7 ms·

Stop the FCC from Breaking the Internet

208 points by moonlighter 12y ago

aylons 12y ago
In related news [1], Brazil has just sanctioned net neutrality law : http://www.engadget.com/2014/04/23/brazil-passes-internet-bill-of-rights/ http://www.engadget.com/2014/04/23/brazil-passes-internet-bi... Not only that, but also the telcos tried to smooth it out, saying they could still charge differently, and the president herself said "no, you can't". [1] Really, no sarcasm here.
- Fuxy 12y ago
  And this is why the US won't be a super power for much longer however they will resort to insanely crazy laws in a desperate attempt to exploit and suppress their own population before they die.
  - happyscrappy 12y ago
    Some technical people are amazingly inept in world affairs. For the foreseeable future you will have to suffer under Pax Americana.
laurent123456 12y ago
It's funny that a website apparently dedicated to this issue doesn't mention: - which rules are supposed to kill net neutrality. - how do they kill it? (by "picking winners and losers online"???) Well hopefully Wikipedia will be more informative.
- r0h1n 12y ago
  Except that it's not funny. There is a menu choice called, "Issues", under which lies this: http://www.savetheinternet.com/net-neutrality-resources http://www.savetheinternet.com/net-neutrality-resources
higherpurpose 12y ago
I thought this was an interesting article on the subject - "The FCC’s New Net Neutrality Proposal Is Even Worse Than You Think": http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/04/24/fcc_s_new_net_neutrality_proposal_is_even_worse_than_you_think.html http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/04/24/fcc_s_new...
gojomo 12y ago
The Internet is not a delicate flower that must be either rescued by, or rescued from, the 5 national-political-party functionary lawyer/lobbyists on the FCC. It's a fluid force of nature unleashed by digital technology. Companies that add tolls that don't come with commensurate value will be washed away by alternate-path competition. Government should punish deception and break up monopolies (especially those its own rules and franchising have created). It should open more wireless spectrum. It shouldn't be designing service packages or determining what's "commercially reasonable".
- kansface 12y ago
  What competition?
  - gojomo 12y ago
    20 years ago, no one had any broadband options. Now, most places have at least 2 wired options, plus 2 or more increasingly-competitive wireless options. Policy on spectrum and wires should aim to increase those options, not dictate the technical workings of ISPs, or limit the contractual design-space of private companies. If abuse materializes, so will opportunity. There's a glut of capital to build more paths - towers, blimps, drones, fiber loops - if there's profit to be made and no local or federal barriers to new models.
    - kumbasha 12y ago
      If what you say is true, then no one should be upset at the impending Comcast/Time Warner merger.
blazespin 12y ago
What we need is more competition not more regulation.
- rhizome 12y ago
  Too bad competition went anti-customer and killed open peering 15 years ago.
- sounds 12y ago
  Agreed! The US's existing FTC regulations are plentiful and relevant. New "Net Neutrality" legislation that does not address existing regulations but seeks simply to impose government between Carriers and Customers doesn't help much.
- necubi 12y ago
  How do you propose we get competition without regulation?
- sk5t 12y ago
  Or, we could take the entirely reasonable step of declaring ISPs to be the common carriers that they obviously are.
  - icebraining 12y ago
    That just changes the question from "why should we regulate ISPs" to "why should we regulate common carriers".
    - kumbasha 12y ago
      Fortunately we already have many decades of detailed legal answers to the latter question.
      - icebraining 12y ago
        It's not a legal question, so the legal answers are not relevant. We know that it is legal to do so, that doesn't mean we should.
001sky 12y ago
Seems there is zero chance the incumbents will spurn the TV-monopoloy people in an election year.
rdl 12y ago
There is a reasonable argument for not wanting the FCC involved in setting technical policy for how a carrier runs its own network. It is at best disingenuous to claim "net neutrality regulation" is the only way to save the Internet. Yes, I want the initial effects of net neutrality (mainly cheap access to comcast by CDNs and major hosting providers) If someone builds a non-monopoly network, perhaps via multi-dwelling metro ethernet or fixed wireless, I want that network to be able to implement whatever QoS they want. If that means 155M links to buildings with 500 subscribers and some kind of local CDN node for video content which is "free" and QoS on other traffic, that's a win for consumers. The correct place for requiring neutrality is when local governments negotiate with carriers for any monopoly rights. In exchange for a geographic monopoly on laying infrastructure, it would be reasonable to demand reasonable-and-non-discriminatory access to the network. From a practical perspective, local governments are probably too technically and generally incapable of negotiating with big companies like Comcast, but that's a problem we're already facing. Model contracts would probably help with that, or state regulators.
- api 12y ago
  > In exchange for a geographic monopoly on laying infrastructure, it would be reasonable to demand reasonable-and-non-discriminatory access to the network. Unfortunately state and local regulatory capture is often far more egregious than Federal due to lack of attention and oversight. Having the FCC whack the whole thing with one big mallet may be the only option we have.
- gojomo 12y ago
  Leaving it to localities also enables more experimentation and inter-locality competition (as with Google Fiber rollouts)... while national rules create a premature uniformity.
  - rdl 12y ago
    One of the experiments I'd like to see is someone getting either a highly-regulated utility (possibly even municipality-owned) or some level of highly competitive market correct. I don't think a local government should be in the business of delivering IP to residential/business customers, but having an exceptionally easy process for trenching might work, or conduit, or dark fiber (or even lit fiber to areas). After a century, we're still innovating on the power networks (net metering, etc.). We might even be in the Edison vs. Tesla days for IP.
virb 12y ago
Only Nixon could go to China; only Obama could establish a tiered internet.
theexpedience 12y ago
Government control of the internet. It's like government control, but on the internet. I am bewildered when I see freedom types suggesting that a federal agency (!) is going to grant them more freedom by controlling the services they use.
- kumbasha 12y ago
  I don't see why that's so hard to believe at all. The federal government, at least in theory, is accountable to its citizens since the citizens vote for their government. The Board of Directors of Comcast, however, is something that no citizen anywhere has any power over whatsoever. Why would you choose the latter scenario, in which you have zero power in principle and in practice, versus the former scenario where you have some power both in theory and in practice?
bowlofpetunias 12y ago
I'm getting deja vu... http://savetheinternet.eu/ http://savetheinternet.eu/
tomelders 12y ago
Perhaps the us should consider unlimited terms for presidents. That way you don't have situations where incumbents have nothing to lose in their second term and no incentive to fulfill their promises. Or maybe not, I'm just throwing that out there.
- rdl 12y ago
  Or, one of the two houses of Congress could have strict term limits (e.g. 3 x 2 year terms of the House), so Representatives are more willing to act in the interests of constituents or the greater public rather than re-election at least periodically. (Or a single, possibly six year term for the President). I think political scientists have proposed and analyzed all of these variations.
zimbatm 12y ago
Didn't the FCC lack the authority to enforce net neutrality laws ? Why would it be different now. http://mediafreedom.org/2013/08/net-neutrality-governing-via-loopholes/ http://mediafreedom.org/2013/08/net-neutrality-governing-via...
icebraining 12y ago
This title sounds like those who write "keep your government hands off my Medicare!" Net Neutrality regulations may be good, and they may even "save" the Internet, but it's not their inaction that will break it. If anything, it's the ISPs' actions.

208 points by moonlighter 12y ago

In related news [1], Brazil has just sanctioned net neutrality law : http://www.engadget.com/2014/04/23/brazil-passes-internet-bill-of-rights/ http://www.engadget.com/2014/04/23/brazil-passes-internet-bi... Not only that, but also the telcos tried to smooth it out, saying they could still charge differently, and the president herself said "no, you can't". [1] Really, no sarcasm here.

Fuxy 12y ago
And this is why the US won't be a super power for much longer however they will resort to insanely crazy laws in a desperate attempt to exploit and suppress their own population before they die.
- happyscrappy 12y ago
  Some technical people are amazingly inept in world affairs. For the foreseeable future you will have to suffer under Pax Americana.

laurent123456 12y ago

It's funny that a website apparently dedicated to this issue doesn't mention: - which rules are supposed to kill net neutrality. - how do they kill it? (by "picking winners and losers online"???) Well hopefully Wikipedia will be more informative.

r0h1n 12y ago
Except that it's not funny. There is a menu choice called, "Issues", under which lies this: http://www.savetheinternet.com/net-neutrality-resources http://www.savetheinternet.com/net-neutrality-resources

higherpurpose 12y ago

I thought this was an interesting article on the subject - "The FCC’s New Net Neutrality Proposal Is Even Worse Than You Think": http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/04/24/fcc_s_new_net_neutrality_proposal_is_even_worse_than_you_think.html http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/04/24/fcc_s_new...

gojomo 12y ago

The Internet is not a delicate flower that must be either rescued by, or rescued from, the 5 national-political-party functionary lawyer/lobbyists on the FCC. It's a fluid force of nature unleashed by digital technology. Companies that add tolls that don't come with commensurate value will be washed away by alternate-path competition. Government should punish deception and break up monopolies (especially those its own rules and franchising have created). It should open more wireless spectrum. It shouldn't be designing service packages or determining what's "commercially reasonable".

kansface 12y ago
What competition?
- gojomo 12y ago
  20 years ago, no one had any broadband options. Now, most places have at least 2 wired options, plus 2 or more increasingly-competitive wireless options. Policy on spectrum and wires should aim to increase those options, not dictate the technical workings of ISPs, or limit the contractual design-space of private companies. If abuse materializes, so will opportunity. There's a glut of capital to build more paths - towers, blimps, drones, fiber loops - if there's profit to be made and no local or federal barriers to new models.
  - kumbasha 12y ago
    If what you say is true, then no one should be upset at the impending Comcast/Time Warner merger.

blazespin 12y ago

What we need is more competition not more regulation.

rhizome 12y ago
Too bad competition went anti-customer and killed open peering 15 years ago.
sounds 12y ago
Agreed! The US's existing FTC regulations are plentiful and relevant. New "Net Neutrality" legislation that does not address existing regulations but seeks simply to impose government between Carriers and Customers doesn't help much.
necubi 12y ago
How do you propose we get competition without regulation?
sk5t 12y ago
Or, we could take the entirely reasonable step of declaring ISPs to be the common carriers that they obviously are.
- icebraining 12y ago
  That just changes the question from "why should we regulate ISPs" to "why should we regulate common carriers".
  - kumbasha 12y ago
    Fortunately we already have many decades of detailed legal answers to the latter question.
    - icebraining 12y ago
      It's not a legal question, so the legal answers are not relevant. We know that it is legal to do so, that doesn't mean we should.

001sky 12y ago

Seems there is zero chance the incumbents will spurn the TV-monopoloy people in an election year.

rdl 12y ago

There is a reasonable argument for not wanting the FCC involved in setting technical policy for how a carrier runs its own network. It is at best disingenuous to claim "net neutrality regulation" is the only way to save the Internet. Yes, I want the initial effects of net neutrality (mainly cheap access to comcast by CDNs and major hosting providers) If someone builds a non-monopoly network, perhaps via multi-dwelling metro ethernet or fixed wireless, I want that network to be able to implement whatever QoS they want. If that means 155M links to buildings with 500 subscribers and some kind of local CDN node for video content which is "free" and QoS on other traffic, that's a win for consumers. The correct place for requiring neutrality is when local governments negotiate with carriers for any monopoly rights. In exchange for a geographic monopoly on laying infrastructure, it would be reasonable to demand reasonable-and-non-discriminatory access to the network. From a practical perspective, local governments are probably too technically and generally incapable of negotiating with big companies like Comcast, but that's a problem we're already facing. Model contracts would probably help with that, or state regulators.

api 12y ago
> In exchange for a geographic monopoly on laying infrastructure, it would be reasonable to demand reasonable-and-non-discriminatory access to the network. Unfortunately state and local regulatory capture is often far more egregious than Federal due to lack of attention and oversight. Having the FCC whack the whole thing with one big mallet may be the only option we have.
gojomo 12y ago
Leaving it to localities also enables more experimentation and inter-locality competition (as with Google Fiber rollouts)... while national rules create a premature uniformity.
- rdl 12y ago
  One of the experiments I'd like to see is someone getting either a highly-regulated utility (possibly even municipality-owned) or some level of highly competitive market correct. I don't think a local government should be in the business of delivering IP to residential/business customers, but having an exceptionally easy process for trenching might work, or conduit, or dark fiber (or even lit fiber to areas). After a century, we're still innovating on the power networks (net metering, etc.). We might even be in the Edison vs. Tesla days for IP.

virb 12y ago

Only Nixon could go to China; only Obama could establish a tiered internet.

theexpedience 12y ago

Government control of the internet. It's like government control, but on the internet. I am bewildered when I see freedom types suggesting that a federal agency (!) is going to grant them more freedom by controlling the services they use.

kumbasha 12y ago
I don't see why that's so hard to believe at all. The federal government, at least in theory, is accountable to its citizens since the citizens vote for their government. The Board of Directors of Comcast, however, is something that no citizen anywhere has any power over whatsoever. Why would you choose the latter scenario, in which you have zero power in principle and in practice, versus the former scenario where you have some power both in theory and in practice?

bowlofpetunias 12y ago

I'm getting deja vu... http://savetheinternet.eu/ http://savetheinternet.eu/

tomelders 12y ago

Perhaps the us should consider unlimited terms for presidents. That way you don't have situations where incumbents have nothing to lose in their second term and no incentive to fulfill their promises. Or maybe not, I'm just throwing that out there.

rdl 12y ago
Or, one of the two houses of Congress could have strict term limits (e.g. 3 x 2 year terms of the House), so Representatives are more willing to act in the interests of constituents or the greater public rather than re-election at least periodically. (Or a single, possibly six year term for the President). I think political scientists have proposed and analyzed all of these variations.

zimbatm 12y ago

Didn't the FCC lack the authority to enforce net neutrality laws ? Why would it be different now. http://mediafreedom.org/2013/08/net-neutrality-governing-via-loopholes/ http://mediafreedom.org/2013/08/net-neutrality-governing-via...

icebraining 12y ago

This title sounds like those who write "keep your government hands off my Medicare!" Net Neutrality regulations may be good, and they may even "save" the Internet, but it's not their inaction that will break it. If anything, it's the ISPs' actions.