4 ms·

F.C.C. Chairman Adds More Ambiguity to His Position on Network Neutrality

28 points by doctorshady 13y ago

ihsw 13y ago
Personally I recommend reading the actual FCC blog entry before voicing your outrage or relief: http://www.fcc.gov/blog/ensuring-open-internet-now-and-future http://www.fcc.gov/blog/ensuring-open-internet-now-and-futur... It's far more well-written -- and notably prescient -- than the NYTimes blog post. That said, AT&T's "Sponsored Data" announcement ahead of the court's ruling is very interesting and I would not at all be surprised that both events have resulted in a Sword of Damocles[1] hanging over the FCC -- or, more to the point, we are all holding our breaths anticipating a final clarification of policy. Most notably is that the growth of the internet has been mostly organic where regulation has been scarce, however I would be fairly content with reducing the impossibly tight grip of telecom monopolies in municipal environments. The Chairman touches on this saying that broadband is terribly scarce, and attempts to exert pressure on such monopolies could have unintended side-effects -- most notably reduction in service to customers. That is a valid concern that's very difficult to approach, however I believe competition should be enforced in larger municipalities (>1M population) and 'sponsored data' initiatives would be more suited for mobile broadband services. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damocles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damocles
- jessaustin 13y ago
  The FCC link certainly articulates a laudable set of principles, but it seems rather late in the game for platitudes. If FCC don't have an actual policy reaction to the ruling yet, when do they plan on having one? Do they expect the Republicans to retake the Senate this year? Maybe they'd like to see another presidential election? What's the hold-up? I'm not surprised to see the self-serving "very high fixed costs and very large minimum efficient scale" canard floated again. Of course backbones and other fiber networks are costly, but astute observers will note a great deal of competition in that market. It's only in the first mile that competition is lacking, and FCC are largely to blame for that fact. We have the radio tech we have because it is the radio tech the FCC has allowed. If they hadn't been dragging their feet on white spaces for a decade, the USA's abysmal placing on all the broadband lists would never have come about. Only in the most crowded urban areas should consumers and most businesses be connecting through anything other than a WISP. There is no economic driver for WISPs to be large, so lobbyists and other FCC hangers-on wouldn't make as much money from them. WISPs operating in unlicensed space would take millions of dollars out of the pockets of MNOs, CATVs, and ILECs, and give that money back to consumers, so again there would be less money for corruption. Damn, now I've almost convinced myself it will never happen. ps. that footnote seems really unnecessary.
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    > The FCC link certainly articulates a laudable set of principles, but it seems rather late in the game for platitudes. If FCC don't have an actual policy reaction to the ruling yet, when do they plan on having one? Presumably, they are first reviewing with the details of the ruling with their legal team and assessing the prospects of appeal (and appeal strategy, whether to file with the US Supreme Court, or file for en banc review by the full DC Circuit.) Should they appeal, there won't be need of a "policy reaction" to the present court decision, because the policy will be the policy already adopted in the Open Internet Order.
equalarrow 13y ago
"..the F.C.C. will intrude on the activities of network operators in ways that will damage them economically with injury to them and to their ability to offer more and improved service" I don't get it, what could you do to damage them economically? All these big network guys make money hand over fist for crappy service. No one I know loves Comcast or Verizon or AT&T. No one. We've come as a country that invented the Internet to somewhere way down on the list of openness and speed. It's obvious why this is. We have some of the (if not the) most expensive connectivity for lowest speed in the world. I have to laugh at 'improved service' and I guess I would if the whole thing were not just such a major let down.

28 points by doctorshady 13y ago

ihsw 13y ago

Personally I recommend reading the actual FCC blog entry before voicing your outrage or relief: http://www.fcc.gov/blog/ensuring-open-internet-now-and-future http://www.fcc.gov/blog/ensuring-open-internet-now-and-futur... It's far more well-written -- and notably prescient -- than the NYTimes blog post. That said, AT&T's "Sponsored Data" announcement ahead of the court's ruling is very interesting and I would not at all be surprised that both events have resulted in a Sword of Damocles[1] hanging over the FCC -- or, more to the point, we are all holding our breaths anticipating a final clarification of policy. Most notably is that the growth of the internet has been mostly organic where regulation has been scarce, however I would be fairly content with reducing the impossibly tight grip of telecom monopolies in municipal environments. The Chairman touches on this saying that broadband is terribly scarce, and attempts to exert pressure on such monopolies could have unintended side-effects -- most notably reduction in service to customers. That is a valid concern that's very difficult to approach, however I believe competition should be enforced in larger municipalities (>1M population) and 'sponsored data' initiatives would be more suited for mobile broadband services. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damocles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damocles

jessaustin 13y ago
The FCC link certainly articulates a laudable set of principles, but it seems rather late in the game for platitudes. If FCC don't have an actual policy reaction to the ruling yet, when do they plan on having one? Do they expect the Republicans to retake the Senate this year? Maybe they'd like to see another presidential election? What's the hold-up? I'm not surprised to see the self-serving "very high fixed costs and very large minimum efficient scale" canard floated again. Of course backbones and other fiber networks are costly, but astute observers will note a great deal of competition in that market. It's only in the first mile that competition is lacking, and FCC are largely to blame for that fact. We have the radio tech we have because it is the radio tech the FCC has allowed. If they hadn't been dragging their feet on white spaces for a decade, the USA's abysmal placing on all the broadband lists would never have come about. Only in the most crowded urban areas should consumers and most businesses be connecting through anything other than a WISP. There is no economic driver for WISPs to be large, so lobbyists and other FCC hangers-on wouldn't make as much money from them. WISPs operating in unlicensed space would take millions of dollars out of the pockets of MNOs, CATVs, and ILECs, and give that money back to consumers, so again there would be less money for corruption. Damn, now I've almost convinced myself it will never happen. ps. that footnote seems really unnecessary.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > The FCC link certainly articulates a laudable set of principles, but it seems rather late in the game for platitudes. If FCC don't have an actual policy reaction to the ruling yet, when do they plan on having one? Presumably, they are first reviewing with the details of the ruling with their legal team and assessing the prospects of appeal (and appeal strategy, whether to file with the US Supreme Court, or file for en banc review by the full DC Circuit.) Should they appeal, there won't be need of a "policy reaction" to the present court decision, because the policy will be the policy already adopted in the Open Internet Order.

equalarrow 13y ago

"..the F.C.C. will intrude on the activities of network operators in ways that will damage them economically with injury to them and to their ability to offer more and improved service" I don't get it, what could you do to damage them economically? All these big network guys make money hand over fist for crappy service. No one I know loves Comcast or Verizon or AT&T. No one. We've come as a country that invented the Internet to somewhere way down on the list of openness and speed. It's obvious why this is. We have some of the (if not the) most expensive connectivity for lowest speed in the world. I have to laugh at 'improved service' and I guess I would if the whole thing were not just such a major let down.