46 ms·

Appeals court upholds FCC's net neutrality order

591 points by textdog 10y ago

russnewcomer 10y ago
Generally glad that the order was upheld. I do wish that zero rating was more clearly defined, but regulation is just as much a reactive task as a proactive one, and it will be interesting to see how the ISPs use that tool in their toolbox. My suspicion is that we would see general price increases but then a 'zero rating' for, say, streaming video, making it seem like a good deal. Video seems cheaper but is really just subsidized by the rest of the content. I see a parallel there to how the health insurance situation in America seems to have played out over the last few years from the view point of the average middle class developer.
- textdog 10y ago
  Really, really good point! The FCC is deciding the outcome of those plans now, groups are calling for an open process to the decision so that there isn't any bad ruling before people can weigh in and all sides looked at.
StavrosK 10y ago
Can someone explain what this means? The term "net neutrality" has been muddled so much that I can't tell if it means what it actually says, or if it's distorted doublespeak that actually means the opposite. Is this decision good or bad for us?
- theseanstewart 10y ago
  This is very good. It means Net Neutrality is here to stay (for now).
- wmeredith 10y ago
  This is the core of what was upheld: "No Blocking: broadband providers may not block access to legal content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices. "No Throttling: broadband providers may not impair or degrade lawful Internet traffic on the basis of content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices. "No Paid Prioritization: broadband providers may not favor some lawful Internet traffic over other lawful traffic in exchange for consideration of any kind—in other words, no "fast lanes." This rule also bans ISPs from prioritizing content and services of their affiliates." This is a good thing. Big telcos have been trying to gut the FCC of its power ever since they issued their Open Internet Order: https://www.fcc.gov/general/open-internet https://www.fcc.gov/general/open-internet Next stop is the supreme court if they continue to push back against it.
  - komali2 10y ago
    Does this mean netflix can stop paying Comcast?
    - nikanj 10y ago
      Probably not, as Netflix has no way to prove Comcast is throttling them and the FCC is toothless
      - inanutshellus 10y ago
        Is this ruling not the FCC regaining "teeth"?
        rkangel 10y ago
        No, this is validation that the FCCs position is legal. Nor they need a mechanism to enforce it properly. That doesn't just mean the ability to impose penalties (which is part of it) but also means the power to know what's going on so that penalties can be imposed.
        dragonwriter 10y ago
        The FCC has existing complaint-based, investigatory, and other enforcement mechanisms, which have been around for a long time, and have been available to use (e.g., complaints have been accepted) under the Open Internet Order since it was issued (heck, they've had successful enforcement actions under the part of the old [2010] Open Internet Order -- the transparency rule -- that weren't struck down in Verizon v. FCC, such as the $100M penalty against AT&T Mobility for misrepresenting its "unlimited" plans.) What do you imagine it doesn't have that it needs with regard to the Open Internet Order in this area?
        cmdrfred 10y ago
        On paper you are correct, but I doubt the person who runs the FCC gets to golf with the president[0][1]. [0]http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2013/08/obama-golfs-with-comcast-ceo-170524 http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2013/08/obama-golfs-with... [1]http://www.nationalreview.com/article/375116/how-comcast-bought-democratic-party-matthew-continetti http://www.nationalreview.com/article/375116/how-comcast-bou...
- drzaiusapelord 10y ago
  In general it means no blocking or throttling by a certain class of ISP. I believe mobile gets an exception as they are allowed to non-discriminatory throttle past a certain "data cap." This includes lower caps for mobile hotspot usage. Also, T-Mobile is arguably violating non-netrality with its Binge service. The FCC has thus far refused to rule against them. T-Mobile claims this cannot be throttling because you can opt-out of it at any time and upstream providers are not being charged. Seems like this could a slippery slope for wired ISPs to follow. On top of that, I'm a AT&T u-verse customer who recently cut his TV service with U-verse. I was told that I now have a strict data cap, when before I had unlimited because of that. I would like to see the FCC address these situations as cord-cutting becomes popular. I have a FireTV now with Playstation Vue and HBO Now for at least 1/2 the price of U-verse tv.
- oconnore 10y ago
  The most important part of the decision is granting the FCC authority to consider internet providers as a utility -- and therefore regulate their activities in the interest of the consumer. The actual "net neutrality" win is nice, but this means that the FCC has power to tweak the regulations in the future when Verizon/Comcast/AT&T come up with some new shitty way to monetize their customers.
- mtgx 10y ago
  Net neutrality is "good" in the sense that it has some regulations that "should" stop the carriers from making the Internet much worse than it already is - with the caveat that the FCC actually enforces those rules, and so far it hasn't (maybe it was just waiting for the Court to uphold these rules - we'll see). But these net neutrality rules won't really make the Internet "better" in the U.S., until the ISPs get much better competition, mainly at the local level. Right now this is often not possible because of "other regulations" that essentially give exclusive rights/monopoly to an ISP over a certain area. If you want "better Internet", eliminating those local monopolies should be the main goal for policy changes going forward. It's something Republicans should vigorously support as well (free market!), but for some reason (read: campaign donations) they do not.
  - gm-conspiracy 10y ago
    Before rayiner replies to this and insists it is not a monopoly, but a "non-exclusive franchise agreement", I give you this link: Cable TV Franchises as Barriers to Video Competition http://www.vjolt.net/vol12/issue1/v12i1_a2-Hazlett.pdf http://www.vjolt.net/vol12/issue1/v12i1_a2-Hazlett.pdf
- textdog 10y ago
  It also means no government or telecom company (or corporation for that matter) can get in between you and the Internet content of your choosing through sneaky slowing down or throttling.
- dclowd9901 10y ago
  The only thing you need to know is that telcos and providers are against net neutrality. (Ok, so some people on here would argue that any regulation on internet is a slippery slope, but I wouldn't worry about that from the FCC. Now, if congress starts weighing in, that's a different story.)
- sideband 10y ago
  This is probably an unpopular opinion, but I believe it's a net negative. Typically, ISPs in the US are either small and barely-profitable or large and with little appetite for business or technical innovation. The largest content providers already effectively share revenue with the largest ISPs through paid-peering and other arrangements. The smaller players, those that with success could grow and advance the market, are too small to justify the time of content providers that are also very worried about setting a dangerous precedent by extending the same deals to them that they extend to the AT&Ts and Comcasts. Sure, as consumers we get additional protections, but I fear this mostly ensures that the industry as a whole stays put.
  - baldfat 10y ago
    > I fear this mostly ensures that the industry as a whole stays put. That was 100% the point of Net Neutrality. It is so that the Internet doesn't change. Otherwise we will have a barrier of entry for all the small businesses. The Internet is a free market that needs to stay that way.
  - ZenoArrow 10y ago
    Sorry, I don't understand your point. The whole idea of net neutrality is that content creators can't pay ISPs for preferential treatment. This means that the large ISPs won't be receiving payouts from Netflix and suchlike, and therefore won't have an advantage in this area over smaller ISPs. If you really want to push for competition, there are other options. I don't know much about the situation in the US, but in the UK we have local-loop unbundling (LLU), which has proven to be a success in driving forward competition in the ISP market. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local-loop_unbundling https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local-loop_unbundling LLU helps smaller ISPs to compete with larger ISPs, as it allows them to build up their infrastructure without duplicating the work of laying cables. From the Wikipedia page I just linked to it appears that LLU is at least legal in the US, I'd be interested to learn about how popular it is.
    - sideband 10y ago
      My point in less words: The big guys (ISPs and content providers) all share revenue already and will continue to. This ruling shuts the little guys out of that action forever under the guise of consumer interest, rendering them permanently less competitive. That's bad.
- don_draper 10y ago
  Net Neutrality means the Internet should be treated as a utility and not a luxury.
droopybuns 10y ago
Tom Wheeler says this: "Notably, the Open Internet Order does not affect zero-rating services like T-Mobile's BingeOn or Verizon's Go90, which are intentionally left out of the scope of the order. "I can argue there are some aspects of [zero rating] that are good, and I can argue there’s some aspects of it that are not so good," Wheeler told The Verge in an interview in March. "The job of the regulator is to figure out, 'Okay, now how do I deal with this?'" Outrageous behavior, followed up by outrageous commentary. This FCC is out of control. How does anyone invest in wireless with regulators like this? Is Tom Wheeler even aware of the chilling affect of commentary like this? Edit: The quote above is from the fine article. Wmeredith: I'm talking about is Tom Wheeler, chair of the FCC. In this particular quote, the regulator of the laws is saying (at least as far as I can tell), that he's going to pick and choose which players he regulates. Should I assume you're arguing that my quote from the article is fud, or is it my commentary? Or my interpretation of it? I'm not being a troll. I have an honest disagreement that this is the right thing to do. Would you invest in any climate with a regulator who says things like this? It seems wildly more risky to me.
- exhilaration 10y ago
  Can someone give us a quick summary of why the two mentioned services are problematic?
  - wmeredith 10y ago
    T-Mobile's BingeOn or Verizon's Go90 are problematic because they prioritize content. Say you're a new video streaming startup. You can't compete against Netflix with T-Mobile users because Netflix's traffic gets priority. You can't get that priority because you're not a big enough fish to negotiate your own fast lane. Fast lanes are bad for innovation in this way. They favor entrenched players, which then become more entrenched, and then become more favored, etc... The FCC's Open Internet Order explicitly bans this behavior, but it only applies to wired connections. They did not issue any ruling on wireless internet, so several wireless providers offer these unmetered fast lanes (i.e. stream content from certain providers without it counting against your bandwidth limit). It's a short term win for customers, but they lose in the long run.
billiam 10y ago
Second to last nail in the coffin. Yay. Sometimes the interests of hundreds of millions of people can in fact outweigh the interests of two corporations. With so many things about our society under attack, this is good news. attack,
- 762236 10y ago
  An alternative way to look at it: the value in the network is due to the networking effects, which is contributed by the network members --- the value provided by the two corporations is slight in comparison. This is the same as in property value --- a McDonalds located in downtown San Francisco is quite a different proposition to one located in the middle of a prairie, and the value isn't in the building, but the availability of patrons that comes from a flourishing neighborhood.
shmerl 10y ago
Good! What about efforts to repeal monopolistic state bans on municipal broadband? FCC was also in the middle of some court cases about it. Is there any progress?
dang 10y ago
Url changed from http://www.theverge.com/2016/6/14/11487124/fcc-net-neutrality-open-internet-order-appeal-ruling-lawsuit http://www.theverge.com/2016/6/14/11487124/fcc-net-neutralit..., which points to this.
pmoriarty 10y ago
Can ISPs still charge for more bandwidth?
- jimktrains2 10y ago
  Yes? Why would you think they couldn't? They just can't change you more or change your bandwidth based on the services you use. What I really want is something akin to guarantees on the bandwidth, or something like 95%ile billing. Why should I pay for something that I'm not being given (and yes, before people start saying it's legal because of the contract, I'm not arguing that, I'm saying they're selling 50, I'm getting 20, consistently.)
grellas 10y ago
How we got to the point where utility-style regulation is seen as the key to ensuring a free and open internet is a true puzzle. Utility-style regulation gives regulators plenary authority over the internet - meaning full and complete. Their power to do this or to forbid that is highly discretionary and essentially boundless. This in turn gives a gatekeeper role to the regulators: you play by their rules or you don't play. And that means they have final say over what happens across the internet, at least within U.S. jurisdiction. So today they say net neutrality rules. Tomorrow maybe it is price controls in the name of consumer fairness. Or maybe it is mandated compliance with government snooping orders in the name of national security. Or who knows what not? Why not? With a utility-style regulatory framework, you essentially have a form of administrative law run wild, legally speaking. Standards are exceedingly vague, power is wildly broad, and (in the end) he who has the most power and pull to control the regulators winds up having the final say over what the law is or is not as it affects the internet. This is the exact antithesis of the largely hands-off idea of what the government could do with respect to the internet over the past several decades. Of course law tends to conform in the short term to what people want and, today, most people truly do want a free and open internet. Therefore, the risk of any existential threat to internet freedom is either minimal or non-existent in the short term. But if your idea of preserving maximum internet freedom is in effect to place a loaded gun to its head and then declare it is not a problem because it is the good guys who control it and who therefore will use it only for good purposes, then you have what you want with utility-style regulation of the internet. It might just work great as long as the good guys are in control. But what happens when it changes some day? And, if you think it cannot, then you have far, far more faith in human nature than I can possibly summon. Welcome to the brave new world.
- thenewwazoo 10y ago
  I think you're ignoring the very real problems with the Internet infrastructure while you raise alarms about prospective problems. The reason utility-style regulation is a good thing is because the Internet is a utility. And like most other utilities, natural monopolies arise and the free market is distorted. There is already a gun to the head of the Internet, but instead of being putatively controlled by the populous at large it is controlled by entrenched rent-seeking oligopolists who are beholden only to shareholders that do not care about the function of the market. Yes, there is a risk that the regulators will declare any number of rules for any number of reasons. Yes, regulatory capture of regulators is a real problem. The solution to these two problems is not to cede control to multinational corporations. Your lack of faith in human nature should extend to all humans, not just ones who are the apparatus of the state.
dreamdu5t 10y ago
Can someone explain why T-Mobile is legally allowed to provide free streaming for YouTube and Netflix? Didn't net neutrality prevent that? Or am I just out of the loop? The thing is... I like them preferentially treating YouTube and Netflix traffic by not counting it towards my bandwidth limit. The "fair" alternative sucks: I would simply not stream on my phone anymore because it would be too expensive.
- ascagnel_ 10y ago
  T-Mobile is allowed to do that due to zero-rating, which the FCC is still investigating. I'd expect T-Mobile to be OK (their only requirement is technical; streams need to be TCP); but some of their competitors (AT&T's advertiser-supported model, Verizon's own video service) will probably run into trouble.
- fucking_tragedy 10y ago
  The fair alternative could be to not count any streaming video service traffic towards your data usage.
  - dreamdu5t 10y ago
    And how would T-Mobile be compensated for that? AFAIK, the reason they're able to do this is because Netflix, Youtube, etc. pays them to be part of the program.
    - pianowow 10y ago
      It's in T-Mobile's interest to do this for its own network management. The unlimited video is of much lower quality, using less bandwidth. The only agreement between T-Mobile and Netflix/YouTube is for T-Mobile to be allowed to control which quality is served over their network.
    - sib 10y ago
      The video content providers do not pay to be a part of the T-Mobile Bing On program.
sova 10y ago
Hurray for common sense!
jojohack 10y ago
Does this mean I can finally watch HBO GO on my PS4 via my Comcast account?
- ascagnel_ 10y ago
  Nope. It means that, should you ever be able to log in to HBO GO on your PS4 with your Comcast account, Comcast won't be able to do much to degrade the stream. The authentication of pay services is outside the purvue of Net Neutrality.
thenewregiment 10y ago
2 of them Indian names deciding the fate of net neutrality for telcos. Drumpf and his stooges surely must be frowning. Or maybe dumpf is a better choice than that capitalist crony Texan.
bcheung 10y ago
What are the specifics in regard to peering? It seemed like with Netflix there was some confusion and FUD and it was hard to know the exact facts. Normally as a business you are required to purchase bandwidth from bandwidth providers. I would assume this would still stand. What counts as throttling? If an ISP has multiple peering connections with backbone providers are they forced to upgrade their hardware to compensate for all the traffic coming from their peer? If so, what counts as sufficient quality? If they upgrade some peering connections and not others is that breaking Net Neutrality? My understanding, not sure if it is correct, was that Netflix had traffic on an Internet backbone and Comcast was selectively throttling traffic within the peering connection based on whether it was Netflix traffic. I can see how that is discriminatory and wrong. Anyone have more details about how all this works specifically?
bcheung 10y ago
How does this relate to high frequency trading and paying more to get access to servers closer to the exchange? Is that paid prioritization / a fast lane? Or is that just purchasing a better plan? Where is the line drawn?
- tjohns 10y ago
  Usually this is done over private leased lines, either as a dedicated fiber run or on a switched network. If you're worried about tens of milliseconds worth of latency, you don't route your traffic over the public internet.
wpBenny 10y ago
...
nemock 10y ago
I think it'll be a while before we are out of the woods on this one. The culprits continue to thumb their nose at the FCC and openly challenge their authority.
daveheq 10y ago
The politicians know they can never get past the technologists; not because they make them so much money, but because they're smarter than they are.

591 points by textdog 10y ago

Generally glad that the order was upheld. I do wish that zero rating was more clearly defined, but regulation is just as much a reactive task as a proactive one, and it will be interesting to see how the ISPs use that tool in their toolbox. My suspicion is that we would see general price increases but then a 'zero rating' for, say, streaming video, making it seem like a good deal. Video seems cheaper but is really just subsidized by the rest of the content. I see a parallel there to how the health insurance situation in America seems to have played out over the last few years from the view point of the average middle class developer.

textdog 10y ago
Really, really good point! The FCC is deciding the outcome of those plans now, groups are calling for an open process to the decision so that there isn't any bad ruling before people can weigh in and all sides looked at.

StavrosK 10y ago

Can someone explain what this means? The term "net neutrality" has been muddled so much that I can't tell if it means what it actually says, or if it's distorted doublespeak that actually means the opposite. Is this decision good or bad for us?

theseanstewart 10y ago
This is very good. It means Net Neutrality is here to stay (for now).
wmeredith 10y ago
This is the core of what was upheld: "No Blocking: broadband providers may not block access to legal content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices. "No Throttling: broadband providers may not impair or degrade lawful Internet traffic on the basis of content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices. "No Paid Prioritization: broadband providers may not favor some lawful Internet traffic over other lawful traffic in exchange for consideration of any kind—in other words, no "fast lanes." This rule also bans ISPs from prioritizing content and services of their affiliates." This is a good thing. Big telcos have been trying to gut the FCC of its power ever since they issued their Open Internet Order: https://www.fcc.gov/general/open-internet https://www.fcc.gov/general/open-internet Next stop is the supreme court if they continue to push back against it.
- komali2 10y ago
  Does this mean netflix can stop paying Comcast?
  - nikanj 10y ago
    Probably not, as Netflix has no way to prove Comcast is throttling them and the FCC is toothless
    - inanutshellus 10y ago
      Is this ruling not the FCC regaining "teeth"?
      - rkangel 10y ago
        No, this is validation that the FCCs position is legal. Nor they need a mechanism to enforce it properly. That doesn't just mean the ability to impose penalties (which is part of it) but also means the power to know what's going on so that penalties can be imposed.
        dragonwriter 10y ago
        The FCC has existing complaint-based, investigatory, and other enforcement mechanisms, which have been around for a long time, and have been available to use (e.g., complaints have been accepted) under the Open Internet Order since it was issued (heck, they've had successful enforcement actions under the part of the old [2010] Open Internet Order -- the transparency rule -- that weren't struck down in Verizon v. FCC, such as the $100M penalty against AT&T Mobility for misrepresenting its "unlimited" plans.) What do you imagine it doesn't have that it needs with regard to the Open Internet Order in this area?
        cmdrfred 10y ago
        On paper you are correct, but I doubt the person who runs the FCC gets to golf with the president[0][1]. [0]http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2013/08/obama-golfs-with-comcast-ceo-170524 http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2013/08/obama-golfs-with... [1]http://www.nationalreview.com/article/375116/how-comcast-bought-democratic-party-matthew-continetti http://www.nationalreview.com/article/375116/how-comcast-bou...
drzaiusapelord 10y ago
In general it means no blocking or throttling by a certain class of ISP. I believe mobile gets an exception as they are allowed to non-discriminatory throttle past a certain "data cap." This includes lower caps for mobile hotspot usage. Also, T-Mobile is arguably violating non-netrality with its Binge service. The FCC has thus far refused to rule against them. T-Mobile claims this cannot be throttling because you can opt-out of it at any time and upstream providers are not being charged. Seems like this could a slippery slope for wired ISPs to follow. On top of that, I'm a AT&T u-verse customer who recently cut his TV service with U-verse. I was told that I now have a strict data cap, when before I had unlimited because of that. I would like to see the FCC address these situations as cord-cutting becomes popular. I have a FireTV now with Playstation Vue and HBO Now for at least 1/2 the price of U-verse tv.
oconnore 10y ago
The most important part of the decision is granting the FCC authority to consider internet providers as a utility -- and therefore regulate their activities in the interest of the consumer. The actual "net neutrality" win is nice, but this means that the FCC has power to tweak the regulations in the future when Verizon/Comcast/AT&T come up with some new shitty way to monetize their customers.
mtgx 10y ago
Net neutrality is "good" in the sense that it has some regulations that "should" stop the carriers from making the Internet much worse than it already is - with the caveat that the FCC actually enforces those rules, and so far it hasn't (maybe it was just waiting for the Court to uphold these rules - we'll see). But these net neutrality rules won't really make the Internet "better" in the U.S., until the ISPs get much better competition, mainly at the local level. Right now this is often not possible because of "other regulations" that essentially give exclusive rights/monopoly to an ISP over a certain area. If you want "better Internet", eliminating those local monopolies should be the main goal for policy changes going forward. It's something Republicans should vigorously support as well (free market!), but for some reason (read: campaign donations) they do not.
- gm-conspiracy 10y ago
  Before rayiner replies to this and insists it is not a monopoly, but a "non-exclusive franchise agreement", I give you this link: Cable TV Franchises as Barriers to Video Competition http://www.vjolt.net/vol12/issue1/v12i1_a2-Hazlett.pdf http://www.vjolt.net/vol12/issue1/v12i1_a2-Hazlett.pdf
textdog 10y ago
It also means no government or telecom company (or corporation for that matter) can get in between you and the Internet content of your choosing through sneaky slowing down or throttling.
dclowd9901 10y ago
The only thing you need to know is that telcos and providers are against net neutrality. (Ok, so some people on here would argue that any regulation on internet is a slippery slope, but I wouldn't worry about that from the FCC. Now, if congress starts weighing in, that's a different story.)
sideband 10y ago
This is probably an unpopular opinion, but I believe it's a net negative. Typically, ISPs in the US are either small and barely-profitable or large and with little appetite for business or technical innovation. The largest content providers already effectively share revenue with the largest ISPs through paid-peering and other arrangements. The smaller players, those that with success could grow and advance the market, are too small to justify the time of content providers that are also very worried about setting a dangerous precedent by extending the same deals to them that they extend to the AT&Ts and Comcasts. Sure, as consumers we get additional protections, but I fear this mostly ensures that the industry as a whole stays put.
- baldfat 10y ago
  > I fear this mostly ensures that the industry as a whole stays put. That was 100% the point of Net Neutrality. It is so that the Internet doesn't change. Otherwise we will have a barrier of entry for all the small businesses. The Internet is a free market that needs to stay that way.
- ZenoArrow 10y ago
  Sorry, I don't understand your point. The whole idea of net neutrality is that content creators can't pay ISPs for preferential treatment. This means that the large ISPs won't be receiving payouts from Netflix and suchlike, and therefore won't have an advantage in this area over smaller ISPs. If you really want to push for competition, there are other options. I don't know much about the situation in the US, but in the UK we have local-loop unbundling (LLU), which has proven to be a success in driving forward competition in the ISP market. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local-loop_unbundling https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local-loop_unbundling LLU helps smaller ISPs to compete with larger ISPs, as it allows them to build up their infrastructure without duplicating the work of laying cables. From the Wikipedia page I just linked to it appears that LLU is at least legal in the US, I'd be interested to learn about how popular it is.
  - sideband 10y ago
    My point in less words: The big guys (ISPs and content providers) all share revenue already and will continue to. This ruling shuts the little guys out of that action forever under the guise of consumer interest, rendering them permanently less competitive. That's bad.
don_draper 10y ago
Net Neutrality means the Internet should be treated as a utility and not a luxury.

droopybuns 10y ago

Tom Wheeler says this: "Notably, the Open Internet Order does not affect zero-rating services like T-Mobile's BingeOn or Verizon's Go90, which are intentionally left out of the scope of the order. "I can argue there are some aspects of [zero rating] that are good, and I can argue there’s some aspects of it that are not so good," Wheeler told The Verge in an interview in March. "The job of the regulator is to figure out, 'Okay, now how do I deal with this?'" Outrageous behavior, followed up by outrageous commentary. This FCC is out of control. How does anyone invest in wireless with regulators like this? Is Tom Wheeler even aware of the chilling affect of commentary like this? Edit: The quote above is from the fine article. Wmeredith: I'm talking about is Tom Wheeler, chair of the FCC. In this particular quote, the regulator of the laws is saying (at least as far as I can tell), that he's going to pick and choose which players he regulates. Should I assume you're arguing that my quote from the article is fud, or is it my commentary? Or my interpretation of it? I'm not being a troll. I have an honest disagreement that this is the right thing to do. Would you invest in any climate with a regulator who says things like this? It seems wildly more risky to me.

exhilaration 10y ago
Can someone give us a quick summary of why the two mentioned services are problematic?
- wmeredith 10y ago
  T-Mobile's BingeOn or Verizon's Go90 are problematic because they prioritize content. Say you're a new video streaming startup. You can't compete against Netflix with T-Mobile users because Netflix's traffic gets priority. You can't get that priority because you're not a big enough fish to negotiate your own fast lane. Fast lanes are bad for innovation in this way. They favor entrenched players, which then become more entrenched, and then become more favored, etc... The FCC's Open Internet Order explicitly bans this behavior, but it only applies to wired connections. They did not issue any ruling on wireless internet, so several wireless providers offer these unmetered fast lanes (i.e. stream content from certain providers without it counting against your bandwidth limit). It's a short term win for customers, but they lose in the long run.

billiam 10y ago

Second to last nail in the coffin. Yay. Sometimes the interests of hundreds of millions of people can in fact outweigh the interests of two corporations. With so many things about our society under attack, this is good news. attack,

762236 10y ago
An alternative way to look at it: the value in the network is due to the networking effects, which is contributed by the network members --- the value provided by the two corporations is slight in comparison. This is the same as in property value --- a McDonalds located in downtown San Francisco is quite a different proposition to one located in the middle of a prairie, and the value isn't in the building, but the availability of patrons that comes from a flourishing neighborhood.

shmerl 10y ago

Good! What about efforts to repeal monopolistic state bans on municipal broadband? FCC was also in the middle of some court cases about it. Is there any progress?

dang 10y ago

Url changed from http://www.theverge.com/2016/6/14/11487124/fcc-net-neutrality-open-internet-order-appeal-ruling-lawsuit http://www.theverge.com/2016/6/14/11487124/fcc-net-neutralit..., which points to this.

pmoriarty 10y ago

Can ISPs still charge for more bandwidth?

jimktrains2 10y ago
Yes? Why would you think they couldn't? They just can't change you more or change your bandwidth based on the services you use. What I really want is something akin to guarantees on the bandwidth, or something like 95%ile billing. Why should I pay for something that I'm not being given (and yes, before people start saying it's legal because of the contract, I'm not arguing that, I'm saying they're selling 50, I'm getting 20, consistently.)

grellas 10y ago

How we got to the point where utility-style regulation is seen as the key to ensuring a free and open internet is a true puzzle. Utility-style regulation gives regulators plenary authority over the internet - meaning full and complete. Their power to do this or to forbid that is highly discretionary and essentially boundless. This in turn gives a gatekeeper role to the regulators: you play by their rules or you don't play. And that means they have final say over what happens across the internet, at least within U.S. jurisdiction. So today they say net neutrality rules. Tomorrow maybe it is price controls in the name of consumer fairness. Or maybe it is mandated compliance with government snooping orders in the name of national security. Or who knows what not? Why not? With a utility-style regulatory framework, you essentially have a form of administrative law run wild, legally speaking. Standards are exceedingly vague, power is wildly broad, and (in the end) he who has the most power and pull to control the regulators winds up having the final say over what the law is or is not as it affects the internet. This is the exact antithesis of the largely hands-off idea of what the government could do with respect to the internet over the past several decades. Of course law tends to conform in the short term to what people want and, today, most people truly do want a free and open internet. Therefore, the risk of any existential threat to internet freedom is either minimal or non-existent in the short term. But if your idea of preserving maximum internet freedom is in effect to place a loaded gun to its head and then declare it is not a problem because it is the good guys who control it and who therefore will use it only for good purposes, then you have what you want with utility-style regulation of the internet. It might just work great as long as the good guys are in control. But what happens when it changes some day? And, if you think it cannot, then you have far, far more faith in human nature than I can possibly summon. Welcome to the brave new world.

thenewwazoo 10y ago
I think you're ignoring the very real problems with the Internet infrastructure while you raise alarms about prospective problems. The reason utility-style regulation is a good thing is because the Internet is a utility. And like most other utilities, natural monopolies arise and the free market is distorted. There is already a gun to the head of the Internet, but instead of being putatively controlled by the populous at large it is controlled by entrenched rent-seeking oligopolists who are beholden only to shareholders that do not care about the function of the market. Yes, there is a risk that the regulators will declare any number of rules for any number of reasons. Yes, regulatory capture of regulators is a real problem. The solution to these two problems is not to cede control to multinational corporations. Your lack of faith in human nature should extend to all humans, not just ones who are the apparatus of the state.

dreamdu5t 10y ago

Can someone explain why T-Mobile is legally allowed to provide free streaming for YouTube and Netflix? Didn't net neutrality prevent that? Or am I just out of the loop? The thing is... I like them preferentially treating YouTube and Netflix traffic by not counting it towards my bandwidth limit. The "fair" alternative sucks: I would simply not stream on my phone anymore because it would be too expensive.

ascagnel_ 10y ago
T-Mobile is allowed to do that due to zero-rating, which the FCC is still investigating. I'd expect T-Mobile to be OK (their only requirement is technical; streams need to be TCP); but some of their competitors (AT&T's advertiser-supported model, Verizon's own video service) will probably run into trouble.
fucking_tragedy 10y ago
The fair alternative could be to not count any streaming video service traffic towards your data usage.
- dreamdu5t 10y ago
  And how would T-Mobile be compensated for that? AFAIK, the reason they're able to do this is because Netflix, Youtube, etc. pays them to be part of the program.
  - pianowow 10y ago
    It's in T-Mobile's interest to do this for its own network management. The unlimited video is of much lower quality, using less bandwidth. The only agreement between T-Mobile and Netflix/YouTube is for T-Mobile to be allowed to control which quality is served over their network.
  - sib 10y ago
    The video content providers do not pay to be a part of the T-Mobile Bing On program.

sova 10y ago

Hurray for common sense!

jojohack 10y ago

Does this mean I can finally watch HBO GO on my PS4 via my Comcast account?

ascagnel_ 10y ago
Nope. It means that, should you ever be able to log in to HBO GO on your PS4 with your Comcast account, Comcast won't be able to do much to degrade the stream. The authentication of pay services is outside the purvue of Net Neutrality.

thenewregiment 10y ago

2 of them Indian names deciding the fate of net neutrality for telcos. Drumpf and his stooges surely must be frowning. Or maybe dumpf is a better choice than that capitalist crony Texan.

bcheung 10y ago

What are the specifics in regard to peering? It seemed like with Netflix there was some confusion and FUD and it was hard to know the exact facts. Normally as a business you are required to purchase bandwidth from bandwidth providers. I would assume this would still stand. What counts as throttling? If an ISP has multiple peering connections with backbone providers are they forced to upgrade their hardware to compensate for all the traffic coming from their peer? If so, what counts as sufficient quality? If they upgrade some peering connections and not others is that breaking Net Neutrality? My understanding, not sure if it is correct, was that Netflix had traffic on an Internet backbone and Comcast was selectively throttling traffic within the peering connection based on whether it was Netflix traffic. I can see how that is discriminatory and wrong. Anyone have more details about how all this works specifically?

bcheung 10y ago

How does this relate to high frequency trading and paying more to get access to servers closer to the exchange? Is that paid prioritization / a fast lane? Or is that just purchasing a better plan? Where is the line drawn?

tjohns 10y ago
Usually this is done over private leased lines, either as a dedicated fiber run or on a switched network. If you're worried about tens of milliseconds worth of latency, you don't route your traffic over the public internet.

wpBenny 10y ago

...

nemock 10y ago

I think it'll be a while before we are out of the woods on this one. The culprits continue to thumb their nose at the FCC and openly challenge their authority.

daveheq 10y ago

The politicians know they can never get past the technologists; not because they make them so much money, but because they're smarter than they are.