!

They could legalize municipal utilities.

My ISP is the town electric company. They're also my cable provider. I'm one of about 10,000 customers; if I have a problem or a question, I get personal service with no bullshit. All of the employees are locals; my payments stay in the town; as a taxpayer, I'm a part owner; as a nonprofit, their rates are slightly lower.

The big monopolies have succeeded in getting municipal providers outlawed in much of the country. It's easy to see why. Socialism FTW!

[Rip]

The small, independent businesses were chased out of the market a decade ago. How can there be fewer broadband choices than (1) your regional telephone monopoly and (2) your regional cable monopoly? But I'm all for a highly regulated monopoly. That's the whole point!

They could legalize municipal utilities.

My ISP is the town electric company. They're also my cable provider. I'm one of about 10,000 customers; if I have a problem or a question, I get personal service with no bullshit. All of the employees are locals; my payments stay in the town; as a taxpayer, I'm a part owner; as a nonprofit, their rates are slightly lower.

The big monopolies have succeeded in getting municipal providers outlawed in much of the country. It's easy to see why. Socialism FTW!

Yep, we have the same. The big guys fought kicking and screaming all the way but in the end it worked and worked quite well.

[Kraken]

The small, independent businesses were chased out of the market a decade ago. How can there be fewer broadband choices than (1) your regional telephone monopoly and (2) your regional cable monopoly? But I'm all for a highly regulated monopoly. That's the whole point!

They could legalize municipal utilities.

My ISP is the town electric company. They're also my cable provider. I'm one of about 10,000 customers; if I have a problem or a question, I get personal service with no bullshit. All of the employees are locals; my payments stay in the town; as a taxpayer, I'm a part owner; as a nonprofit, their rates are slightly lower.

The big monopolies have succeeded in getting municipal providers outlawed in much of the country. It's easy to see why. Socialism FTW!

Yep, we have the same. The big guys fought kicking and screaming all the way but in the end it worked and worked quite well.

This is one of those things that could greatly improve the marketplace for millions of Americans if it were politically feasible. It's not feasible because government isn't supposed to compete with private businesses -- that's socialism, like I said, and I'm tickled that you're for it. However, if the internet is morphing into a public utility (as the new net neutrality policy posits)...well, it's harder for the capitalists to make their case.

The big telecoms matter for innovation -- your local utility is never going to pioneer new technology, and will in fact usually be a few years behind the curve. The big question is whether the oligopoly would still R&D if a significant fraction of its customers defected to a friendlier, albeit less flashy, alternative.

In my town the marketplace is split fairly evenly between BELD, Comcast, and Verizon, indicating that the public option is not a capitalism killer.

[Rip]

The small, independent businesses were chased out of the market a decade ago. How can there be fewer broadband choices than (1) your regional telephone monopoly and (2) your regional cable monopoly? But I'm all for a highly regulated monopoly. That's the whole point!

They could legalize municipal utilities.

My ISP is the town electric company. They're also my cable provider. I'm one of about 10,000 customers; if I have a problem or a question, I get personal service with no bullshit. All of the employees are locals; my payments stay in the town; as a taxpayer, I'm a part owner; as a nonprofit, their rates are slightly lower.

The big monopolies have succeeded in getting municipal providers outlawed in much of the country. It's easy to see why. Socialism FTW!

Yep, we have the same. The big guys fought kicking and screaming all the way but in the end it worked and worked quite well.

This is one of those things that could greatly improve the marketplace for millions of Americans if it were politically feasible. It's not feasible because government isn't supposed to compete with private businesses -- that's socialism, like I said, and I'm tickled that you're for it. However, if the internet is morphing into a public utility (as the new net neutrality policy posits)...well, it's harder for the capitalists to make their case.

The big telecoms matter for innovation -- your local utility is never going to pioneer new technology, and will in fact usually be a few years behind the curve. The big question is whether the oligopoly would still R&D if a significant fraction of its customers defected to a friendlier, albeit less flashy, alternative.

It satisfied the capitalist in me by running as a separate entity with bonds and everything. It is profitable so not socialism at all.

[Kraken]

The small, independent businesses were chased out of the market a decade ago. How can there be fewer broadband choices than (1) your regional telephone monopoly and (2) your regional cable monopoly? But I'm all for a highly regulated monopoly. That's the whole point!

They could legalize municipal utilities.

My ISP is the town electric company. They're also my cable provider. I'm one of about 10,000 customers; if I have a problem or a question, I get personal service with no bullshit. All of the employees are locals; my payments stay in the town; as a taxpayer, I'm a part owner; as a nonprofit, their rates are slightly lower.

The big monopolies have succeeded in getting municipal providers outlawed in much of the country. It's easy to see why. Socialism FTW!

Yep, we have the same. The big guys fought kicking and screaming all the way but in the end it worked and worked quite well.

This is one of those things that could greatly improve the marketplace for millions of Americans if it were politically feasible. It's not feasible because government isn't supposed to compete with private businesses -- that's socialism, like I said, and I'm tickled that you're for it. However, if the internet is morphing into a public utility (as the new net neutrality policy posits)...well, it's harder for the capitalists to make their case.

The big telecoms matter for innovation -- your local utility is never going to pioneer new technology, and will in fact usually be a few years behind the curve. The big question is whether the oligopoly would still R&D if a significant fraction of its customers defected to a friendlier, albeit less flashy, alternative.

It satisfied the capitalist in me by running as a separate entity with bonds and everything. It is profitable so not socialism at all.

Ours is profitable, too. Part of the profit gets reinvested and part gets turned over to town government. Us taxpayers are the shareholders who benefit from that whether we're BELD customers or not...so socialism.

[El Guapo]

The small, independent businesses were chased out of the market a decade ago. How can there be fewer broadband choices than (1) your regional telephone monopoly and (2) your regional cable monopoly? But I'm all for a highly regulated monopoly. That's the whole point!

They could legalize municipal utilities.

Wheeler is on that too.

[Kraken]

The small, independent businesses were chased out of the market a decade ago. How can there be fewer broadband choices than (1) your regional telephone monopoly and (2) your regional cable monopoly? But I'm all for a highly regulated monopoly. That's the whole point!

They could legalize municipal utilities.

Wheeler is on that too.

[msduncan]

Internet about to change forever

I can't believe so many of you have fallen for the propaganda that "Net Neutrality" somehow means an internet that is more free. The Federal Government is about to slap down a huge number of regulations on it and thereby set a precedent that they can regulate it to their hearts' content in the future.

[Isgrimnur]

I find it funny that you post an article defending "free" markets that leads me to a paywall.

[GreenGoo]

I find it funny that you post an article defending "free" markets that leads me to a paywall.

Er...is this a play on words?

I know that you know that that's not what the word free means in "free markets".

[GreenGoo]

Internet about to change forever

I can't believe so many of you have fallen for the propaganda that "Net Neutrality" somehow means an internet that is more free. The Federal Government is about to slap down a huge number of regulations on it and thereby set a precedent that they can regulate it to their hearts' content in the future.

Better than the alternative. If it does become a problem though, I'm glad the internet exists outside of the US's jurisdiction.

On the lol side though, any article that implies that before ObamaCare the insurance and medical industries were "free" of government regulation is disingenuous at best, and spinning an agenda at worst.

Honest to fuck, you can find an article that will say almost anything these days. I hear climate change isn't a thing, either.

msd, some of us are actually heavily involved in how the internet works. Some of us don't need articles written for political or business reasons to tell us what to think. Some of us understand what is at stake, and what any proposed change actually means.

The reason the government has had to step in is *BECAUSE* major players have decided to abuse the "free" market. They are able to do this because it's not free.

I'd love to let the market work itself out. Unfortunately the industry leaders have worked extremely hard, and lobbied extremely hard (thus your government is culpable too, just different parts) to make sure not only that it wouldn't happen, but that it couldn't happen. You reap what you sow. That you mindlessly eat *their* propaganda and call us the naive ones is vexing.

[Rip]

Internet about to change forever

I can't believe so many of you have fallen for the propaganda that "Net Neutrality" somehow means an internet that is more free. The Federal Government is about to slap down a huge number of regulations on it and thereby set a precedent that they can regulate it to their hearts' content in the future.

Blame the people holding the monopolies over the market for abusing it and forcing this. All they had to do was keep on keeping on. Instead they tried to take one of the fundamental ideas of the internet and and betray it to monetize their monopoly.

I don't like it either but without another way to reign them in or demonopolize them this is what we have.

Sad thing is this is one I can't really blame on Obama.

[Pyperkub]

Yeah, my catchphrase for it is "There ain't no such thing as a free market" (a bit of a play on Niven's There ain't no such thing as a free lunch - tanstaafl).

IMHO - There has to be some sort of referee, or there will be all sorts of unethical methods of controlling the market. I've argued a number of times on this board that in many ways the current Nation States can be seen as a market reaction (Smith's Invisible Hand) to the use of violence to upset markets.

[Isgrimnur]

I find it funny that you post an article defending "free" markets that leads me to a paywall.

Er...is this a play on words?

I know that you know that that's not what the word free means in "free markets".

But of course it was. It was based on the idea that the companies want to monetize content and preferred access, and the site telling me how great an idea it was, wanted me to pay for the privilege.

[GreenGoo]

Perhaps one day we will rue the FCC's decision. I can't tell the future. But I can tell you that if left to their own devices, the major ISP's were headed towards less service for more money than we get today, for no other reason than because they are the gate keepers with no threat to that position from competition. I have no idea what their limits are, or if they even have any.

The Internet is too important. It is a wonder of our times. It is literally science fiction made real.

[El Guapo]

Republicans in Congress give up on anti-net neutrality legislation.

Good news (unless you are MSD or Comcast), though the legislation was never likely to become law in the short term. As I said earlier the most plausible means of overturning the FCC's net neutrality rule is in court (most likely) or in 2017 if the GOP wins the White House and keeps Congress.

[Holman]

The Internet is too important. It is a wonder of our times. It is literally science fiction made real.

It's also the good old printing press of our times, and it allows anyone anywhere to distribute on a moment's notice.

Freedom of that press is way bigger than commerce. We'd be stupid to forget that.

[Jaymann]

Let me get this straight, the Republicans want us to pay more to get less? Time to rally the geek vote!

[Pyperkub]

Let me get this straight, the Republicans want us to pay more to get less? Time to rally the geek vote!

The fear is that investment in new infrastructure will dry up. The problem with that argument currently is that much of that investment had already been curtailed in order to pursue other monopoly powers. See Verizon and their fiber rollout.

[GreenGoo]

That's right, current record profits are not enough money so they're just going to stop expanding their market.

Totally reasonable.

I freaking wish they would do what they threaten to do. That's about the only way new companies would have a chance to enter the market.

See Daehawk's comments about his cable company trying to gouge his neighbourhood into paying a thousand bucks each for new service, only to have them all refuse and then have the company provide the new service anyway free of charge.

Isgrim, can you find that post for me? Not even sure it was Daehawk, just read it in passing and it's a bit fuzzy.

[Pyperkub]

That's the theory/ideology they are hiding behind as the reason for not treating these monopolies as monopolies. I didn't say I bought it, just wanted to point out the zealous ideological reason being used as an excuse to increase the monopoly power being wielded.

To be fair, implementing any piece of the net neutrality will result in a change in the resources being expended in the field. I can practically guarantee that certain investments will no longer be pursued as a result of any changes by the FCC.

However, the benefits (appear to) far, FAR outweigh those changes, and it is very arguable that most if not all of that investment which will be changed was either directed towards increasing monopoly power and/or leveraging current monopoly power to squeeze out other investment in new markets.

Regulation to curtail monopoly abuses is something which at least some Republicans should be able to get behind. The fact that they never even tepidly support any has become a serious problem, and dovetails quite well with the recent inability to govern displayed by the party.

[stessier]

That's right, current record profits are not enough money so they're just going to stop expanding their market.

Totally reasonable.

I freaking wish they would do what they threaten to do. That's about the only way new companies would have a chance to enter the market.

See Daehawk's comments about his cable company trying to gouge his neighbourhood into paying a thousand bucks each for new service, only to have them all refuse and then have the company provide the new service anyway free of charge.

Isgrim, can you find that post for me? Not even sure it was Daehawk, just read it in passing and it's a bit fuzzy.

I believe this is what you are looking for.

They were about 1/4 a mile from me years ago. They told all of us residents that if we signed an agreement with them together and we each paid so much..i think it was $1000 ...that they would run it on up to us. None of us bit. A year later they ran it themselves and we got free installs for joining for nothing at that time

[GreenGoo]

That's the one, thanks.

[Isgrimnur]

Sorry, I read the post when I was headed to bed, and didn't have the full resources to search. And I got distracted today by the complete lack of snowpocalypse that was promised.

[stessier]

Sorry, I read the post when I was headed to bed, and didn't have the full resources to search. And I got distracted today by the complete lack of snowpocalypse that was promised.

Dude - priorities!! Waiting for that answer was the longest 5 hours of my life.

[msduncan]

Electronic Frontier Foundation urges rethink of the "General Conduct" language.

it suggests that the FCC believes it has broad authority to pursue any number of practices—hardly the narrow, light-touch approach we need to protect the open Internet.

[El Guapo]

Sorry, I read the post when I was headed to bed, and didn't have the full resources to search. And I got distracted today by the complete lack of snowpocalypse that was promised.

Didn't we replace you anyway?

[GreenGoo]

Sorry, I read the post when I was headed to bed, and didn't have the full resources to search. And I got distracted today by the complete lack of snowpocalypse that was promised.

I wrote the request and went to bed, so I can hardly blame you for doing the same.

When I hear "omg, won't somebody think of the profits" I want to punch a telecom exec in the throat. Telecom is one of the most profitable industries and the idea that they are operating by their bootstraps and woe to any future service if they are made to change even slightly infuriates me.

At one point it was cheaper to send data to a satellite near Saturn than it was to text your co-worker, on a per bit basis.

[GreenGoo]

Electronic Frontier Foundation urges rethink of the "General Conduct" language.

it suggests that the FCC believes it has broad authority to pursue any number of practices—hardly the narrow, light-touch approach we need to protect the open Internet.

As I said, we may live to rue these changes. We'll see.

[Alefroth]

Electronic Frontier Foundation urges rethink of the "General Conduct" language.

it suggests that the FCC believes it has broad authority to pursue any number of practices—hardly the narrow, light-touch approach we need to protect the open Internet.

Other than limiting the profits of the telcoms, what real life damage are you concerned net neutrality will cause?

[noxiousdog]

Sorry, I read the post when I was headed to bed, and didn't have the full resources to search. And I got distracted today by the complete lack of snowpocalypse that was promised.

I wrote the request and went to bed, so I can hardly blame you for doing the same.

When I hear "omg, won't somebody think of the profits" I want to punch a telecom exec in the throat. Telecom is one of the most profitable industries and the idea that they are operating by their bootstraps and woe to any future service if they are made to change even slightly infuriates me.

At one point it was cheaper to send data to a satellite near Saturn than it was to text your co-worker, on a per bit basis.

Telecom is not one of the most profitable industries. Not even close really. The industry has a five year return on equity of 13.49% according to MSN. A good industry has it around 20%. And while they've had a good couple years, their profit margin has been 7% or less all but one other year in the decade.