13 ms·

Can someone please respond to the actual pro-repeal arguments (in a non-John-Oliver-smug way)? Everyone is focusing on "woe is the unfree internet!" which seem

by Clanan 9y ago

Can someone please respond to the actual pro-repeal arguments (in a non-John-Oliver-smug way)? Everyone is focusing on "woe is the unfree internet!" which seems like a spoonfed, naive response with no content. And just having Google et. al. on one side isn't enough of a reason, given their motivations. The given reasons for the current FCC's actions appear to be: 1. The Title II Regs were designed during the Great Depression to address Ma Bell and don't match the internet now. 2. The FCC isn't the right vehicle for addressing anti-competitive behavior in this case; the FTC would be better. 3. The internet didn't need fixing in 2010 when the regs were passed.

tertius 9y ago
The FCC does not have the power to create law/regulation out of thin air. Congress should act. Ajit Pai is not against net neutrality, but rather against the power grab from the FCC. None of the complaints addresses this. https://www.wired.com/2017/05/congress-not-fcc-can-fix-net-neutrality/ https://www.wired.com/2017/05/congress-not-fcc-can-fix-net-n...
- amluto 9y ago
  What power grab by the FCC? The telecommunications act may well be outdated, but it seems quite clear that ISPs fit under the Title 2 definitions. ISTM the FCC under Wheeler was doing its job.
  - tertius 9y ago
    I will likely just regurgitate the article I linked. Read it and ask questions if any remain.
  - tertius 9y ago
    Okay, if downvotes is what I get then here's an answer. No, ISPs do not fit under Title II and it's not the way to go to ensure net neutrality. Even congress agrees that Title II was never meant for broadband. Power grab? The above. It was never meant for broadband. Quote from the EFF: > But Congress has never given the FCC any authority to regulate the Internet for the purpose of ensuring net neutrality. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/09/net-neutrality-fcc-perils-and-promise https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/09/net-neutrality-fcc-per...
- fosco 9y ago
  Ajit [0]worked for Verizon he is most certainly against net neutrality, he speifically said the actions in 2015 have prevented ISP investment in broadband and internet services. [1]. Ajit also specifically made multiple statements about the actions in 2015 and how they had a negative impact on the US economy. [2]. I find this akin to the repeal of dodd-frank. as I overheard some hedge-fund acquaintances "It is rip-off city" again. My opinion: How does this benefit the consumer? in what way? I fail to see how a government organization created to help the consumer is doing so, this appears to help the 'pocket wing' specifically moving money to again a smaller handful of individuals and the populace continues to be parochial about the entire issue. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ajit_Varadaraj_Pai https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ajit_Varadaraj_Pai [1] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/06/isps-across-country-tell-chairman-pai-not-repeal-network-neutrality https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/06/isps-across-country-te... [2] https://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2017/db0426/DOC-344590A1.pdf https://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/201...
  - tertius 9y ago
    [0-2] How does this show that he is against net neutrality?
    - fosco 9y ago
      did you read [2] ? here is a snippet of the case he makes for why net neutrality is bad and his argument for why it is presently having a negative impact on the economy as a whole. From Ajit: and reference 2 above. " Two years ago, I warned that we were making a serious mistake. Most importantly, I said that Title II regulation would reduce investment in broadband infrastructure. It’s basic economics: The more heavily you regulate somethin g, the less of it you’re likely to get. Now, when you talk about less infrastructure investment, many people’s eyes glaze over. But it’s important to explain in plain terms what the consequences are. Reduced investment means fewer Americans will have h igh-speed Internet access. It means fewer American will have jobs. And it means less competition for consumers. So what happened after the Commission adopted Title II? Sure enough, infrastructure investment declined. Among our nation’s 12 largest Inter net service providers, domestic broadband capital expenditures decreased by 5.6% percent, or $3.6 billion, between 2014 and 2016, the first two years of the Title II era. This decline is extremely unusual. It is the first time that such investment has declined outside of a recession in the Internet era."
- amluto 9y ago
  I never said that the route the FCC took to get to Title 2 classification made any sense or that the FCC's previous actions were justifiable. But the final outcome seemed fairly good.
throwawayjava 9y ago
Could someone make a pro-repeal argument that doesn't boil down to caring more about which bureaucrat enforces the rules than the rules themselves? Seriously, the whole FTC vs FCC thing is deeply confusing to me. I mean, WTF? I've never seen the public care so much about a battle over jurisdiction between two federal agencies. For this reason, I suspect it's all a bullshit red herring tactic -- the FCC is stripped of power to enforce net neutrality because "the FTC should do it", but then FTC's hands are also tied. Suddenly you can deregulate without actually making a substantive argument for deregulation.
- JumpCrisscross 9y ago
  > Could someone make a pro-repeal argument that doesn't boil down to caring more about which bureaucrat enforces the rules than the rules themselves? If you believe there's capacity for new entrants to the ISP space, e.g. from satellites [1], then the incumbents' present-day margins are a short-term cost for that long-term gain. If you believe the ISP field is more or less locked, then all the innovation will happen downstream. It would thus make sense to restrict the ISPs' margins in favor of Google, Facebook et al. I'm in that useless place where I see good points on both sides. ISPs need to be able to make money to encourage new entrants. But they shouldn't be able to do so in a way that discourages new entrants downstream. Net neutrality appears to strike that balance. Turning ISPs into utilities does not. [1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/elon-musks-next-mission-internet-satellites-1415390062 https://www.wsj.com/articles/elon-musks-next-mission-interne...
- surecanduder 9y ago
  it's because doing "the right thing" the wrong way, as is many people's wont, leaves it open to just this sort of trivally easy meddling in the future. see also: ACA battles
  - throwawayjava 9y ago
    Sorry, but I think you're being naive if you think that the people complaining most loudly about an "FCC power grab" are attempting to achieve anything other than deregulation.
maxsilver 9y ago
> 1. The Title II Regs were designed during the Great Depression to address Ma Bell and don't match the internet now. How so? As far as I can tell, 99% of Americans are still in the same situation as our Great Depression-era counterparts. The only difference is that the situation is now duplicated across a phone line and a cable line, instead of just the phone line alone. > 3. The internet didn't need fixing in 2010 The internet itself may not need fixing -- but internet service providers certainly need fixing, both back in 2010 and now still today. Every major US ISP (including AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, Sprint, T-Mobile, and many others) have all breached Net Neutrality. There have been numerous violations over the past decade -- a small portion of which is documented at https://www.freepress.net/blog/2017/04/25/net-neutrality-violations-brief-history https://www.freepress.net/blog/2017/04/25/net-neutrality-vio...
westbywest 9y ago
The valid arguments I read from industry groups like WISPA cite significant uncertainty in what Title II regulations would actually look like in practice. Given that WISPA is basically a trade group of small ISPs, some mom-and-pop scale, burden of any new regulation is a significant concern. My personal opinion strays from this, since the incumbent ISPs that WISPA membership generally competes with stand to benefit even more from the tact of deregulation (and presumably make further progress in driving more of them out of business).
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > The valid arguments I read from industry groups like WISPA cite significant uncertainty in what Title II regulations would actually look like in practice. The reclassification wasn't abstract; the actual regulations under Title II were included in the order with the reclassification. Any uncertainty about future regulations is unresolved by rescinding the reclassification now, since anything that could have been done under regulation with the reclassification can still be done in the future (it might take reclassifying again, but since that can be done in the same action as the concrete regulation, that's immaterial.)
  - westbywest 9y ago
    Quoted below is an except from a listserv discussion with a WISPA committee member working to draft that org's FCC filing. I'm sharing this, to fill in details on the assertion of "uncertainty in regulation" that is being bandied about, i.e. that the assertion isn't devoid of substance. But again, I don't share this view myself, believing that the absence of any Title II regs at all bodes worse than the burdens they or may not impose. ------ The Commission asked what the definition of ‘reasonable network management’ should be. The original (2010) version called for “reasonable network management” and defined it as: "A network management practice is reasonable if it is appropriate and tailored to achieving a legitimate network management purpose, taking into account the particular network architecture and technology of the broadband Internet access service." In the Title II order this was changed to: “a practice that has a primarily technical management justification, but does not include other business practices.” What does “other business practices" mean? From an engineering standpoint I can design and build a network that never requires ’network management'. We used to have that network - it was called ‘circuit switched’ and it was an engineering marvel. What I can’t do is build that network today and deliver broadband at competitive prices without some degree of oversubscription. The level of oversubscription is ultimately a management (and economic) decision. If all network management practices are then ‘business practices’ it becomes very difficult to decide what network management can be justified as ‘primarily technical’.
jayess 9y ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1IzN9tst28 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1IzN9tst28
munificent 9y ago
I'm not an expert on net neutrality, but just looking at your claims, the obvious rebuttals are: > 1. The Title II Regs were designed during the Great Depression to address Ma Bell and don't match the internet now. The point in time and original intent that something was created for has little bearing on its current suitability. Hammers with handles were invented in the Stone Age to break wood and stones. They still work just fine for putting in nails today. If the Title II Regs effectively accomplish the high level goals of network neutrality, then it's irrelevant what original goals it had. > 2. The FCC isn't the right vehicle for addressing anti-competitive behavior in this case; the FTC would be better. The perfect is the enemy of the good. Is there any ongoing plan to have the FTC regulate this? Who is driving that? Is the argument that if the FTC does not do this, then having the FCC do it is worse than doing nothing? Politics is always a game of compromise and incremental improvement. There are no perfect laws. > 3. The internet didn't need fixing in 2010 when the regs were passed. I'm not sure what this is even claiming. Is the idea that the law was passed to early so should be repealed now? We started agreeing to nonproliferation treaties before we had multi-state nuclear wars. Should we have waited until after that before doing those? Isn't prevention better than cure?
- jjoonathan 9y ago
  Re #3: the "new" laws passed in 2010 maintained the FCC's responsibility to enforce neutrality in the face of a court decision that would have otherwise have revoked it. The responsibility existed before the 2010 laws. If it wasn't broke in 2010, keeping the "new" laws on the books constitutes "not fixing it".
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- chasing 9y ago
  > Politics is always a game of compromise and incremental improvement. There are no perfect laws. Amen.
- pyre 9y ago
  > Isn't prevention better than cure? I can easily think of opposition rebuttals to this: 1. It's a solution in search of a problem. 2. It's a premature optimization. 3. The cure could be worse than the disease. etc...
netcan 9y ago
One argument I've heard made against net neutrality generally is a neoclassical/liberal economic one. To put it into practical terms, consider the "free data" plans prevalent in much of the developing world. You get free data to access a limited set of services who have agreements with your mobile ISP. FB pay (presumably) the ISP to be The (or part of the) restricted set of internet services provided to the consumer at subsidized (by FB) rates. Many people cannot afford the "real" internet access at full rates. But FB is willing to subsidize partial access for their own reasons^. The individuals who choose these plans (assuming competition^), are better off with cheap restricted access then none, or the more expensive full access. ^I don't agree with this reasoning. Adequate competition does not exist in ISP markets and FB's reasons for participating in walled gardens are anti-competitive, especially when it comes to new/small services that cannot negotiate with ISPs.
- dis-sys 9y ago
  such "free data" thing is popular in some developed countries as well, e.g. Australia. It is just business promotion, has nothing to do with net neutrality. With or without net neutrality, new/smaller services can not complete in that front - how many of them can show their names in super bowl? should super bowl be ads free to make it more new/small services friendly?
  - netcan 9y ago
    I think it's a pretty core net neutrality issue. The ISP uses its position as ISP to be selective/opinionated about what internet services their users are accessing. USe FB? OK that's free. Want Friendster? You have to pay extra for Friendster or we don't support Friendster. Net neutrality means ISPs must be neutral about which services users access.
    - dis-sys 9y ago
      what is the motivation for ISP to do that? if it is because FB signed deal with the ISP and covering the costs for those traffic out of its own pocket, what is the problem here? Friendster should offer something to match such deal and bring in real competition. Why there should be a law that stops companies for giving out freebies? if some ISPs provide unmetered access to service A, the only thing that really matters is whether service B can get the same deal by paying the same $ - clearly this is not net neutrality issue.
dragonwriter 9y ago
> The Title II Regs were designed during the Great Depression to address Ma Bell and don't match the internet now. This is simply false. The regulations under Title II that would apply to broadband were designed by the FCC in a short period of time leading up to the reclassification order, and are a further evolution of boradband policies that have come out of the FCC in case-by-case actions and earlier orders under Title I since the late 00s. The statutory authority on which those regs are based is earlier (but newer than Title I), but the whole reason the statute grants the FCC fairly broad regulatory authority within specified parameters (for both Title I and Title II, with different parameters) rather than specifying detailed treatment is to allow the details to be adapted to changing market conditions and technology landscape. > The FCC isn't the right vehicle for addressing anti-competitive behavior in this case; the FTC would be better. Neutrality opponents also oppose FTC regulation, and some of them (notably AT&T) won a Ninth Circuit ruling prohibiting the FTC from regulating common carriers like telcos even when performing non-common-carrier functions. > 3. The internet didn't need fixing in 2010 when the regs were passed. The regs passed in 2010 were different than the ones being discussed, and in any case the internet did need fixing then; monopoly ISPs blocking of particular protocols and applications was a thing that was happening then, and the FCC attempt to deal with that through case-by-case action without general regs was stopped by the courts.
yellowapple 9y ago
"The Title II Regs were designed during the Great Depression to address Ma Bell and don't match the internet now." In what ways do they not "match the internet now"? The Communications Act of 1934 (in my opinion as someone who is very much not a lawyer) seems to have been intended to regulate all telecommunications, even if it has language specifically addressing AT&T's then-monopoly on a specific form of telecommunications. Its various amendments appear to be consistent with that intent. If these repeal supporters can cite specific reasons why Internet providers shouldn't qualify as common carriers (and thus be subject to Title II) just like how telephone network providers are classified as such, then we have a proper discussion on our hands. Else, it really just reeks of more whining on the part of cable companies and their ilk: "no no no, we're totally different from this other subcategory of 'telecommunications' because reasons". Personally, I ain't buying it. "The FCC isn't the right vehicle for addressing anti-competitive behavior in this case; the FTC would be better." The FTC isn't the (only) right vehicle for enforcing the terms of the Communications Act of 1934; the FCC would be better. The FTC should by all means be involved here, don't get me wrong (ISP's behaviors are definitely characteristic of coercive monopolies), but that doesn't mean the FCC gets to stick its fingers in its ears saying "LALALALALA Title II doesn't apply" when it very obviously does. "The internet didn't need fixing in 2010 when the regs were passed." Depends on who you ask. If you're an ISP, then no, it didn't need fixing. If you're pretty much anyone else, then yes, it very much did (and still does; Title II is still insufficient in really addressing the abuses of modern-day ISPs, in particular because the Comm. Act doesn't really do much about price gouging AFAICT; this is - like we've both suggested - the purview of the FTC).
JoshTriplett 9y ago
> Can someone please respond to the actual pro-repeal arguments Assume for a moment that we had effective competition for ISPs, and almost everyone in the country could select among three or more ISPs. In a world that looked like that, restricting how ISPs can structure their networks is both unnecessary and potentially harmful, given the historical precedents of law tending to encode outdated assumptions about technology. (As a random example, some proposed versions of Network Neutrality rules I've seen would also stop CDNs from handing ISPs a box full of content or arranging fast links to their caching servers.) If we had effective competition for ISPs, any ISP engaging in any of the terrible behaviors NN advocates are genuinely concerned about would find themselves with an abrupt loss of customers. The main problem is that we don't have effective competition for ISPs; many people have only one choice, or two choices where one is also incredibly terrible for other reasons. Personally, I'd like to see some focus on regulations to break ISP monopolies, and in particular to ensure that there's an independent source of fiber to everyone's door, with a wide selection of ISPs willing to light up that fiber. But until we have that, we need Network Neutrality to stop abuses by the current ISP monopolies.
- api 9y ago
  This is absolutely the best answer. Competition would fix this more effectively than net neutrality regs, but competition in ISPs is typically blocked by state-enforced monopoly laws or by the technical and economic challenge of deploying an ISP. Wired ISPs are what is often termed a natural monopoly. One solution would be to open up a lot more wireless spectrum to ISP use and license it to many upstarts. This would allow wireless alternatives to last-mile wired connectivity such as what would amount to neighborhood-scale WiFi. That would dramatically reduce cost of entry for the ISP business. Until or unless we can find a way to open the ISP business to a lot more competition, net neutrality regulations are absolutely essential to preserve the Internet as a medium for open innovation.
  - dsr_ 9y ago
    Wireless would help, but not very much. You can get a whole lot more bandwidth through a fiber network than you can through air, because you can double your bandwidth by laying another fiber next to the first - or put in 20 more fibers, or a thousand. Those don't interfere with each other, whereas free space radiators do.
songzme 9y ago
Thanks for asking this question, it makes me realize how blindly I've been on the 'save net neutrality' bandwagon. I tried understanding these reasons (you provided) and it turns out I don't know anything. For starters, 1. What is the title II Regs? I did a quick google search and I came up with this: http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-pai-fcc-internet-regulation-20170426-story.html http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-pai-fcc-internet-... Why doesn't the regulation match the internet now? All of the articles I find seems to handwave the actual reasoning. "And they argued that the only way for the government to prevent this outcome was to adopt an old regulatory framework called Title II—originally designed in the 1930s for the Ma Bell telephone monopoly—and apply it to thousands of Internet service providers, big and small. In other words, they wanted lawyers and bureaucrats to govern the Internet rather than engineers, technologists and businesses." - HOW? 2. For those who didn't know what Federal Communications Commissions (FCC) or the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is and how they are different: http://roslynlayton.com/fcc-vs-ftc-which-will-do-a-better-job-to-protect-consumers-in-light-of-net-neutrality/ http://roslynlayton.com/fcc-vs-ftc-which-will-do-a-better-jo...

by Clanan 9y ago

tertius 9y ago

The FCC does not have the power to create law/regulation out of thin air. Congress should act. Ajit Pai is not against net neutrality, but rather against the power grab from the FCC. None of the complaints addresses this. https://www.wired.com/2017/05/congress-not-fcc-can-fix-net-neutrality/ https://www.wired.com/2017/05/congress-not-fcc-can-fix-net-n...

amluto 9y ago
What power grab by the FCC? The telecommunications act may well be outdated, but it seems quite clear that ISPs fit under the Title 2 definitions. ISTM the FCC under Wheeler was doing its job.
- tertius 9y ago
  I will likely just regurgitate the article I linked. Read it and ask questions if any remain.
- tertius 9y ago
  Okay, if downvotes is what I get then here's an answer. No, ISPs do not fit under Title II and it's not the way to go to ensure net neutrality. Even congress agrees that Title II was never meant for broadband. Power grab? The above. It was never meant for broadband. Quote from the EFF: > But Congress has never given the FCC any authority to regulate the Internet for the purpose of ensuring net neutrality. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/09/net-neutrality-fcc-perils-and-promise https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/09/net-neutrality-fcc-per...
fosco 9y ago
Ajit [0]worked for Verizon he is most certainly against net neutrality, he speifically said the actions in 2015 have prevented ISP investment in broadband and internet services. [1]. Ajit also specifically made multiple statements about the actions in 2015 and how they had a negative impact on the US economy. [2]. I find this akin to the repeal of dodd-frank. as I overheard some hedge-fund acquaintances "It is rip-off city" again. My opinion: How does this benefit the consumer? in what way? I fail to see how a government organization created to help the consumer is doing so, this appears to help the 'pocket wing' specifically moving money to again a smaller handful of individuals and the populace continues to be parochial about the entire issue. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ajit_Varadaraj_Pai https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ajit_Varadaraj_Pai [1] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/06/isps-across-country-tell-chairman-pai-not-repeal-network-neutrality https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/06/isps-across-country-te... [2] https://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2017/db0426/DOC-344590A1.pdf https://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/201...
- tertius 9y ago
  [0-2] How does this show that he is against net neutrality?
  - fosco 9y ago
    did you read [2] ? here is a snippet of the case he makes for why net neutrality is bad and his argument for why it is presently having a negative impact on the economy as a whole. From Ajit: and reference 2 above. " Two years ago, I warned that we were making a serious mistake. Most importantly, I said that Title II regulation would reduce investment in broadband infrastructure. It’s basic economics: The more heavily you regulate somethin g, the less of it you’re likely to get. Now, when you talk about less infrastructure investment, many people’s eyes glaze over. But it’s important to explain in plain terms what the consequences are. Reduced investment means fewer Americans will have h igh-speed Internet access. It means fewer American will have jobs. And it means less competition for consumers. So what happened after the Commission adopted Title II? Sure enough, infrastructure investment declined. Among our nation’s 12 largest Inter net service providers, domestic broadband capital expenditures decreased by 5.6% percent, or $3.6 billion, between 2014 and 2016, the first two years of the Title II era. This decline is extremely unusual. It is the first time that such investment has declined outside of a recession in the Internet era."
amluto 9y ago
I never said that the route the FCC took to get to Title 2 classification made any sense or that the FCC's previous actions were justifiable. But the final outcome seemed fairly good.

throwawayjava 9y ago

Could someone make a pro-repeal argument that doesn't boil down to caring more about which bureaucrat enforces the rules than the rules themselves? Seriously, the whole FTC vs FCC thing is deeply confusing to me. I mean, WTF? I've never seen the public care so much about a battle over jurisdiction between two federal agencies. For this reason, I suspect it's all a bullshit red herring tactic -- the FCC is stripped of power to enforce net neutrality because "the FTC should do it", but then FTC's hands are also tied. Suddenly you can deregulate without actually making a substantive argument for deregulation.

JumpCrisscross 9y ago
> Could someone make a pro-repeal argument that doesn't boil down to caring more about which bureaucrat enforces the rules than the rules themselves? If you believe there's capacity for new entrants to the ISP space, e.g. from satellites [1], then the incumbents' present-day margins are a short-term cost for that long-term gain. If you believe the ISP field is more or less locked, then all the innovation will happen downstream. It would thus make sense to restrict the ISPs' margins in favor of Google, Facebook et al. I'm in that useless place where I see good points on both sides. ISPs need to be able to make money to encourage new entrants. But they shouldn't be able to do so in a way that discourages new entrants downstream. Net neutrality appears to strike that balance. Turning ISPs into utilities does not. [1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/elon-musks-next-mission-internet-satellites-1415390062 https://www.wsj.com/articles/elon-musks-next-mission-interne...
surecanduder 9y ago
it's because doing "the right thing" the wrong way, as is many people's wont, leaves it open to just this sort of trivally easy meddling in the future. see also: ACA battles
- throwawayjava 9y ago
  Sorry, but I think you're being naive if you think that the people complaining most loudly about an "FCC power grab" are attempting to achieve anything other than deregulation.

maxsilver 9y ago

> 1. The Title II Regs were designed during the Great Depression to address Ma Bell and don't match the internet now. How so? As far as I can tell, 99% of Americans are still in the same situation as our Great Depression-era counterparts. The only difference is that the situation is now duplicated across a phone line and a cable line, instead of just the phone line alone. > 3. The internet didn't need fixing in 2010 The internet itself may not need fixing -- but internet service providers certainly need fixing, both back in 2010 and now still today. Every major US ISP (including AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, Sprint, T-Mobile, and many others) have all breached Net Neutrality. There have been numerous violations over the past decade -- a small portion of which is documented at https://www.freepress.net/blog/2017/04/25/net-neutrality-violations-brief-history https://www.freepress.net/blog/2017/04/25/net-neutrality-vio...

westbywest 9y ago

The valid arguments I read from industry groups like WISPA cite significant uncertainty in what Title II regulations would actually look like in practice. Given that WISPA is basically a trade group of small ISPs, some mom-and-pop scale, burden of any new regulation is a significant concern. My personal opinion strays from this, since the incumbent ISPs that WISPA membership generally competes with stand to benefit even more from the tact of deregulation (and presumably make further progress in driving more of them out of business).

dragonwriter 9y ago
> The valid arguments I read from industry groups like WISPA cite significant uncertainty in what Title II regulations would actually look like in practice. The reclassification wasn't abstract; the actual regulations under Title II were included in the order with the reclassification. Any uncertainty about future regulations is unresolved by rescinding the reclassification now, since anything that could have been done under regulation with the reclassification can still be done in the future (it might take reclassifying again, but since that can be done in the same action as the concrete regulation, that's immaterial.)
- westbywest 9y ago
  Quoted below is an except from a listserv discussion with a WISPA committee member working to draft that org's FCC filing. I'm sharing this, to fill in details on the assertion of "uncertainty in regulation" that is being bandied about, i.e. that the assertion isn't devoid of substance. But again, I don't share this view myself, believing that the absence of any Title II regs at all bodes worse than the burdens they or may not impose. ------ The Commission asked what the definition of ‘reasonable network management’ should be. The original (2010) version called for “reasonable network management” and defined it as: "A network management practice is reasonable if it is appropriate and tailored to achieving a legitimate network management purpose, taking into account the particular network architecture and technology of the broadband Internet access service." In the Title II order this was changed to: “a practice that has a primarily technical management justification, but does not include other business practices.” What does “other business practices" mean? From an engineering standpoint I can design and build a network that never requires ’network management'. We used to have that network - it was called ‘circuit switched’ and it was an engineering marvel. What I can’t do is build that network today and deliver broadband at competitive prices without some degree of oversubscription. The level of oversubscription is ultimately a management (and economic) decision. If all network management practices are then ‘business practices’ it becomes very difficult to decide what network management can be justified as ‘primarily technical’.

jayess 9y ago

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1IzN9tst28 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1IzN9tst28

munificent 9y ago

I'm not an expert on net neutrality, but just looking at your claims, the obvious rebuttals are: > 1. The Title II Regs were designed during the Great Depression to address Ma Bell and don't match the internet now. The point in time and original intent that something was created for has little bearing on its current suitability. Hammers with handles were invented in the Stone Age to break wood and stones. They still work just fine for putting in nails today. If the Title II Regs effectively accomplish the high level goals of network neutrality, then it's irrelevant what original goals it had. > 2. The FCC isn't the right vehicle for addressing anti-competitive behavior in this case; the FTC would be better. The perfect is the enemy of the good. Is there any ongoing plan to have the FTC regulate this? Who is driving that? Is the argument that if the FTC does not do this, then having the FCC do it is worse than doing nothing? Politics is always a game of compromise and incremental improvement. There are no perfect laws. > 3. The internet didn't need fixing in 2010 when the regs were passed. I'm not sure what this is even claiming. Is the idea that the law was passed to early so should be repealed now? We started agreeing to nonproliferation treaties before we had multi-state nuclear wars. Should we have waited until after that before doing those? Isn't prevention better than cure?

jjoonathan 9y ago
Re #3: the "new" laws passed in 2010 maintained the FCC's responsibility to enforce neutrality in the face of a court decision that would have otherwise have revoked it. The responsibility existed before the 2010 laws. If it wasn't broke in 2010, keeping the "new" laws on the books constitutes "not fixing it".
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
chasing 9y ago
> Politics is always a game of compromise and incremental improvement. There are no perfect laws. Amen.
pyre 9y ago
> Isn't prevention better than cure? I can easily think of opposition rebuttals to this: 1. It's a solution in search of a problem. 2. It's a premature optimization. 3. The cure could be worse than the disease. etc...

netcan 9y ago

One argument I've heard made against net neutrality generally is a neoclassical/liberal economic one. To put it into practical terms, consider the "free data" plans prevalent in much of the developing world. You get free data to access a limited set of services who have agreements with your mobile ISP. FB pay (presumably) the ISP to be The (or part of the) restricted set of internet services provided to the consumer at subsidized (by FB) rates. Many people cannot afford the "real" internet access at full rates. But FB is willing to subsidize partial access for their own reasons^. The individuals who choose these plans (assuming competition^), are better off with cheap restricted access then none, or the more expensive full access. ^I don't agree with this reasoning. Adequate competition does not exist in ISP markets and FB's reasons for participating in walled gardens are anti-competitive, especially when it comes to new/small services that cannot negotiate with ISPs.

dis-sys 9y ago
such "free data" thing is popular in some developed countries as well, e.g. Australia. It is just business promotion, has nothing to do with net neutrality. With or without net neutrality, new/smaller services can not complete in that front - how many of them can show their names in super bowl? should super bowl be ads free to make it more new/small services friendly?
- netcan 9y ago
  I think it's a pretty core net neutrality issue. The ISP uses its position as ISP to be selective/opinionated about what internet services their users are accessing. USe FB? OK that's free. Want Friendster? You have to pay extra for Friendster or we don't support Friendster. Net neutrality means ISPs must be neutral about which services users access.
  - dis-sys 9y ago
    what is the motivation for ISP to do that? if it is because FB signed deal with the ISP and covering the costs for those traffic out of its own pocket, what is the problem here? Friendster should offer something to match such deal and bring in real competition. Why there should be a law that stops companies for giving out freebies? if some ISPs provide unmetered access to service A, the only thing that really matters is whether service B can get the same deal by paying the same $ - clearly this is not net neutrality issue.

dragonwriter 9y ago

> The Title II Regs were designed during the Great Depression to address Ma Bell and don't match the internet now. This is simply false. The regulations under Title II that would apply to broadband were designed by the FCC in a short period of time leading up to the reclassification order, and are a further evolution of boradband policies that have come out of the FCC in case-by-case actions and earlier orders under Title I since the late 00s. The statutory authority on which those regs are based is earlier (but newer than Title I), but the whole reason the statute grants the FCC fairly broad regulatory authority within specified parameters (for both Title I and Title II, with different parameters) rather than specifying detailed treatment is to allow the details to be adapted to changing market conditions and technology landscape. > The FCC isn't the right vehicle for addressing anti-competitive behavior in this case; the FTC would be better. Neutrality opponents also oppose FTC regulation, and some of them (notably AT&T) won a Ninth Circuit ruling prohibiting the FTC from regulating common carriers like telcos even when performing non-common-carrier functions. > 3. The internet didn't need fixing in 2010 when the regs were passed. The regs passed in 2010 were different than the ones being discussed, and in any case the internet did need fixing then; monopoly ISPs blocking of particular protocols and applications was a thing that was happening then, and the FCC attempt to deal with that through case-by-case action without general regs was stopped by the courts.

yellowapple 9y ago

"The Title II Regs were designed during the Great Depression to address Ma Bell and don't match the internet now." In what ways do they not "match the internet now"? The Communications Act of 1934 (in my opinion as someone who is very much not a lawyer) seems to have been intended to regulate all telecommunications, even if it has language specifically addressing AT&T's then-monopoly on a specific form of telecommunications. Its various amendments appear to be consistent with that intent. If these repeal supporters can cite specific reasons why Internet providers shouldn't qualify as common carriers (and thus be subject to Title II) just like how telephone network providers are classified as such, then we have a proper discussion on our hands. Else, it really just reeks of more whining on the part of cable companies and their ilk: "no no no, we're totally different from this other subcategory of 'telecommunications' because reasons". Personally, I ain't buying it. "The FCC isn't the right vehicle for addressing anti-competitive behavior in this case; the FTC would be better." The FTC isn't the (only) right vehicle for enforcing the terms of the Communications Act of 1934; the FCC would be better. The FTC should by all means be involved here, don't get me wrong (ISP's behaviors are definitely characteristic of coercive monopolies), but that doesn't mean the FCC gets to stick its fingers in its ears saying "LALALALALA Title II doesn't apply" when it very obviously does. "The internet didn't need fixing in 2010 when the regs were passed." Depends on who you ask. If you're an ISP, then no, it didn't need fixing. If you're pretty much anyone else, then yes, it very much did (and still does; Title II is still insufficient in really addressing the abuses of modern-day ISPs, in particular because the Comm. Act doesn't really do much about price gouging AFAICT; this is - like we've both suggested - the purview of the FTC).

JoshTriplett 9y ago

> Can someone please respond to the actual pro-repeal arguments Assume for a moment that we had effective competition for ISPs, and almost everyone in the country could select among three or more ISPs. In a world that looked like that, restricting how ISPs can structure their networks is both unnecessary and potentially harmful, given the historical precedents of law tending to encode outdated assumptions about technology. (As a random example, some proposed versions of Network Neutrality rules I've seen would also stop CDNs from handing ISPs a box full of content or arranging fast links to their caching servers.) If we had effective competition for ISPs, any ISP engaging in any of the terrible behaviors NN advocates are genuinely concerned about would find themselves with an abrupt loss of customers. The main problem is that we don't have effective competition for ISPs; many people have only one choice, or two choices where one is also incredibly terrible for other reasons. Personally, I'd like to see some focus on regulations to break ISP monopolies, and in particular to ensure that there's an independent source of fiber to everyone's door, with a wide selection of ISPs willing to light up that fiber. But until we have that, we need Network Neutrality to stop abuses by the current ISP monopolies.

api 9y ago
This is absolutely the best answer. Competition would fix this more effectively than net neutrality regs, but competition in ISPs is typically blocked by state-enforced monopoly laws or by the technical and economic challenge of deploying an ISP. Wired ISPs are what is often termed a natural monopoly. One solution would be to open up a lot more wireless spectrum to ISP use and license it to many upstarts. This would allow wireless alternatives to last-mile wired connectivity such as what would amount to neighborhood-scale WiFi. That would dramatically reduce cost of entry for the ISP business. Until or unless we can find a way to open the ISP business to a lot more competition, net neutrality regulations are absolutely essential to preserve the Internet as a medium for open innovation.
- dsr_ 9y ago
  Wireless would help, but not very much. You can get a whole lot more bandwidth through a fiber network than you can through air, because you can double your bandwidth by laying another fiber next to the first - or put in 20 more fibers, or a thousand. Those don't interfere with each other, whereas free space radiators do.

songzme 9y ago

Thanks for asking this question, it makes me realize how blindly I've been on the 'save net neutrality' bandwagon. I tried understanding these reasons (you provided) and it turns out I don't know anything. For starters, 1. What is the title II Regs? I did a quick google search and I came up with this: http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-pai-fcc-internet-regulation-20170426-story.html http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-pai-fcc-internet-... Why doesn't the regulation match the internet now? All of the articles I find seems to handwave the actual reasoning. "And they argued that the only way for the government to prevent this outcome was to adopt an old regulatory framework called Title II—originally designed in the 1930s for the Ma Bell telephone monopoly—and apply it to thousands of Internet service providers, big and small. In other words, they wanted lawyers and bureaucrats to govern the Internet rather than engineers, technologists and businesses." - HOW? 2. For those who didn't know what Federal Communications Commissions (FCC) or the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is and how they are different: http://roslynlayton.com/fcc-vs-ftc-which-will-do-a-better-job-to-protect-consumers-in-light-of-net-neutrality/ http://roslynlayton.com/fcc-vs-ftc-which-will-do-a-better-jo...