3 ms·

> ..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 a

> ..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.
lr4444lr 9y ago
I agree with your statements (not sure though, about the partisanship issue of any particular agency). The FTC's enforcement (in concert with the DoJ's) is responsive, not prescriptive, except under the interpretation of anti-trust law, which to my understanding is very robust for checking what NN proponents are fearful of happening, if ISPs in fact should make those moves. Defining ISPs as Common Carriers makes me more uneasy. Are there really no unintended consequences there? My understanding is that Common Carrier status connotes that there is a recognized definitive benefit to having the monopoly, as with railroads or telephone networks. It seems to enshrine as necessary the municipal and regional exclusivity contracts. Are you so sure there would be no potential risks to innovation and a bequeathing of great power to ISPs by having them declared utilities?
- drawkbox 9y ago
  > The FTC's enforcement (in concert with the DoJ's) is responsive, not prescriptive, except under the interpretation of anti-trust law, which to my understanding is very robust for checking what NN proponents are fearful of happening, if ISPs in fact should make those moves. Responsive is not ok for a needed utility that many other companies run business on. Scenario: 2025 Comcast is found to have hindered x amount of small to medium sized businesses, of which 1% may be big innovations/companies that could have provided jobs and advancement. For this they have to pay a double digit million dollar fine ($25m let's say) from the FTC in after-the-damage fines. Small beans for controlling competitive threats which we know is where every large fish goes in capitalism as a natural course. Monopolies need to be checked upfront when it comes to a utility that the entire country runs off of now. ISPs are hindering innovation currently, companies built on top of the network are not. > Are you so sure there would be no potential risks to innovation and a bequeathing of great power to ISPs by having them declared utilities? Eventually we will go to Open-access networks/muni broadband[1] where lines will be upgradable and commonly owned, municipal maybe because of the ISPs greed overreach. When the lines are utilities owned by the cities/localities like water, power lines then companies that improve the services get benefits and there can be multiple actual competitive companies competing for your customers through customer service, pricing and improvements to the networks. I think that making it Title II, common carrier as well as taking ownership of the lines allowing companies to service them will lead to a more solid internet foundation. In the 90s, cable/broadband companies were innovative and improving speeds. Getting on cable internet in '96 and the leap from 56k was revolutionary, it innovated and changed everything. Currently we should be getting gigabit and higher, but the ISPs are greedily bleeding us dry and stealing markets that could be. They are not the innovative companies that brought broadband speeds in the late 90s/00s, they are actively a weight on American innovation. Google Fiber competition changed everything for a year or two, Cox here even came out with gigabit which they can easily provide removing some channels as well. But they stopped expanding it when Google Fiber left due to ISP thuggery. ISPs are our gateway to the internet, we need that to be innovative and how you do that is competition, there is no true competition. We want innovative companies running networks like the companies they were in the 90s. The vast majority US only has 0 or 1 valid ISP with decent speeds if that at 25-100 Mbps[2][3]. 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. It can't get worse in terms of our ISPs. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Municipal_broadband https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Municipal_broadband [2] 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... [3] 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...

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.

lr4444lr 9y ago

I agree with your statements (not sure though, about the partisanship issue of any particular agency). The FTC's enforcement (in concert with the DoJ's) is responsive, not prescriptive, except under the interpretation of anti-trust law, which to my understanding is very robust for checking what NN proponents are fearful of happening, if ISPs in fact should make those moves. Defining ISPs as Common Carriers makes me more uneasy. Are there really no unintended consequences there? My understanding is that Common Carrier status connotes that there is a recognized definitive benefit to having the monopoly, as with railroads or telephone networks. It seems to enshrine as necessary the municipal and regional exclusivity contracts. Are you so sure there would be no potential risks to innovation and a bequeathing of great power to ISPs by having them declared utilities?

drawkbox 9y ago
> The FTC's enforcement (in concert with the DoJ's) is responsive, not prescriptive, except under the interpretation of anti-trust law, which to my understanding is very robust for checking what NN proponents are fearful of happening, if ISPs in fact should make those moves. Responsive is not ok for a needed utility that many other companies run business on. Scenario: 2025 Comcast is found to have hindered x amount of small to medium sized businesses, of which 1% may be big innovations/companies that could have provided jobs and advancement. For this they have to pay a double digit million dollar fine ($25m let's say) from the FTC in after-the-damage fines. Small beans for controlling competitive threats which we know is where every large fish goes in capitalism as a natural course. Monopolies need to be checked upfront when it comes to a utility that the entire country runs off of now. ISPs are hindering innovation currently, companies built on top of the network are not. > Are you so sure there would be no potential risks to innovation and a bequeathing of great power to ISPs by having them declared utilities? Eventually we will go to Open-access networks/muni broadband[1] where lines will be upgradable and commonly owned, municipal maybe because of the ISPs greed overreach. When the lines are utilities owned by the cities/localities like water, power lines then companies that improve the services get benefits and there can be multiple actual competitive companies competing for your customers through customer service, pricing and improvements to the networks. I think that making it Title II, common carrier as well as taking ownership of the lines allowing companies to service them will lead to a more solid internet foundation. In the 90s, cable/broadband companies were innovative and improving speeds. Getting on cable internet in '96 and the leap from 56k was revolutionary, it innovated and changed everything. Currently we should be getting gigabit and higher, but the ISPs are greedily bleeding us dry and stealing markets that could be. They are not the innovative companies that brought broadband speeds in the late 90s/00s, they are actively a weight on American innovation. Google Fiber competition changed everything for a year or two, Cox here even came out with gigabit which they can easily provide removing some channels as well. But they stopped expanding it when Google Fiber left due to ISP thuggery. ISPs are our gateway to the internet, we need that to be innovative and how you do that is competition, there is no true competition. We want innovative companies running networks like the companies they were in the 90s. The vast majority US only has 0 or 1 valid ISP with decent speeds if that at 25-100 Mbps[2][3]. 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. It can't get worse in terms of our ISPs. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Municipal_broadband https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Municipal_broadband [2] 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... [3] 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...