5 ms·

I’m glad you asked – this is a very important question. In short, the regulation is needed to protect against ISPs prioritizing their profits over their consum

I’m glad you asked – this is a very important question. In short, the regulation is needed to protect against ISPs prioritizing their profits over their consumers, which is something we have seen in the past where regulations were lacking. As a preliminary matter, it’s important to recognize that net neutrality principles and protections in different forms have actually been around since 2005 and even earlier. So the flourishing of the internet and everything relying on it during that time occurred under the protections. A few years ago, however, the courts struck down one form of net neutrality protections (those that had relied on Title I of the Communications Act), so then in 2015 the FCC put net neutrality protections back in place under Title II instead (they also expanded the earlier protections, e.g., to include protections against abuses related to interconnection, which had not been the subject of net neutrality protections before 2015). Now, in 2017, the FCC under Chairman Ajit Pai is proposing to repeal net neutrality protections altogether (and the courts’ earlier decisions effectively foreclose a return to net neutrality protections under Title I). So that would be entirely new territory for the internet. Why do we think that’s bad? Well, as I explained in my own public comment in the current proceeding (https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10717583023587/FINAL%20RIF%20Comment%202017-07-17%20%5BREDACTED%5D%5D.pdf https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10717583023587/FINAL%20RIF%20Co...), we’ve seen how companies behave in the absence of net neutrality protections, specifically in the area of interconnection before it was regulated in 2015, and their unregulated conduct harmed consumers. In essence, they made a deliberate business decision to let the quality of internet access degrade, knowing that it hurt consumers, to try to squeeze revenue out of edge providers like Netflix and backbone providers like Cogent and Level 3. Plus, we know that many consumers have few ISPs to choose from, so competition isn’t as effective a check as in other markets. So I believe strong net neutrality regulations are needed to avoid harms to consumers.

DigitalJack 9y ago
Could you please reference what it was the courts struck down related to Title I enforcement? This is news to me and I'm very interested in a more complete view of things.
- tonyztan 9y ago
  This might be what AG Schneiderman is referring to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verizon_Communications_Inc._v._FCC_(2014) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verizon_Communications_Inc._v.... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality_in_the_United_States#Narrowing_of_FCC's_authority_(2014) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality_in_the_United_S...
- AGSchneiderman 9y ago
  In 2014 the court struck down net neutrality rules that prevented blocking and discrimination, which the FCC had issued under Title I of the 1934 Communications Act. But in 2016 the court upheld net neutrality rules that prevented blocking and discrimination, which the FCC had issued under Title II. Going back to the early 2000s, the FCC has espoused broadband neutrality principles that prevented discrimination against certain types of traffic. In 2005, the FCC articulated these principles in what became known as the “four freedoms” and used them to stop network providers from discriminating against traffic that competed with their own services, for example: in 2005 the FCC stopped phone company Madison River’s blocking of Vonage VoIP calls that competed with Madison’s call service; and in 2008 the FCC stopped Comcast’s blocking of online video services that competed with its on-demand cable offering. Comcast sued, and in 2010 a federal appellate court ruled that Title I didn’t authorize the FCC to make Comcast comply with the FCC’s net neutrality policies. So the FCC then issued a new regulation in 2010 that, among other things, banned blocking and other “unreasonable discrimination.” Verizon then sued, and in 2014 the same court ruled that anti-blocking and anti-discrimination rules couldn’t be imposed under Title I. The court suggested, however, that the FCC could issue such rules if it reclassified broadband internet in a way that put them under Title II. In 2015, the FCC issued neutrality rules under Title II, and when ISPs again sued, the court this time upheld the rules and they are currently in effect. Chairman Pai’s FCC wants to repeal those rules, even though the court held that they were valid in 2016, and even though the courts orders from 2010 and 2014 essentially preclude the FCC from issuing neutrality rules under Title I. If you want to take a really deep dive into the history of neutrality, which goes back 50 years, I recommend reading this: https://www.wired.com/story/how-the-fccs-net-neutrality-plan-breaks-with-50-years-of-history/ https://www.wired.com/story/how-the-fccs-net-neutrality-plan...
rsync 9y ago
"In short, the regulation is needed to protect against ISPs prioritizing their profits over their consumers" It's not encouraging to see that your broad, summary statement is nonsensical. A for-profit business firm prioritizes their profits over their consumers by definition. I am sympathetic to the cause of net neutrality but surely you can do better than this ...
- losteric 9y ago
  Business prioritizes profit over people. Regulations exist to rule out profit-seeking behavior that is ultimately detrimental to society
- kelnos 9y ago
  It's part of the bargain: we recognize that these sorts of companies form monopolies[0], and in exchange for those monopolies, we impose regulation to keep them from engaging in the negative, anti-consumer practices often associated with running a monopoly. We expect that if there were a competitive landscape, the companies that succeed would find a balance between profit and providing the services and quality that customers demand, but we don't have a competitive landscape, so we need to ensure that happens by other means. [0] My take on why this is ok, and why we don't really want the proliferation of these sorts of companies: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15858078 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15858078
- thomastjeffery 9y ago
  Internet is a utility, and it is controlled predominantly by 6 companies. There is simply not enough competition to rely on the free market to keep net neutrality as a fiscal priority. Until the oligopoly is broken up, and everyone has competitive access to the internet, we need some way to ensure that net neutrality happens. Without net neutrality, businesses using the internet itself , and even free nonprofit services will be unable to compete with large corporations like Facebook, Google, etc. because they won't be able to afford to pay ISPs for the right to reach customers without unreasonable bandwidth constraints.
  - rsync 9y ago

DigitalJack 9y ago

Could you please reference what it was the courts struck down related to Title I enforcement? This is news to me and I'm very interested in a more complete view of things.

tonyztan 9y ago
This might be what AG Schneiderman is referring to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verizon_Communications_Inc._v._FCC_(2014) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verizon_Communications_Inc._v.... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality_in_the_United_States#Narrowing_of_FCC's_authority_(2014) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality_in_the_United_S...
AGSchneiderman 9y ago
In 2014 the court struck down net neutrality rules that prevented blocking and discrimination, which the FCC had issued under Title I of the 1934 Communications Act. But in 2016 the court upheld net neutrality rules that prevented blocking and discrimination, which the FCC had issued under Title II. Going back to the early 2000s, the FCC has espoused broadband neutrality principles that prevented discrimination against certain types of traffic. In 2005, the FCC articulated these principles in what became known as the “four freedoms” and used them to stop network providers from discriminating against traffic that competed with their own services, for example: in 2005 the FCC stopped phone company Madison River’s blocking of Vonage VoIP calls that competed with Madison’s call service; and in 2008 the FCC stopped Comcast’s blocking of online video services that competed with its on-demand cable offering. Comcast sued, and in 2010 a federal appellate court ruled that Title I didn’t authorize the FCC to make Comcast comply with the FCC’s net neutrality policies. So the FCC then issued a new regulation in 2010 that, among other things, banned blocking and other “unreasonable discrimination.” Verizon then sued, and in 2014 the same court ruled that anti-blocking and anti-discrimination rules couldn’t be imposed under Title I. The court suggested, however, that the FCC could issue such rules if it reclassified broadband internet in a way that put them under Title II. In 2015, the FCC issued neutrality rules under Title II, and when ISPs again sued, the court this time upheld the rules and they are currently in effect. Chairman Pai’s FCC wants to repeal those rules, even though the court held that they were valid in 2016, and even though the courts orders from 2010 and 2014 essentially preclude the FCC from issuing neutrality rules under Title I. If you want to take a really deep dive into the history of neutrality, which goes back 50 years, I recommend reading this: https://www.wired.com/story/how-the-fccs-net-neutrality-plan-breaks-with-50-years-of-history/ https://www.wired.com/story/how-the-fccs-net-neutrality-plan...

rsync 9y ago

"In short, the regulation is needed to protect against ISPs prioritizing their profits over their consumers" It's not encouraging to see that your broad, summary statement is nonsensical. A for-profit business firm prioritizes their profits over their consumers by definition. I am sympathetic to the cause of net neutrality but surely you can do better than this ...

losteric 9y ago
Business prioritizes profit over people. Regulations exist to rule out profit-seeking behavior that is ultimately detrimental to society
kelnos 9y ago
It's part of the bargain: we recognize that these sorts of companies form monopolies[0], and in exchange for those monopolies, we impose regulation to keep them from engaging in the negative, anti-consumer practices often associated with running a monopoly. We expect that if there were a competitive landscape, the companies that succeed would find a balance between profit and providing the services and quality that customers demand, but we don't have a competitive landscape, so we need to ensure that happens by other means. [0] My take on why this is ok, and why we don't really want the proliferation of these sorts of companies: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15858078 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15858078
thomastjeffery 9y ago
Internet is a utility, and it is controlled predominantly by 6 companies. There is simply not enough competition to rely on the free market to keep net neutrality as a fiscal priority. Until the oligopoly is broken up, and everyone has competitive access to the internet, we need some way to ensure that net neutrality happens. Without net neutrality, businesses using the internet itself , and even free nonprofit services will be unable to compete with large corporations like Facebook, Google, etc. because they won't be able to afford to pay ISPs for the right to reach customers without unreasonable bandwidth constraints.
- rsync 9y ago