13 ms·

Am I the only person who thinks this whole approach to Net Neutrality is wrongly pursued through the FCC? Hear me out: if the networks don't access a physically

Am I the only person who thinks this whole approach to Net Neutrality is wrongly pursued through the FCC? Hear me out: if the networks don't access a physically limited resource like the RF spectrum and there isn't any censorship issue at stake, if the issue is truly differential access and usage due to oligopolistic limitation, isn't it for the FTC to intervene and bust up throttling and content blocks under restraint of trade doctrine?

foota 9y ago
The mission of the FCC according to wikipedia is to "make available so far as possible, to all the people of the United States, without discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex, rapid, efficient, Nationwide, and world-wide wire and radio communication services with adequate facilities at reasonable charges." Net neutrality sounds consistent with this to me.
- lr4444lr 9y ago
  From what I read, the whole issue turns on the definition of broadband as a Common Carrier according to the suit from Mozilla, which is alleging that the FCC's decision falls under the Arbitrary and Capricious standard. But in the case cited for precedent, the telecoms didn't challenge the FCC's prior claim that Common Carrier applied. If they can successfully do that, then the FCC is free again to abdicate NN regulations. Again, I am not anti-NN. I just think the stronger legal justification, precedent, and evidence is going to be found in antitrust law.
ocdtrekkie 9y ago
This can only be fixed by the FTC, yes. But it's against Google's interests for antitrust law to come back into vogue, so they've put a lot of money into getting folks on board with the FCC, which doesn't have jurisdiction over Google, being in charge. In fact, the Title II classification that net neutrality supporters are so big on actually exempts ISPs from FTC regulation, preventing the government from breaking up their monopolies! Net neutrality, as implemented, is really flawed in a lot of ways (there's a lot of practical uses for more limited types of Internet plans being available in world of IoT, especially), but this comment will be -4 shortly anyways. We shouldn't be regulating the Internet. We should be breaking up monopolies and fining companies for unfair business practices.
- drawkbox 9y ago
  > We should be breaking up monopolies and fining companies for unfair business practices. Ultimately in a perfect world if the agencies did as their mission statements said that would work. Monopolies need to be broken up and it can lead to good things, even just threatening Microsoft in the 90s led to Google, Apple, etc emergence. The problem is there has been zero sign that anyone is willing to go after monopolies, especially after the Great Recession even though it would probably help us get out of the next one easier with more breakups. The local ISP monopolies are really against net neutrality, Google isn't the monopoly we need to be worrying about yet. ISPs/broadband have local monopolies built on fake competition on purpose. The vast majority US only has 0 or 1 valid ISP with decent speeds if that at 25-100 Mbps[1][2]. ISPs are the biggest monopoly threat regarding open internet as they control the levers, not a company that operates on top of the internet in the market. [1] https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/08/us-broadband-still-no-isp-choice-for-many-especially-at-higher-speeds/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/08/us-br... [2] https://consumerist.com/2014/03/07/heres-what-lack-of-broadband-competition-looks-like-in-map-form/ https://consumerist.com/2014/03/07/heres-what-lack-of-broadb...
  - ocdtrekkie 9y ago
    Google is a global monopoly with it's hands in literally everything. A significant percentage of all inter-human communication, whether voice, internet, email, or messaging goes through Google. Possibly a majority. Regional/local monopolies are barely a concern worth mention in comparison. It's as if you're worried about the street dealer, and not worried about the head of the cartel.
    - drawkbox 9y ago
      Check again, Google isn't the one most people are worried about. They are worried about Comcast, Cox, AT&T and the like that own ISPs/broadband, content and control your privacy on every site you go to with the ISP privacy bill they put through, which they moved to the FTC from the FCC so they could control it better. You don't have to go to Google, you are stuck with your ISP and the other fake competitive ISP that they create fake competitive markets with. Your points are literally the Jeff Flake [1] points he made about allowing ISPs to take your info and sell it / run ads on it stating that it is unfair for Google/Facebook to own that. Google and Facebook earned you going to their site to get that data, ISPs lobbied to get it and you can't not go to your ISP, they run all your online access. ISPs should innovate and make products to get your information to sell ads from, not bribe their way into another monopoly while the FTC let's them do it. FTC move for privacy essentially away from FCC was the start to dismantling net neutrality with the same arguments even though it actually created ISP monopolies more heavily because now they get ad revs, content revs, and bandwidth/access revs. How much more power do you want to give to the ISPs? You can choose to go to Google, you cannot choose your ISP on the fly and most likely you only have one good one in your area with fake ISP competition that was a cut deal in a backroom. FTC will not enforce net neutrality, they have been against it from the beginning and it is a regulatory captured agency that loves the ISPs. FTC probably can't enforce net neutrality, this came from one of their commissioners [2]: > The Federal Trade Commission will not be able to fill the gap created by the FCC’s abdication of its authority and sector-specific mandate. After-the-fact antitrust and consumer protection enforcement by the FTC cannot substitute for clear upfront rules, especially given that vertically integrated broadband ISPs have both the incentive and ability to favor their own content or that of paid “partners” over the content of rivals. Only thing the FTC can do is after the damage fines, which will be underwhelming. Rules/law needs to stop ISPs upfront, this is why they want it away from the FCC and on the FTC. ISPs would rather win in the marketplace, get their monopolies cutting out competition, then pay a fine rather than innovating to compete. Upfront rules about net neutrality are needed to help create the next Google/Apple/Netflix/Facebook that would be crushed without it. [1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/settling-a-bureaucratic-turf-war-in-online-privacy-rules-1488413165 https://www.wsj.com/articles/settling-a-bureaucratic-turf-wa... [2] https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_statements/1293263/mcsweeny_statement_on_net_neutrality_vote_-_dec_14_2017.pdf https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_statements...
drawkbox 9y ago
> ..isn't it for the FTC to intervene and bust up throttling and content blocks under restraint of trade doctrine Assuming the FTC isn't a regulatory capture agency, it is. FTC does very little here, it was in the FTC before 2015 it went Title II and the FCC. The FTC also can't make it a utility, the FCC can via Title II, thus the reason it ended up there from the FTC in 2015. FTC was fighting against net neutrality from 2007-2011 to today [1]. > In June 2007, the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) urged restraint with respect to new regulations proposed by net neutrality advocates, noting the "broadband industry is a relatively young and evolving one," and given no "significant market failure or demonstrated consumer harm from conduct by broadband providers" such regulations "may well have adverse effects on consumer welfare, despite the good intentions of their proponents." The FTC conclusions were questioned in Congress in September 2007, when Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., chairman of the Senate interstate commerce, trade and tourism subcommittee, told FTC Chairwoman Deborah Platt Majoras that he feared new services as groundbreaking as Google could not get started in a system with price discrimination. The FTC is also a largely controlled agency by one party, I'll let you guess which one. FTC's arguments up to 2011 were that no signs of abuse have emerged, that changed through 2015. One example is when Netflix/Comcast were already thottling them, Netflix even had to make fast.com because ISPs were 'fixing' their speed tests to lie. FCC regulation, though I dislike the FCC as well, is the only place internet can be seen as a utility, which it is now and must be as so much is built on it. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality_in_the_United_States#Opinions_cautioning_against_legislation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality_in_the_United_S...
- shard972 9y ago
  > The FTC is also a largely controlled agency by one party, I'll let you guess which one. The democrats probably since the agency does really fit their censorship approach they have started to take on since the 2016 election.
  - drawkbox 9y ago
    > The democrats probably Democrats largely want to keep net neutrality under FCC, Republicans want it under FTC. The FTC Chairman is Republican Maureen K. Ohlhausen that went to Antonin Scalia Law School. > fit their censorship approach they have started to take on since the 2016 election Net neutrality has nothing to do with censorship, though censorship it is usually always bad. If you remember, Republicans used the FCC after the Janet Jackson Superbowl exposure event. The right does want to make NN about censorship for some reason which I do not understand how equal access to every packet is censorship. Without net neutrality there will be more censorship because you'll only see what Comcast/Disney wants you to see. They want the right to inspect packets and slow down certain packets, this will lead to other bad surveillance encroachments as well without NN.
wpietri 9y ago
Communications and trade clearly overlap here, so I think we should pursue it from both angles. But historically, the FCC has a long history of regulating all sort of communications, not just things with public RF. The Communications Act of 1934 made them the successor to the Federal Radio Commission, adding responsibility for telephone regulation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Act_of_1934 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Act_of_1934
betterunix2 9y ago
It is hard to see how the FTC would be able to help if an ISP decides to block a peer-to-peer system that has no central service or business model.
davidp 9y ago
This is the problem that a lot of people have with the FCC regulatory approach, specifically abusing Article 2 of the 1996 communications act. Net neutrality is essential for the internet to continue to thrive and flourish as it has done since 1996. But using Article 2 for that purpose is like using a sledgehammer on a finishing nail. Article 2 was aimed at the true AT&T telecom behemoths of the world. But it is not the job of any federal agency to dictate what its own job is to Congress, i.e. in this case the FCC deciding it wants different public policy from what its charter statutes support. Congress sets public policy and determines how much leeway it will delegate to the agencies and the President. Federal agencies (of any stripe) arrogating power unto themselves is undemocratic, even if well-intentioned. So the problem is that Congress has failed to act to block the new abusive behaviors of the ISPs, and we need Congress to write new laws. Personally I think that if sufficient leeway were granted to encourage local competition, all of this and a bunch of other abuses (exhibit A: Comcast customer support) would vanish in a puff of smoke. Side note, I happily donate every month to the EFF, but I believe they are misguided in their support for lawsuits like those announced today.
- wvenable 9y ago
  > But using Article 2 for that purpose is like using a sledgehammer on a finishing nail. Is it? I don't think it's unreasonable at all to define, what is often the only ISP in a whole region, as a common carrier. It's practically the definition. > Article 2 was aimed at the true AT&T telecom behemoths of the world. And here we are with new telecom behemoths! Commissions like the FCC and FTC exist to create regulations so that Congress is not writing hundreds to thousands of laws at a level of detail that they cannot handle. You might correct that Congress can act in this matter I'm not sure it's inappropriate for the FCC to do so.
  - lr4444lr 9y ago
    Then why didn't they step in to break up Ma Bell? That happened under anti-trust.
    - wvenable 9y ago
burgermanjensen 9y ago
Am I missing something? I thought, and I could be wrong, that this whole mess got started when they tried to establish NN through the FTC, but Verizon took them to Court on the basis that the FTC didn't have the authority to do that, and the FTC lost. Hence where we are with the FCC. If my version of reality is correct, it would seem the FCC implementation boat has sailed.
- dcow 9y ago
  I thought Verizon sued over Title I classification (still FCC). They win and Title I status was removed. Then the FCC tried again with Title II. I could also be wrong.
- lr4444lr 9y ago
  I think you're hitting on exactly the same thing I did in the OP: AT&T won over the FTC in 2014 on the very basis that broadband was classified as a common carrier[0]. The FCC has just removed that protection, so now the FTC should step up as the cop on the beat. That was the factual meat of my post. In my opinion, this could very likely be better for the public, because the legal definitions and technical specifications that make up agency regulations tend to be murky and fraught with politics. Anti-trust law on the other hand has a much stronger foundation, doesn't tighten the oligopoly, and doesn't cede any unanticipated federal control. [0] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/09/atts-throttling-victory-may-hinder-ftcs-power-to-protect-consumers/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/09/atts-throttling-...
dragonwriter 9y ago
> Hear me out: if the networks don't access a physically limited resource like the RF spectrum and there isn't any censorship issue at stake, if the issue is truly differential access and usage due to oligopolistic limitation, isn't it for the FTC to intervene and bust up throttling and content blocks under restraint of trade doctrine? No, the FCC jurisdiction (even leaving aside broadband specifically) isn't predicated solely on a “physically limited resource”, otherwise it wouldn't have jurisdiction over telcos. Further—while appeals have not been exhausted yet—AT&T v. FTC, if it holds up, will prevent any common carrier (e.g., any wireline telco) from being regulated in many activities by the FTC even in non-video-gaming activities (such as post-NN-repeal ISP services.)
drawkbox 9y ago
> if the networks don't access a physically limited resource like the RF spectrum Broadband cable/fiber are a physically limited resource to the installed lines, yes they can be expanded but they are not typically. They are using the same lines ran in the 90s just DOCSIS to get more throughput and duplexing.
kokey 9y ago
Personally, I think it's an issue that should fall under the legislation and authorities that deals with antitrust and with censorship. However, the big unspoken motivation behind network neutrality is people's perceived human right of having access to pirated entertainment media. This whole thing started around 15 years ago when broadband networks weren't and still aren't designed for peer to peer sharing of entertainment media, the impact this had on the networks were significant. ISPs had to deal with this because of the impact on their customers, as anyone would know who shared a contented connection with people who had a peer to peer piracy addiction in those days. This was before the time of most legitimate means we have nowadays to obtain entertainment media over the internet, before Youtube, iTunes video, Hulu, Netflix, etc. The issue is that peer to peer sharing of sharing of pirated entertainment media is not protected by antitrust or censorship legislation, so a 'third way' had to be found, some kind of overriding principle that even trumps copyright law but without mentioning it. That's net neutrality, which I think is redundant now because there are many legitimate and affordable ways to get entertainment media and the networks can easily handle multiple forms of high quality streaming media, but the political momentum behind network neutrality is still there and exploited by some content providers for their own gain.

foota 9y ago

The mission of the FCC according to wikipedia is to "make available so far as possible, to all the people of the United States, without discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex, rapid, efficient, Nationwide, and world-wide wire and radio communication services with adequate facilities at reasonable charges." Net neutrality sounds consistent with this to me.

lr4444lr 9y ago
From what I read, the whole issue turns on the definition of broadband as a Common Carrier according to the suit from Mozilla, which is alleging that the FCC's decision falls under the Arbitrary and Capricious standard. But in the case cited for precedent, the telecoms didn't challenge the FCC's prior claim that Common Carrier applied. If they can successfully do that, then the FCC is free again to abdicate NN regulations. Again, I am not anti-NN. I just think the stronger legal justification, precedent, and evidence is going to be found in antitrust law.

ocdtrekkie 9y ago

This can only be fixed by the FTC, yes. But it's against Google's interests for antitrust law to come back into vogue, so they've put a lot of money into getting folks on board with the FCC, which doesn't have jurisdiction over Google, being in charge. In fact, the Title II classification that net neutrality supporters are so big on actually exempts ISPs from FTC regulation, preventing the government from breaking up their monopolies! Net neutrality, as implemented, is really flawed in a lot of ways (there's a lot of practical uses for more limited types of Internet plans being available in world of IoT, especially), but this comment will be -4 shortly anyways. We shouldn't be regulating the Internet. We should be breaking up monopolies and fining companies for unfair business practices.

drawkbox 9y ago
> We should be breaking up monopolies and fining companies for unfair business practices. Ultimately in a perfect world if the agencies did as their mission statements said that would work. Monopolies need to be broken up and it can lead to good things, even just threatening Microsoft in the 90s led to Google, Apple, etc emergence. The problem is there has been zero sign that anyone is willing to go after monopolies, especially after the Great Recession even though it would probably help us get out of the next one easier with more breakups. The local ISP monopolies are really against net neutrality, Google isn't the monopoly we need to be worrying about yet. ISPs/broadband have local monopolies built on fake competition on purpose. The vast majority US only has 0 or 1 valid ISP with decent speeds if that at 25-100 Mbps[1][2]. ISPs are the biggest monopoly threat regarding open internet as they control the levers, not a company that operates on top of the internet in the market. [1] https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/08/us-broadband-still-no-isp-choice-for-many-especially-at-higher-speeds/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/08/us-br... [2] https://consumerist.com/2014/03/07/heres-what-lack-of-broadband-competition-looks-like-in-map-form/ https://consumerist.com/2014/03/07/heres-what-lack-of-broadb...
- ocdtrekkie 9y ago
  Google is a global monopoly with it's hands in literally everything. A significant percentage of all inter-human communication, whether voice, internet, email, or messaging goes through Google. Possibly a majority. Regional/local monopolies are barely a concern worth mention in comparison. It's as if you're worried about the street dealer, and not worried about the head of the cartel.
  - drawkbox 9y ago
    Check again, Google isn't the one most people are worried about. They are worried about Comcast, Cox, AT&T and the like that own ISPs/broadband, content and control your privacy on every site you go to with the ISP privacy bill they put through, which they moved to the FTC from the FCC so they could control it better. You don't have to go to Google, you are stuck with your ISP and the other fake competitive ISP that they create fake competitive markets with. Your points are literally the Jeff Flake [1] points he made about allowing ISPs to take your info and sell it / run ads on it stating that it is unfair for Google/Facebook to own that. Google and Facebook earned you going to their site to get that data, ISPs lobbied to get it and you can't not go to your ISP, they run all your online access. ISPs should innovate and make products to get your information to sell ads from, not bribe their way into another monopoly while the FTC let's them do it. FTC move for privacy essentially away from FCC was the start to dismantling net neutrality with the same arguments even though it actually created ISP monopolies more heavily because now they get ad revs, content revs, and bandwidth/access revs. How much more power do you want to give to the ISPs? You can choose to go to Google, you cannot choose your ISP on the fly and most likely you only have one good one in your area with fake ISP competition that was a cut deal in a backroom. FTC will not enforce net neutrality, they have been against it from the beginning and it is a regulatory captured agency that loves the ISPs. FTC probably can't enforce net neutrality, this came from one of their commissioners [2]: > The Federal Trade Commission will not be able to fill the gap created by the FCC’s abdication of its authority and sector-specific mandate. After-the-fact antitrust and consumer protection enforcement by the FTC cannot substitute for clear upfront rules, especially given that vertically integrated broadband ISPs have both the incentive and ability to favor their own content or that of paid “partners” over the content of rivals. Only thing the FTC can do is after the damage fines, which will be underwhelming. Rules/law needs to stop ISPs upfront, this is why they want it away from the FCC and on the FTC. ISPs would rather win in the marketplace, get their monopolies cutting out competition, then pay a fine rather than innovating to compete. Upfront rules about net neutrality are needed to help create the next Google/Apple/Netflix/Facebook that would be crushed without it. [1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/settling-a-bureaucratic-turf-war-in-online-privacy-rules-1488413165 https://www.wsj.com/articles/settling-a-bureaucratic-turf-wa... [2] https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_statements/1293263/mcsweeny_statement_on_net_neutrality_vote_-_dec_14_2017.pdf https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_statements...

drawkbox 9y ago

> ..isn't it for the FTC to intervene and bust up throttling and content blocks under restraint of trade doctrine Assuming the FTC isn't a regulatory capture agency, it is. FTC does very little here, it was in the FTC before 2015 it went Title II and the FCC. The FTC also can't make it a utility, the FCC can via Title II, thus the reason it ended up there from the FTC in 2015. FTC was fighting against net neutrality from 2007-2011 to today [1]. > In June 2007, the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) urged restraint with respect to new regulations proposed by net neutrality advocates, noting the "broadband industry is a relatively young and evolving one," and given no "significant market failure or demonstrated consumer harm from conduct by broadband providers" such regulations "may well have adverse effects on consumer welfare, despite the good intentions of their proponents." The FTC conclusions were questioned in Congress in September 2007, when Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., chairman of the Senate interstate commerce, trade and tourism subcommittee, told FTC Chairwoman Deborah Platt Majoras that he feared new services as groundbreaking as Google could not get started in a system with price discrimination. The FTC is also a largely controlled agency by one party, I'll let you guess which one. FTC's arguments up to 2011 were that no signs of abuse have emerged, that changed through 2015. One example is when Netflix/Comcast were already thottling them, Netflix even had to make fast.com because ISPs were 'fixing' their speed tests to lie. FCC regulation, though I dislike the FCC as well, is the only place internet can be seen as a utility, which it is now and must be as so much is built on it. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality_in_the_United_States#Opinions_cautioning_against_legislation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality_in_the_United_S...

shard972 9y ago
> The FTC is also a largely controlled agency by one party, I'll let you guess which one. The democrats probably since the agency does really fit their censorship approach they have started to take on since the 2016 election.
- drawkbox 9y ago
  > The democrats probably Democrats largely want to keep net neutrality under FCC, Republicans want it under FTC. The FTC Chairman is Republican Maureen K. Ohlhausen that went to Antonin Scalia Law School. > fit their censorship approach they have started to take on since the 2016 election Net neutrality has nothing to do with censorship, though censorship it is usually always bad. If you remember, Republicans used the FCC after the Janet Jackson Superbowl exposure event. The right does want to make NN about censorship for some reason which I do not understand how equal access to every packet is censorship. Without net neutrality there will be more censorship because you'll only see what Comcast/Disney wants you to see. They want the right to inspect packets and slow down certain packets, this will lead to other bad surveillance encroachments as well without NN.

wpietri 9y ago

Communications and trade clearly overlap here, so I think we should pursue it from both angles. But historically, the FCC has a long history of regulating all sort of communications, not just things with public RF. The Communications Act of 1934 made them the successor to the Federal Radio Commission, adding responsibility for telephone regulation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Act_of_1934 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Act_of_1934

betterunix2 9y ago

It is hard to see how the FTC would be able to help if an ISP decides to block a peer-to-peer system that has no central service or business model.

davidp 9y ago

This is the problem that a lot of people have with the FCC regulatory approach, specifically abusing Article 2 of the 1996 communications act. Net neutrality is essential for the internet to continue to thrive and flourish as it has done since 1996. But using Article 2 for that purpose is like using a sledgehammer on a finishing nail. Article 2 was aimed at the true AT&T telecom behemoths of the world. But it is not the job of any federal agency to dictate what its own job is to Congress, i.e. in this case the FCC deciding it wants different public policy from what its charter statutes support. Congress sets public policy and determines how much leeway it will delegate to the agencies and the President. Federal agencies (of any stripe) arrogating power unto themselves is undemocratic, even if well-intentioned. So the problem is that Congress has failed to act to block the new abusive behaviors of the ISPs, and we need Congress to write new laws. Personally I think that if sufficient leeway were granted to encourage local competition, all of this and a bunch of other abuses (exhibit A: Comcast customer support) would vanish in a puff of smoke. Side note, I happily donate every month to the EFF, but I believe they are misguided in their support for lawsuits like those announced today.

wvenable 9y ago
> But using Article 2 for that purpose is like using a sledgehammer on a finishing nail. Is it? I don't think it's unreasonable at all to define, what is often the only ISP in a whole region, as a common carrier. It's practically the definition. > Article 2 was aimed at the true AT&T telecom behemoths of the world. And here we are with new telecom behemoths! Commissions like the FCC and FTC exist to create regulations so that Congress is not writing hundreds to thousands of laws at a level of detail that they cannot handle. You might correct that Congress can act in this matter I'm not sure it's inappropriate for the FCC to do so.
- lr4444lr 9y ago
  Then why didn't they step in to break up Ma Bell? That happened under anti-trust.
  - wvenable 9y ago

burgermanjensen 9y ago

Am I missing something? I thought, and I could be wrong, that this whole mess got started when they tried to establish NN through the FTC, but Verizon took them to Court on the basis that the FTC didn't have the authority to do that, and the FTC lost. Hence where we are with the FCC. If my version of reality is correct, it would seem the FCC implementation boat has sailed.

dcow 9y ago
I thought Verizon sued over Title I classification (still FCC). They win and Title I status was removed. Then the FCC tried again with Title II. I could also be wrong.
lr4444lr 9y ago
I think you're hitting on exactly the same thing I did in the OP: AT&T won over the FTC in 2014 on the very basis that broadband was classified as a common carrier[0]. The FCC has just removed that protection, so now the FTC should step up as the cop on the beat. That was the factual meat of my post. In my opinion, this could very likely be better for the public, because the legal definitions and technical specifications that make up agency regulations tend to be murky and fraught with politics. Anti-trust law on the other hand has a much stronger foundation, doesn't tighten the oligopoly, and doesn't cede any unanticipated federal control. [0] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/09/atts-throttling-victory-may-hinder-ftcs-power-to-protect-consumers/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/09/atts-throttling-...

dragonwriter 9y ago

> Hear me out: if the networks don't access a physically limited resource like the RF spectrum and there isn't any censorship issue at stake, if the issue is truly differential access and usage due to oligopolistic limitation, isn't it for the FTC to intervene and bust up throttling and content blocks under restraint of trade doctrine? No, the FCC jurisdiction (even leaving aside broadband specifically) isn't predicated solely on a “physically limited resource”, otherwise it wouldn't have jurisdiction over telcos. Further—while appeals have not been exhausted yet—AT&T v. FTC, if it holds up, will prevent any common carrier (e.g., any wireline telco) from being regulated in many activities by the FTC even in non-video-gaming activities (such as post-NN-repeal ISP services.)

drawkbox 9y ago

> if the networks don't access a physically limited resource like the RF spectrum Broadband cable/fiber are a physically limited resource to the installed lines, yes they can be expanded but they are not typically. They are using the same lines ran in the 90s just DOCSIS to get more throughput and duplexing.

kokey 9y ago

Personally, I think it's an issue that should fall under the legislation and authorities that deals with antitrust and with censorship. However, the big unspoken motivation behind network neutrality is people's perceived human right of having access to pirated entertainment media. This whole thing started around 15 years ago when broadband networks weren't and still aren't designed for peer to peer sharing of entertainment media, the impact this had on the networks were significant. ISPs had to deal with this because of the impact on their customers, as anyone would know who shared a contented connection with people who had a peer to peer piracy addiction in those days. This was before the time of most legitimate means we have nowadays to obtain entertainment media over the internet, before Youtube, iTunes video, Hulu, Netflix, etc. The issue is that peer to peer sharing of sharing of pirated entertainment media is not protected by antitrust or censorship legislation, so a 'third way' had to be found, some kind of overriding principle that even trumps copyright law but without mentioning it. That's net neutrality, which I think is redundant now because there are many legitimate and affordable ways to get entertainment media and the networks can easily handle multiple forms of high quality streaming media, but the political momentum behind network neutrality is still there and exploited by some content providers for their own gain.