6 ms·

Court strikes down FCC’s net neutrality rules

64 points by gz5 13y ago

websitescenes 13y ago
This is horrible. Being a developer, I make money off building fast web based applications. It sucks because the fast part is now out of my control. I can write the best code ever and it will run slow unless I pay for provider preference. This will cost small companies dearly and rewards large ones unfairly. Why must our courts and political system line the pockets of the already rich? Now is the time to aid and promote innovation not stunt and slow it.
- websitescenes 13y ago
  It's like indirectly saying the provider can charge for any content they want. You don't pay, then they won't traffic it. It's like censorship, protectionism and a bunch of other old world BS rolled into one. I'm livid.
- njharman 13y ago
  Being a developer you should really know the difference between "running speed", "network speed", and that total perceived speed has never been under your complete control. end user machines vary in power, end users have various latency and throughputs, networks get congested, etc. But you are right, an internet without net-neutrality sucks balls.
  - websitescenes 13y ago
    I know, but now we can't even manipulate those things for better performance. You can have the best server, network and code but it won't matter if the provider doesn't give you preference. That's the issue. Takes what little control we have, as developers, away.
    - gtirloni 13y ago
      In fact, their proposal is that you'll have even more control. Just get a signed contract and they will bump your traffic on top of the rest of the peasants.
      - jjoonathan 13y ago
        Given the state of the US telecom market (obsolete infrastructure, lackluster innovation, record profits) do you think that the extra money they get from you will go towards infrastructure or fat pockets? "Create the sickness, sell the cure" is the business model I see being most profitable in this scenario. The contract you negotiate will be to avoid throttling, not to access speeds that would be unavailable in a parallel universe with net neutrality. Choice != control when someone else writes the rules.
        websitescenes 13y ago
        I love this comment. Right on
  - dclowd9901 13y ago
    This was needlessly pedantic. We all know what's within our control, and never accounted for a greedy carrier to choke the pipes.
- rayiner 13y ago
  You make money building web based applications that rely entirely on someone else's very expensive communications networks. Their networks have value without your applications, but your applications have no value without their networks. Why shouldn't they be able to dictate whatever terms they want? Why should the government intervene to artificially give you more leverage?
  - websitescenes 13y ago
    I already pay to use the networks. I pay monthly, and very dearly. Why should I pay again? Isn't traffic just traffic? Why must it be differentiated?
    - harryh 13y ago
      A first class ticket on an airplane costs a lot more than a coach seat. Lot's of similar services have different prices.
      - kvinnako 13y ago
        Well, to keep it in the analogy, this is what the world without nn sounds like - "I bought a economy ticket but I am reaching lot late than the one who bought a coach ticket." It's not that I am getting a tight seat or shitty service. I am reaching late to my destination. That means eventually everyone would have to pay more depending on the whim of the carrier.
        harryh 13y ago
        Express service on Amtrak costs more than the slower service. It's not the whim of the carrier. It's what the carrier can negotiate. Why should the US Gov't be part of that negotiation?
        icebraining 13y ago
        But if I don't mind arriving later to pay less for a ticket, why should I be prevented by the State from doing so?
gz5 13y ago
I am a NN proponent but think this is good because I don't believe the FCC could effectively enforce NN. At best, FCC enforcement would be a waste of money. At worst, there would be negative unintended consequences.
rayiner 13y ago
I like the idea of net neutrality conceptually, but the ulterior motives of its proponents bugs me. It strikes me as just a way for the Youtubes and Netflixes of the world to get a bigger piece of the pie for themselves. Consider the basic streaming transaction: consumer tunes in to watch an episode of their favorite show on some streaming service. Several companies are involved in the transaction: the streaming service, the broadband provider, and the content company that made the show. But the consumer doesn't really care about any of that, he's willing to pay $X for the experience of watching that episode. How that $X is split up amongst the companies in play is the subject of a lot of legal wrangling. Each party has an incentive to try and turn the contributions of the other parties into a commodity. The streaming service and the broadband provider have an interest in weaker copyright protections, so the content company has less leverage. The streaming service and the content company have an interest in net neutrality, because that prevents broadband companies from differentiating their services from each other, and forces them to compete only as "dumb pipes." It's not clear what the "proper" division of that $X should be. Arguably the content creation is the least fungible from the consumer's point of view. If they want to watch "House" that's what they want, not some substitute. The broadband provision is arguably the most technically complicated and the one that involves the greatest capital expenditure. Distribution is, in my opinion, relatively simple. Computing power and commercial bandwidth are commodities thanks to AWS and the like. So all that differentiates Netflix from Hulu from Youtube is the software. The software isn't easy per se, but it's easier than making a blockbuster movie or building a fiber network. That's why streaming sites are a dime a dozen but it takes the likes of Amazon or Netflix to even attempt to compete with NBC, etc, in developing AAA content. That's almost certainly why Netflix is getting into the content business, and why Youtube has always been in the content business (through user generated content). That's what's hardest to turn into a commodity.
- Goronmon 13y ago
  I like the idea of net neutrality conceptually, but the ulterior motives of its proponents bugs me. The ulterior motives of the opponents of net neutrality bother me much more. I can't help but imagine a world where companies like Comcast have complete control over the internet. They pick the winners, whether it's the next Google, Facebook, or Netflix. With, of course, Comcast receiving a hefty percentage for allowing said winner to succeed if they don't have complete control over the winners outright.
tehwalrus 13y ago
Surely the best thing here is for broadband providers to be reclassified as "common carriers"? That would be a fitting end to Verizon's campaign. The FCC is free to make this choice (right?[1]), and it means they can regulate broadband companies the same way as they do phone companies now - it will have some penalty (which is why they've avoided doing it up to now), but hopefully they will have the guts to fight back. (note, I'm in the UK, so this doesn't affect my home internet speed, although it could affect any of you 'mericans trying to read my rather obscure blog.) [1] I don't actually know, so by all means correct me.
- dclowd9901 13y ago
  I'm not sure how you think this wouldn't affect you. If a website can't survive because the fees to "carry it" are too high, and they are frozen out of the market, we all lose. It's only one internet, after all.
  - tehwalrus 13y ago
    but you miss the point - if they don't pay, it doesn't affect my ability to visit them (unless Verizon et al are part of the backbone network on the route between their server host and my house). I'm not saying it's a good thing - it's a very bad thing to have no NN law! - just that my browsing will be largely unaffected.
    - dclowd9901 13y ago
      I'm saying the chilling effect means you won't have an option at all. American content creators/web app makers aren't going to start with a global product; they simply don't have the capital to bootstrap something globally. They would normally stick to just an American market, but now they can't because the barriers to entry are now too high. So it dies in its infancy. So yeah, creators in other parts of the world will be largely unaffected, but -- not to be xenophobic -- how much of the internet is created by Americans?
      - tehwalrus 13y ago
adamio 13y ago
I can see it now "All Amazon hosted websites have been blacked out from Time Warner Cable while we enter contract negotiations. Thanks for your patience, here's a free Video on Demand for the inconvenience"
ProAm 13y ago
If companies like Comcast offer telephone service over their cable lines, will this not place them in the realm of being a 'common carrier'?
at-fates-hands 13y ago
The problem I have with NN is the completely arbitrary way companies abide by it. For instance Google was all about NN when they were sued by AT&T after they set up Google Voice. Then, when they got into the broadband game, all the things they were for with NN, instantly went out the window. It appears companies are usually for something until they're against it. The FCC isn't much help either, since they really don't have any muscle to enforce the NN existing rules anyways.
- RyanMcGreal 13y ago
  That fickle corporate stance on NN is exactly why we should support it at the policy level so everyone has to follow fair, consistent rules that maintain the integrity of the internet.
shenoybr 13y ago
What just happened? Common sense probably got stuck in the slow lane.
declan 13y ago
Folks, today's ruling should come as no surprise. Congress never gave the FCC the authority to impose Net neutrality regulations on the Internet. That means the FCC's regulations were illegal. The same court already slapped down the FCC once, in 2010, remember: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-20001825-38.html http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-20001825-38.html Legislation granting regulatory authority to the FCC came up for a vote in Congress, and it came close to passage: it was reported favorably out of a Senate committee but was defeated in a House floor vote in 2006: http://news.cnet.com/2100-1028_3-6081882.html http://news.cnet.com/2100-1028_3-6081882.html Even if you adore the principle of Net neutrality, it's reasonable to demand that federal regulatory agencies stick to what Congress authorized them to do. Otherwise you have illegal regulations and bureaucratic turf-grabbing that will not treat the Internet well. Remember Hollywood's successful efforts to lobby the FCC to impose "broadcast flags" on computers by bureaucratic fiat? A federal appeals court correctly struck it down as exceeding the agency's legal authority, as I wrote here in 2005: http://news.cnet.com/2100-1030_3-5697719.html http://news.cnet.com/2100-1030_3-5697719.html If Net neutrality violations become an actual problem, there's no shortage of publicity-hungry politicians in Congress (hi, Ed Markey!) who will hold hearings and push legislation forward. Obama will happily sign it. Until then, other government debacles including NSA domestic surveillance and Obamacare should make us wary of federal agencies exceeding their legal authority -- especially after Congress considered and rejected a law that would have given it to them in the first place.
- lifeisstillgood 13y ago
  I saw New Shiny Thing and wanted to play. Thank you for reminding me to "Stay on Target"
- eli 13y ago
  Wouldn't the FCC clearly have this authority if they simply choose to reclassify the internet as a telecommunications service subject to common carrier rules instead of an information service? (A decision that they can apparently make unilaterally.)
  - dragonwriter 13y ago

64 points by gz5 13y ago

This is horrible. Being a developer, I make money off building fast web based applications. It sucks because the fast part is now out of my control. I can write the best code ever and it will run slow unless I pay for provider preference. This will cost small companies dearly and rewards large ones unfairly. Why must our courts and political system line the pockets of the already rich? Now is the time to aid and promote innovation not stunt and slow it.

websitescenes 13y ago
It's like indirectly saying the provider can charge for any content they want. You don't pay, then they won't traffic it. It's like censorship, protectionism and a bunch of other old world BS rolled into one. I'm livid.
njharman 13y ago
Being a developer you should really know the difference between "running speed", "network speed", and that total perceived speed has never been under your complete control. end user machines vary in power, end users have various latency and throughputs, networks get congested, etc. But you are right, an internet without net-neutrality sucks balls.
- websitescenes 13y ago
  I know, but now we can't even manipulate those things for better performance. You can have the best server, network and code but it won't matter if the provider doesn't give you preference. That's the issue. Takes what little control we have, as developers, away.
  - gtirloni 13y ago
    In fact, their proposal is that you'll have even more control. Just get a signed contract and they will bump your traffic on top of the rest of the peasants.
    - jjoonathan 13y ago
      Given the state of the US telecom market (obsolete infrastructure, lackluster innovation, record profits) do you think that the extra money they get from you will go towards infrastructure or fat pockets? "Create the sickness, sell the cure" is the business model I see being most profitable in this scenario. The contract you negotiate will be to avoid throttling, not to access speeds that would be unavailable in a parallel universe with net neutrality. Choice != control when someone else writes the rules.
      - websitescenes 13y ago
        I love this comment. Right on
- dclowd9901 13y ago
  This was needlessly pedantic. We all know what's within our control, and never accounted for a greedy carrier to choke the pipes.
rayiner 13y ago
You make money building web based applications that rely entirely on someone else's very expensive communications networks. Their networks have value without your applications, but your applications have no value without their networks. Why shouldn't they be able to dictate whatever terms they want? Why should the government intervene to artificially give you more leverage?
- websitescenes 13y ago
  I already pay to use the networks. I pay monthly, and very dearly. Why should I pay again? Isn't traffic just traffic? Why must it be differentiated?
  - harryh 13y ago
    A first class ticket on an airplane costs a lot more than a coach seat. Lot's of similar services have different prices.
    - kvinnako 13y ago
      Well, to keep it in the analogy, this is what the world without nn sounds like - "I bought a economy ticket but I am reaching lot late than the one who bought a coach ticket." It's not that I am getting a tight seat or shitty service. I am reaching late to my destination. That means eventually everyone would have to pay more depending on the whim of the carrier.
      - harryh 13y ago
        Express service on Amtrak costs more than the slower service. It's not the whim of the carrier. It's what the carrier can negotiate. Why should the US Gov't be part of that negotiation?
      - icebraining 13y ago
        But if I don't mind arriving later to pay less for a ticket, why should I be prevented by the State from doing so?

gz5 13y ago

I am a NN proponent but think this is good because I don't believe the FCC could effectively enforce NN. At best, FCC enforcement would be a waste of money. At worst, there would be negative unintended consequences.

rayiner 13y ago

I like the idea of net neutrality conceptually, but the ulterior motives of its proponents bugs me. It strikes me as just a way for the Youtubes and Netflixes of the world to get a bigger piece of the pie for themselves. Consider the basic streaming transaction: consumer tunes in to watch an episode of their favorite show on some streaming service. Several companies are involved in the transaction: the streaming service, the broadband provider, and the content company that made the show. But the consumer doesn't really care about any of that, he's willing to pay $X for the experience of watching that episode. How that $X is split up amongst the companies in play is the subject of a lot of legal wrangling. Each party has an incentive to try and turn the contributions of the other parties into a commodity. The streaming service and the broadband provider have an interest in weaker copyright protections, so the content company has less leverage. The streaming service and the content company have an interest in net neutrality, because that prevents broadband companies from differentiating their services from each other, and forces them to compete only as "dumb pipes." It's not clear what the "proper" division of that $X should be. Arguably the content creation is the least fungible from the consumer's point of view. If they want to watch "House" that's what they want, not some substitute. The broadband provision is arguably the most technically complicated and the one that involves the greatest capital expenditure. Distribution is, in my opinion, relatively simple. Computing power and commercial bandwidth are commodities thanks to AWS and the like. So all that differentiates Netflix from Hulu from Youtube is the software. The software isn't easy per se, but it's easier than making a blockbuster movie or building a fiber network. That's why streaming sites are a dime a dozen but it takes the likes of Amazon or Netflix to even attempt to compete with NBC, etc, in developing AAA content. That's almost certainly why Netflix is getting into the content business, and why Youtube has always been in the content business (through user generated content). That's what's hardest to turn into a commodity.

Goronmon 13y ago
I like the idea of net neutrality conceptually, but the ulterior motives of its proponents bugs me. The ulterior motives of the opponents of net neutrality bother me much more. I can't help but imagine a world where companies like Comcast have complete control over the internet. They pick the winners, whether it's the next Google, Facebook, or Netflix. With, of course, Comcast receiving a hefty percentage for allowing said winner to succeed if they don't have complete control over the winners outright.

tehwalrus 13y ago

Surely the best thing here is for broadband providers to be reclassified as "common carriers"? That would be a fitting end to Verizon's campaign. The FCC is free to make this choice (right?[1]), and it means they can regulate broadband companies the same way as they do phone companies now - it will have some penalty (which is why they've avoided doing it up to now), but hopefully they will have the guts to fight back. (note, I'm in the UK, so this doesn't affect my home internet speed, although it could affect any of you 'mericans trying to read my rather obscure blog.) [1] I don't actually know, so by all means correct me.

dclowd9901 13y ago
I'm not sure how you think this wouldn't affect you. If a website can't survive because the fees to "carry it" are too high, and they are frozen out of the market, we all lose. It's only one internet, after all.
- tehwalrus 13y ago
  but you miss the point - if they don't pay, it doesn't affect my ability to visit them (unless Verizon et al are part of the backbone network on the route between their server host and my house). I'm not saying it's a good thing - it's a very bad thing to have no NN law! - just that my browsing will be largely unaffected.
  - dclowd9901 13y ago
    I'm saying the chilling effect means you won't have an option at all. American content creators/web app makers aren't going to start with a global product; they simply don't have the capital to bootstrap something globally. They would normally stick to just an American market, but now they can't because the barriers to entry are now too high. So it dies in its infancy. So yeah, creators in other parts of the world will be largely unaffected, but -- not to be xenophobic -- how much of the internet is created by Americans?
    - tehwalrus 13y ago

adamio 13y ago

I can see it now "All Amazon hosted websites have been blacked out from Time Warner Cable while we enter contract negotiations. Thanks for your patience, here's a free Video on Demand for the inconvenience"

ProAm 13y ago

If companies like Comcast offer telephone service over their cable lines, will this not place them in the realm of being a 'common carrier'?

at-fates-hands 13y ago

The problem I have with NN is the completely arbitrary way companies abide by it. For instance Google was all about NN when they were sued by AT&T after they set up Google Voice. Then, when they got into the broadband game, all the things they were for with NN, instantly went out the window. It appears companies are usually for something until they're against it. The FCC isn't much help either, since they really don't have any muscle to enforce the NN existing rules anyways.

RyanMcGreal 13y ago
That fickle corporate stance on NN is exactly why we should support it at the policy level so everyone has to follow fair, consistent rules that maintain the integrity of the internet.

shenoybr 13y ago

What just happened? Common sense probably got stuck in the slow lane.

declan 13y ago

Folks, today's ruling should come as no surprise. Congress never gave the FCC the authority to impose Net neutrality regulations on the Internet. That means the FCC's regulations were illegal. The same court already slapped down the FCC once, in 2010, remember: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-20001825-38.html http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-20001825-38.html Legislation granting regulatory authority to the FCC came up for a vote in Congress, and it came close to passage: it was reported favorably out of a Senate committee but was defeated in a House floor vote in 2006: http://news.cnet.com/2100-1028_3-6081882.html http://news.cnet.com/2100-1028_3-6081882.html Even if you adore the principle of Net neutrality, it's reasonable to demand that federal regulatory agencies stick to what Congress authorized them to do. Otherwise you have illegal regulations and bureaucratic turf-grabbing that will not treat the Internet well. Remember Hollywood's successful efforts to lobby the FCC to impose "broadcast flags" on computers by bureaucratic fiat? A federal appeals court correctly struck it down as exceeding the agency's legal authority, as I wrote here in 2005: http://news.cnet.com/2100-1030_3-5697719.html http://news.cnet.com/2100-1030_3-5697719.html If Net neutrality violations become an actual problem, there's no shortage of publicity-hungry politicians in Congress (hi, Ed Markey!) who will hold hearings and push legislation forward. Obama will happily sign it. Until then, other government debacles including NSA domestic surveillance and Obamacare should make us wary of federal agencies exceeding their legal authority -- especially after Congress considered and rejected a law that would have given it to them in the first place.

lifeisstillgood 13y ago
I saw New Shiny Thing and wanted to play. Thank you for reminding me to "Stay on Target"
eli 13y ago
Wouldn't the FCC clearly have this authority if they simply choose to reclassify the internet as a telecommunications service subject to common carrier rules instead of an information service? (A decision that they can apparently make unilaterally.)
- dragonwriter 13y ago