7 ms·

FCC chair wants to replace net neutrality with "voluntary" commitments

74 points by niftich 10y ago

niftich 10y ago
Related (from yesterday): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14057164 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14057164 This Ars Technica article provides additional context vs. the Reuters article on the history of net neutrality in the FCC and the current chair's past statements when he was a commissioner; as well as additional context on the implications of FCC vs. FTC enforcement.
avehn 10y ago
The regulations were put in place because ISPs were not voluntarily cooperating with net neutrality. The FCC chair appears to be either unaware of history or practicing wishful thinking.
- wcarron 10y ago
  Normally, the quote goes "never attribute to malice what can be assigned to stupidity" or something along those lines. But Pai is a categorical, shit eating politician. And in the case of politicians, "never attribute to stupidity what can be attributed to malice". This is a willful dismantling of consumer protections for political or financial gain. Edit: typo
  - John23832 10y ago
    > Normally, the quote goes "never attribute to malice what can be assigned to stupidity" or something along those lines. I always like to respond to that quote with another one. I think it fits our current governmental situation particularly. "Which is more culpable: stupidity or malice?"
  - eximius 10y ago
    "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity, but don't rule out malice."
  - Abekkus 10y ago
    That quote was designed by malice, to encourage stupidity.
  - pseudalopex 10y ago
    Sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from malice anyway.
- happytrails 10y ago
  the FCC chair is daft
  - mankash666 10y ago
    Not daft. But obviously motivated by economic gain at the cost of ethics. How is a guy supposed to regulate the telcos playing notes to their songs? One needs his Internet history to trace the money, if any.
- Spooky23 10y ago
  You're very generous in your assessment.
- shmerl 10y ago
  More likely he is being paid by monopolists to do it. It's called corruption.
dreamcompiler 10y ago
The beautiful thing about a VPN is it means I don't have to care who voluntarily agrees to what.
- shuntress 10y ago
  Until your ISP 'de-prioritizes' traffic between you and the VPN?
- droopyEyelids 10y ago
  I don't know if you're making a joke, but revoking Net Neutrality is exactly the thing a VPN won't protect you from. If ISPs are allowed to charge different rates for different traffic types on their network, they can charge an exorbitant fee for VPN traffic and punish you.
  - dreamcompiler 10y ago
    They can, but they won't. Most major companies and the government require their employees to use VPNs now, and an ISP can't tell the difference between a personal VPN and an employer-mandated one. If they penalize VPN users, they're going to get flack from the Fortune 500 and from the governments whose goodwill they depend on to exist, not just from a bunch of individual hackers.
    - anigbrowl 10y ago
      ISPs can easily tell the difference between corporate and residential customers, and penalize the latter. 'I can figure out a way to game this system therefore it's not a problem' is a very hackerish response, but it's also an immature one; not because it's bad to mediate social relations with technology, but to pretend that oneself is the only actor one needs to be concerned about, a position which is neither pragmatic nor principled. Of course I don't expect you to hew to the same principles as I do, but as a practical matter you won't be able to invent/hack your way out of your problems forever* so it behooves you to consider situations in which that strategy will not be available to you. * unless you die young or go live in a cabin in the woods like Ted Kaczynski.
pottersbasilisk 10y ago
if net neutrality fails would google become an isp then?
- dsr_ 10y ago
  These things are not related to each other. Google owns/operates one of the largest, possibly the largest network in the world. It's called YouTube. (All the other traffic also rides it, but YT is the major app by volume.) Google also is an ISP, in the form of Google Fiber. Google also is a (virtual) wireless carrier, as Google Fi.
  - duskwuff 10y ago
    Note that Google Fiber is only available in a limited number of markets, and they're no longer expanding. So they're not much of a competitor to national ISPs.
- xenadu02 10y ago
  The incumbent ISPs will charge just enough that it is cheaper for Google to pay the toll. If Google is smart they'll double-down on Google Fiber. If the rest of SV were smart they'd chip in and blanket the top 200 cities with gigabit fiber to kickstart some real competition. Ma Bell looks back at the days of $5/minute long distance calls with great fondness. The internet is an asset to be monitized to the maximum extent possible.
- takeda 10y ago
  No, it's really hard hard to become a new ISP, and actually Google is a perfect example. They have tons of money to pull it off, yet even they are giving up on it (they are no longer expanding to other places). What is happening is that they pull to a city, and offer attractive deals, as soon as they do companies like Time Warner will adapt and match their price and speed, but only in the region that Google get, every other customer in another region is still being f*cked as usual. The regional ISPs can actually provide service even at a loss, because they are available in different regions so they can use money from other regions to subsidize losses in the specific one they want to eliminate the competition. I think at this point best deal for us is if a cities would start providing ISP services, and some are trying to do just that, but unfortunately existing ISPs fighting tooth and nail with this by suing every city that is trying to do that. So, no, nothing can easily replace existing ISPs and they know it. Currently a lot of regulation is needed because there's no competition possible, otherwise ISPs are free to do whatever they want, because who you're going to switch to if you're fed up with them?
devoply 10y ago
I promise I won't make more money. I promise, my word is my bond.
wavefunction 10y ago
'Voluntary commitments' is not only a paradox but has turned this unfortunate policy push into a ridiculous farce. Especially since that's the default situation under this new anti-net-neutrality push by the GOP anyways.
pitaj 10y ago
Everyone here is so cynical, saying he's in the pocket of telecoms. Maybe he is. But maybe he's just ideologically opposed to these rules being implemented by a regulatory bureaucracy on the federal level.
- MaulingMonkey 10y ago
  It can be both - in their pocket because he's just ideologically opposed.
- thomastjeffery 10y ago
  To have an ideological stance does not mean every decision is already made. Neither ideology nor partisanship excuse an individual of ignorance or malice.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- dv_dt 10y ago
  He can be ideologically opposed to rules, but he is also blatantly ignoring information regarding lack of competition for last mile broadband customers, and without that, consumers have no market method of counterbalancing corporate overreach. Of he offered more of a structural remedy, or something, anything that actually addressed lack of last-mile competition I would be willing be less cynical about him.
  - prasadjoglekar 10y ago
    His structural remedy is to remove government from the mix and let the market dictate the price of bandwidth. One thought is that the last-mile problem becomes irrelevant when mobile providers are offering high-speed internet. Whether you agree with that sentiment is largely dependent on how you view the world.
    - anigbrowl 10y ago
      Net neutrality is a relatively recent policy development in response to actual market conditions. Deregulators like to avoid the question of why the regulations were put in there to begin with, claiming they were imposed by some ideological interloper but never acknowledging that regulations are often put in place by popular demand.
coldcode 10y ago
Can we pay taxes voluntarily? Equally likely to work.
thomastjeffery 10y ago
> the FCC net neutrality order "imposes intrusive government regulations that won’t work to solve a problem that doesn’t exist using legal authority the FCC doesn’t have." That is an outright lie. Actually, four of them in one sentence! .. Ok, the "intrusive government regulations" part is arguable (at best), but they do work, and they do solve a problem that exists, and, by definition, they do have the authority (these rules clearly give it). > The net neutrality order also required ISPs to make more specific public disclosures about prices, fees, and data caps. What is wrong with that, exactly? Do customers not need to know prices? Is it not literally fraudulent to not give this information?
vorotato 10y ago
That's because he's a corporate shill. Corps need to keep their dirty fingers out of politics. Gov't has already restricted consumer choice with ISPs and now they want to use that lack of choice to punish us. It's really messed up, and there's no actual way for consumers to go somewhere else. I hope all the major US ISPs get sued into oblivion for anti-trust violations.

74 points by niftich 10y ago

Related (from yesterday): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14057164 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14057164 This Ars Technica article provides additional context vs. the Reuters article on the history of net neutrality in the FCC and the current chair's past statements when he was a commissioner; as well as additional context on the implications of FCC vs. FTC enforcement.

avehn 10y ago

The regulations were put in place because ISPs were not voluntarily cooperating with net neutrality. The FCC chair appears to be either unaware of history or practicing wishful thinking.

wcarron 10y ago
Normally, the quote goes "never attribute to malice what can be assigned to stupidity" or something along those lines. But Pai is a categorical, shit eating politician. And in the case of politicians, "never attribute to stupidity what can be attributed to malice". This is a willful dismantling of consumer protections for political or financial gain. Edit: typo
- John23832 10y ago
  > Normally, the quote goes "never attribute to malice what can be assigned to stupidity" or something along those lines. I always like to respond to that quote with another one. I think it fits our current governmental situation particularly. "Which is more culpable: stupidity or malice?"
- eximius 10y ago
  "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity, but don't rule out malice."
- Abekkus 10y ago
  That quote was designed by malice, to encourage stupidity.
- pseudalopex 10y ago
  Sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from malice anyway.
happytrails 10y ago
the FCC chair is daft
- mankash666 10y ago
  Not daft. But obviously motivated by economic gain at the cost of ethics. How is a guy supposed to regulate the telcos playing notes to their songs? One needs his Internet history to trace the money, if any.
Spooky23 10y ago
You're very generous in your assessment.
shmerl 10y ago
More likely he is being paid by monopolists to do it. It's called corruption.

dreamcompiler 10y ago

The beautiful thing about a VPN is it means I don't have to care who voluntarily agrees to what.

shuntress 10y ago
Until your ISP 'de-prioritizes' traffic between you and the VPN?
droopyEyelids 10y ago
I don't know if you're making a joke, but revoking Net Neutrality is exactly the thing a VPN won't protect you from. If ISPs are allowed to charge different rates for different traffic types on their network, they can charge an exorbitant fee for VPN traffic and punish you.
- dreamcompiler 10y ago
  They can, but they won't. Most major companies and the government require their employees to use VPNs now, and an ISP can't tell the difference between a personal VPN and an employer-mandated one. If they penalize VPN users, they're going to get flack from the Fortune 500 and from the governments whose goodwill they depend on to exist, not just from a bunch of individual hackers.
  - anigbrowl 10y ago
    ISPs can easily tell the difference between corporate and residential customers, and penalize the latter. 'I can figure out a way to game this system therefore it's not a problem' is a very hackerish response, but it's also an immature one; not because it's bad to mediate social relations with technology, but to pretend that oneself is the only actor one needs to be concerned about, a position which is neither pragmatic nor principled. Of course I don't expect you to hew to the same principles as I do, but as a practical matter you won't be able to invent/hack your way out of your problems forever* so it behooves you to consider situations in which that strategy will not be available to you. * unless you die young or go live in a cabin in the woods like Ted Kaczynski.

pottersbasilisk 10y ago

if net neutrality fails would google become an isp then?

dsr_ 10y ago
These things are not related to each other. Google owns/operates one of the largest, possibly the largest network in the world. It's called YouTube. (All the other traffic also rides it, but YT is the major app by volume.) Google also is an ISP, in the form of Google Fiber. Google also is a (virtual) wireless carrier, as Google Fi.
- duskwuff 10y ago
  Note that Google Fiber is only available in a limited number of markets, and they're no longer expanding. So they're not much of a competitor to national ISPs.
xenadu02 10y ago
The incumbent ISPs will charge just enough that it is cheaper for Google to pay the toll. If Google is smart they'll double-down on Google Fiber. If the rest of SV were smart they'd chip in and blanket the top 200 cities with gigabit fiber to kickstart some real competition. Ma Bell looks back at the days of $5/minute long distance calls with great fondness. The internet is an asset to be monitized to the maximum extent possible.
takeda 10y ago
No, it's really hard hard to become a new ISP, and actually Google is a perfect example. They have tons of money to pull it off, yet even they are giving up on it (they are no longer expanding to other places). What is happening is that they pull to a city, and offer attractive deals, as soon as they do companies like Time Warner will adapt and match their price and speed, but only in the region that Google get, every other customer in another region is still being f*cked as usual. The regional ISPs can actually provide service even at a loss, because they are available in different regions so they can use money from other regions to subsidize losses in the specific one they want to eliminate the competition. I think at this point best deal for us is if a cities would start providing ISP services, and some are trying to do just that, but unfortunately existing ISPs fighting tooth and nail with this by suing every city that is trying to do that. So, no, nothing can easily replace existing ISPs and they know it. Currently a lot of regulation is needed because there's no competition possible, otherwise ISPs are free to do whatever they want, because who you're going to switch to if you're fed up with them?

devoply 10y ago

I promise I won't make more money. I promise, my word is my bond.

wavefunction 10y ago

'Voluntary commitments' is not only a paradox but has turned this unfortunate policy push into a ridiculous farce. Especially since that's the default situation under this new anti-net-neutrality push by the GOP anyways.

pitaj 10y ago

Everyone here is so cynical, saying he's in the pocket of telecoms. Maybe he is. But maybe he's just ideologically opposed to these rules being implemented by a regulatory bureaucracy on the federal level.

MaulingMonkey 10y ago
It can be both - in their pocket because he's just ideologically opposed.
thomastjeffery 10y ago
To have an ideological stance does not mean every decision is already made. Neither ideology nor partisanship excuse an individual of ignorance or malice.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
dv_dt 10y ago
He can be ideologically opposed to rules, but he is also blatantly ignoring information regarding lack of competition for last mile broadband customers, and without that, consumers have no market method of counterbalancing corporate overreach. Of he offered more of a structural remedy, or something, anything that actually addressed lack of last-mile competition I would be willing be less cynical about him.
- prasadjoglekar 10y ago
  His structural remedy is to remove government from the mix and let the market dictate the price of bandwidth. One thought is that the last-mile problem becomes irrelevant when mobile providers are offering high-speed internet. Whether you agree with that sentiment is largely dependent on how you view the world.
  - anigbrowl 10y ago
    Net neutrality is a relatively recent policy development in response to actual market conditions. Deregulators like to avoid the question of why the regulations were put in there to begin with, claiming they were imposed by some ideological interloper but never acknowledging that regulations are often put in place by popular demand.

coldcode 10y ago

Can we pay taxes voluntarily? Equally likely to work.

thomastjeffery 10y ago

> the FCC net neutrality order "imposes intrusive government regulations that won’t work to solve a problem that doesn’t exist using legal authority the FCC doesn’t have." That is an outright lie. Actually, four of them in one sentence! .. Ok, the "intrusive government regulations" part is arguable (at best), but they do work, and they do solve a problem that exists, and, by definition, they do have the authority (these rules clearly give it). > The net neutrality order also required ISPs to make more specific public disclosures about prices, fees, and data caps. What is wrong with that, exactly? Do customers not need to know prices? Is it not literally fraudulent to not give this information?

vorotato 10y ago

That's because he's a corporate shill. Corps need to keep their dirty fingers out of politics. Gov't has already restricted consumer choice with ISPs and now they want to use that lack of choice to punish us. It's really messed up, and there's no actual way for consumers to go somewhere else. I hope all the major US ISPs get sued into oblivion for anti-trust violations.