9 ms·

AT&T claims ‘strong’ net neutrality would ruin the Internet

89 points by opendais 12y ago

rayiner 12y ago
Cicconi is self-interested, but he's right on one thing: most proponents of reclassification haven't thought through all the implications of that proposal. Your typical net neutrality advocate has probably never heard of the Universal Service Fund, and certainly couldn't articulate why, e.g. a long distance call made on a Title-II internet using Skype or Google Voice should be treated differently than a long distance call made over a traditional Title II telephone network for the purposes of the USF fees. The author argues that Title-II reclassification wouldn't expose content companies to regulation, but how does he explain the fact that VOIP services are required to contribute to USF? Isn't VOIP just content too? Title II is a Depression-era regulatory regime, designed back when people thought that things like government-regulated rates and prices were a good idea. That's not the way forward, it's the way backward.
- Alupis 12y ago
  I am not a fan of Title II, however I think it's a very far leap to go from being Net Neutral --> Title II. You can be Net Neutral without being Title II'ed. The problem is, the ISP's (including AT&T) are not Net Neutral.
- eli 12y ago
  Sounds more like an argument for overhauling or repealing the USF, which has problems beyond the ones you cited.
- opendais 12y ago
  Replacing Title II with an updated version with similar goals would probably fix that. [e.g. Move the government out of the rate/price control aspects but retain the lack of discrimination requirements] As far as the USF goes it is already being spent on broadband: http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/connecting-america http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/connecting-america At which point, it probably makes sense for the USF to be funded by ISPs as well as phone providers. However, the fee structure would need to be altered to not run off what is basically a long distance call tax. The FCC doesn't have the power to do that, however. Congress would need to fix it. Shall we begin praying for miracles?
  - rayiner 12y ago
    I don't think it'll take a miracle. I think that is in fact what we will eventually get: legislation that imposes a neutrality requirement, but with loopholes for QoS and traffic shaping. That's probably not even overtly the wrong thing, although I do think it will drive even more investment out of wireline.
    - opendais 12y ago
      I think you have more faith in Congress than I then. I fully expect the ISPs to manage to buy someone off to make the QoS & traffic shaping loopholes big enough for a lobbyist to sail his new yacht through. ;) "Unfortunately, as Netflix is not determined to be a 'critical service' under Title II 2.0, we are forced to ask for additional funds so that we may meet our QoS guarantees for Hospitals, Police, and other life saving services. You don't really value saving lives beneath your entertainment, do you? You'd be a terrible person if you did..."
      - rayiner 12y ago
        If it was just a matter of cash, it'd be a fairer fight, because the big internet content companies have lots of that.
        opendais 12y ago
        Do you think it is just a matter of cash? If that is the case, it is going to be Netflix + Google + Token support from other tech companies vs. all of the ISPs. The ISPs are only pulling this stunt with video services and I doubt the other tech companies are going to throw a ton of money to help "other people". I'm not sure the tech side would win that fight which is what makes me uncomfortable.
        rayiner 12y ago
        I don't think it's just a matter of cash. Google actually spends more on lobbying than either AT&T or Verizon: http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?indexType=s&showYear=2014 http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?indexType=s&showYea.... And the numbers aren't of the magnitude people assume: the top spenders are single-digit millions with the exception of the Chamber of Commerce. You need a certain minimum amount of money, but after that it's more about ideology and jobs. The tech industry has plenty of money, but it's ideology is not easy to fit into a traditional classification, and it doesn't create that many jobs per dollar of revenue. AT&T is very effective at lobbying because they can go up to a Republican and say: "look, the internet companies want to revive this FDR-era regulation! Also, we create thousands of jobs for ordinary Americans like utility pole maintenance workers." Per dollar of lobbying expenditure, that's a much more compelling message than: "{something about openness} and also we create a few jobs most people in your district don't have the education to get and most of these jobs are in California anyway."
- jdonaldson 12y ago
  Calling such regulation "depression-era" and a "regime" sounds like calculated corporate FUD. One could argue that depression era policies were enacted because capital markets proved they could not regulate themselves. I have similar doubts about regulation and internet service providers. The internet was born into this era of regulation, and has become one of the most important achievements of human civilization. It's hard to argue that things would've been better if AT&T would've been able to use the lion's share of internet bandwidth for a select few... private video conferencing streams, etc.
  - silverbax88 12y ago
    I don't trust the government, but you cannot trust corporations to police themselves. I just realized as I type this that I trust the U.S. government more than I trust corporations. Which is sort of like saying I'd rather be eaten by wolf than a tiger, because a wolf is smaller.
    - wvenable 12y ago
      In my opinion, the only reason to not trust the government in these matters is that the government itself is bought by corporations. If they had no such interest then the only remaining factor is incompetence.
      - AnthonyMouse 12y ago
        That's like saying you shouldn't trust the police because a lot of police officers accept bribes. Even if it's true, the conclusion can hardly be that we should stop having the police.
        wvenable 12y ago
        If the majority of police accept bribes then obviously you shouldn't trust the police. I did not advocate any particular solution (such as stop having police or government). But untrustworthy police should not be policing and untrustworthy government should not be governing.
- chimeracoder 12y ago
  > Your typical net neutrality advocate has probably never heard of the Universal Service Fund As opendais mentioned, an easy fix is to allocate this fund towards broadband connectivity instead of (just) phone service, which seems to be already in the works. > That's not the way forward, it's the way backward. I don't think anybody reasonably argues that Title II reclassification is a panacea; the Title II regulations may very well need to be updated themselves, but the structure of being regulated as a "cable service" no longer makes sense for ISPs. Either way, we're talking about massive changes that need to be made, so you're correct that no single change is going to be sufficient, and it's often the case of "six steps forward, five steps back". But it's still an improvement.
  - rayiner 12y ago
    > As opendais mentioned, an easy fix is to allocate this fund towards broadband connectivity instead of (just) phone service, which seems to be already in the works. That's not the point. If Title-II gives the FCC the right to force VOIP companies to contribute to the USF, how is any other content service that runs over the internet safe? It's just an example of the kind of unforeseen consequences of Title-II that net neutrality advocates don't think about.
    - eli 12y ago
      I don't follow. Why does that make other content less safe? Is your only complaint against Title II the USF? That seems like a solvable problem.
      - pessimizer 12y ago
        Because VOIP data isn't any different than any other data?
    - opendais 12y ago
      I probably should add this is why I said it would need to be re-written to change the USF funding mechanism so it makes sense. Likely a flat fee on the ISP bills. People will complain, people will always complain...but it isn't raising taxes, just changing how they are paid.
- zenciadam 12y ago
  The Universal Service Fund is a joke. If you're out in the country, you're still lucky if you can get 128k DSL.
  - evgen 12y ago
    If you are out in the country then you would not have any access at all without USF. No one is going to run thirty miles of wire just so your little farmhouse can get telecom services; wireless may fix part of this, but that also requires towers, maintenance, and a whole lot of other services that do not justify the revenue you would provide in compensation. Consider your 128k a gift from the rest of us, which it is, and say "thanks" every now and then...
    - nitrogen 12y ago
      Consider your 128k a gift from the rest of us, which it is, and say "thanks" every now and then... I don't think I've ever read anything so... conceited on HN, and that's saying something. The choice to live in a rural area may have been made involuntarily.
      - johnsmith198234 12y ago
        How do you mean? I can't see how someone could be forced to live in the middle of nowhere, other than imprisonment. I believe that nearly any person living in a rural area could move to a more populated area, if they desired. What if you want to be a stereotypical farmer, on a farm 50 miles from any city? That is your choice. However, one side effect of that choice is that you have to live with dialup Internet access. Just take that into account when making your decision.
        zenciadam 12y ago
        Then why is everyone still paying for universal access, if the farmer is using a line installed in 1930? If it cost $10k to run that line in today's money, they're making out like bandits.
        12y ago
- bradleyjg 12y ago
  > Title II is a Depression-era regulatory regime, designed back when people thought that things like government-regulated rates and prices were a good idea. The principle of universal service at a "reasonable charge" (though not the USF) dates from the same period and is also outdated. Life is full of trade-offs and where to live is certainly no exception. Some people have affordable houses on acres of land at affordable prices, pure mountain air, and outdoor recreation at their fingertips. I live in a tiny apartment, directly above a highway, and have to travel a few hours to go camping. It is no more appropriate to ask those who live in areas where it is less expensive to provide telecom services to subsidize those who live in areas where it is expensive than for the federal government to impose a property tax on properties over half an acre to subsidize green spaces in cities.
  - dTal 12y ago
    Why isn't it appropriate? I don't see anything qualitatively different about either of those things from other forms of wealth redistribution.
    - lutorm 12y ago
      The grandparent said that they were both equally appropriate, presumably with the argument being that since there is no push to charge rural areas a "green access fee" to build parks in cities, the opposite shouldn't apply either. One could argue that the very highway the grandparent lives by is a government-provided service to make it possible for him to go camping, but I don't know how the cost of building highways is shouldered by rural vs urban areas.
    - bradleyjg 12y ago
      Wealth redistribution schemes utilizing a means test are qualitatively different from those that do not.
  - Spooky23 12y ago
    That's a ridiculous position. Should we also deny people electricity because they live outside a metropolitan era? Declaring entire swaths of the population of a country like the United States unworthy of access to things like telephones and access to the global network is ridiculous enough. But it's particularly offensive given that it's cheaper to run and operate these systems today than it ever has been before. Universal service is about more than telephones in the wilderness. I live in a state capital, about 500 yards from a major fiber optic termination point. Pretty sure my employer has a 40GB line on the telephone pole that I can see from my front porch. I have access to 20/1 cable service or 30/5 cable service at a 70% cost premium. Because there are few poor people there, the surrounding suburbs have FIOS and Cable, and the cable service is significantly less expensive.
- belorn 12y ago
  There is no clear line between what is under Title-II and Title-I of the Communications Act. If there was, then FCC would not have the question put to them, and they could not decide it. To a large degree, its up to the discretion of FCC to decide what is and what isn't Title-II. FCC could defeine ISP as utility, and there would be no obligation to define video streaming as utility too. Cicconi could argue that FCC should not have the power to do this but is choosing not to do so. Rather, he is trying to argue a slipper slope argument. I wonder if this is for political reasons, in order to not challenge the authority of FCC while they are deciding on the issue.
- anigbrowl 12y ago
  I see your point and you are unusually well qualified to point out the legal slippery slope upon which reclassification would put the broadband industry, but I feel the need to point out that Universal Service Fund fees do not represent very large sums of money in practice. Personally I've never been bothered by paying a few $ a month for this (I think they total up to about $3/mo), even at times when I've struggled to pay the bills. In general I prefer market solutions, but perfect competition isn't a good model for infrastructure, for a whole host of reasons.
  - rayiner 12y ago
    I'm just using USF as an example of the unforeseen consequences, because that was the example in the article. I'm not opposed to some regulation in this area, but I worry about driving investment out of wireline. Goldman is already saying Verizon should ditch its wireline business. Also, I think some level of traffic shaping (e.g. throttling Bittorrent and prioritizing HTTP) is necessary just from a network engineering point of view. I don't want my Netflix packets waiting behind some BT packets containing pirated movies.
    - opendais 12y ago
      Eh, I think this is something I've argued with you [or someone before on HN] about. That isn't exactly what Goldman said. http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Goldman-Sachs-Wants-Verizon-to-Sell-All-Landline-Assets-117774 http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Goldman-Sachs-Wants-Veriz... 1) That was when they were trying to get them to merge with Vodafone. 2) That was more about dumping the overhead that came with the union Verizon was dealing with, dumping pension liabilities, etc. and basically splitting the "high growth" business off from the slower growth business. That isn't really the same thing. All utilities are going to be low growth businesses by their very nature. http://seekingalpha.com/article/1599192-slow-growth-but-a-high-dividend-and-low-volatility-our-favorite-utilities-etf http://seekingalpha.com/article/1599192-slow-growth-but-a-hi... Unless you are talking about a newer angle of attack from Goldman about it? EDIT: I guess I'm trying to say it speaks more to Goldman's bias [splitting it up based on what looks to be growing faster so they can invest accordingly].
    - 12y ago
- leoc 12y ago
  > Title II is a Depression-era regulatory regime, designed back when people thought that things like government-regulated rates and prices were a good idea. That's not the way forward, it's the way backward. Really? There was undoubtedly a lot of enthusiasm for planned economies in the '30s, but wasn't Title II based on older railroad anti-trust legislation? I presume you're not suggesting that the earlier era of the railroad trusts and Standard Oil should be the preferred model for the future...
- rsingel 12y ago
  Common carrier regulations date back even farther than the depression and they work perfectly well with airlines, prohibiting discrimination. Title II is appropriate. Broadband connections are the telecom infrastructure of the future, and they should be regulated as infrastructure. Title II reclassification doesn't have to include price controls as individual portions of Title II can be forbeared. As for VOIP, the general rule of thumb the FCC set for CALEA compliance works here as well: is the service a replacement for traditional phone service? If so, then they pay into USF. If not, there's no burden. http://askcalea.fbi.gov/archives/voip.html http://askcalea.fbi.gov/archives/voip.html
  - rayiner 12y ago
    Fun fact: deregulation of the U.S. airline industry in the 1970's was a tremendous success, paving the way for companies like FedEx and UPS: http://www.aeaweb.org/annual_mtg_papers/2008/2008_264.pdf; http://www.aeaweb.org/annual_mtg_papers/2008/2008_264.pdf; http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/news/allrise/2009/01/30-years-after-airline-deregulation-who-is-the-big-winner http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/news/allrise/2009/01/30-years-after.... As for VOIP: the concerning thing there is the FCC's taxing of a content service that runs on the internet. I don't think that's a precedent most supporters of net neutrality want to embrace, but that's exactly the path you're going down with Title II.
    - wmf 12y ago
      Any company that acts like a phone company (e.g. providing real phone numbers) is regulated and taxed like a phone company. The fact that some of them run part of the call over the Internet isn't why they're being regulated, but it doesn't magically exempt them from regulation either. The same thinking applies to all companies. If you're doing something regulated, then doing it over the Internet will still be regulated. If you're doing something unregulated then doing it over the Internet will still be unregulated. Title II shouldn't make any difference.
      - rayiner 12y ago
        So Google Voice and Skype should be taxed? Beyond that, isn't "real phone numbers" a totally arbitrary distinction when everything is running on the internet? Just a different sort of endpoint identifier. What you're really trying to tax is "real time voice communications." So shouldn't Facetime be taxed too?
- Spooky23 12y ago
  > Title II is a Depression-era regulatory regime, designed back when people thought that things like government-regulated rates and prices were a good idea. That's not the way forward, it's the way backward. I would agree with you if this discussion were taking place in 1994, when moving away from the legacy of the Bell System was kicking off. Today, we seem to be going to a model where waves of consolidation are essentially rebuilding something that looks like the old days. If that's the future, you're going to need a strong regulatory leash to keep them under control.
- warfangle 12y ago
  > probably never heard of the Universal Service Fund, That may be, but I have. And if the ISPs are reclassified as Title II, perhaps one of the outcomes would be the use of the USF to bring broadband to underserved communities. The USF does quite a bit more than 'connect the poor to phone service.' * It helps ensure that consumers in all regions of the nation pay similar rates to those in urban areas. * Discounts that make basic service affordable for low-income consumers (Link-Up America and Lifeline) * Subsidies for rural health care, centering around video conferencing infrastructure and high speed internet access for rural medical providers * 'E-Rate,' which provides subsidies for internet access, telecom services, internal infrastructure and maintenance of the connections to schools and libraries. It pays a percentage based on need. If broadband ISPs are reclassified as Title II, that may expand USF to even data costs from rural to urban areas. I'd say that's a win. > [... VOIP & USF ...] It probably shouldn't: the reason it is right now probably comes down to ISPs not being required to contribute to the fund, and VOIP services come closest to the layman concept of what telecommunications is. They had to make up the gap of contribution caused by people dropping traditional telephony services for VOIP services, and Skype and Google Voice didn't have the FCC lobbying power that TimeWarnerComcastVerizon did. > [Depression-era FUD] USF was started by the act of '34, but was seriously updated in '96 to include things like "access to advanced telecommunication services." Unfortunately, since broadband ISPs aren't Title II, they're probably not included in that.
- yellowapple 12y ago
  > most proponents of reclassification haven't thought through all the implications of that proposal Sure, but that assumes that all those implications are actually relevant. > but how does he explain the fact that VOIP services are required to contribute to USF? Isn't VOIP just content too? Not quite. If that VoIP service an actual phone number (i.e. one that could be called from within a traditional "copper" phone network), then (from what I understand) it acts as a provider of a phone network. Both Skype and Google Voice offer that functionality, so they're subject to USF fees. IANAL, so that should be taken with a grain of salt; that's just my understanding of that particular corner case.
- ASneakyFox 12y ago
  Title ii could have issues. But I don't think it would be for content providers. There's content providers involved with phones that arent subject to anything title ii related (dialup internet). So that argument doesnt seem sound to me.
coldcode 12y ago
If we actually had politicians that represented the people instead of whoever paid them the most, we might be able to craft laws that made sense to today's situation. But we don't.
logn 12y ago
That's concerning that common carriers can still affect traffic speeds unless it's 'unjust' or 'unreasonable'. I don't see how merely reclassifying ISPs will help anything. I hope the democrats' legislation addresses this. I think the outlook is bleak. We need Congress, the FCC, and likely the Supreme Court to all make decisions that hurt telecoms (which is unlikely). edit: I found the section of the law about 'unjust'/'unreasonable' for common carriers: Sec. 202 providers of basic services must § 202(a) engage in no “unjust or unreasonable discrimination in charges, practices, classifications, regulations, facilities, or services,” and § 202(b) charge “just and reasonable” rates http://www.cybertelecom.org/notes/titleii.htm http://www.cybertelecom.org/notes/titleii.htm
- esbranson 12y ago
  The FCC will decide what is reasonable, and the doctrine of Chevron deference means that the courts will defer to the reasoning of executive agencies with specialization and expertise (i.e., the FCC) unless it is evidently wrong, arbitrary, or unreasonable.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- a_c_s 12y ago
  Why should they pay more per-bit than anybody else? Compared to Comcast, Netflix is certainly the underdog: revenues of $66.75B vs $4.42B. Edit - forgot to include source: https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=netflix+vs+comcast&a=*C.netflix-_*Financial-&a=*DPClash.InternetE.comcast-_*comcast%21.com.dflt- https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=netflix+vs+comcast&a=*...
tokenizerrr 12y ago
I mean, it would probably ruin some of their profits.
crazy1van 12y ago
Why isn't Twitter or Facebook or Gmail a common carrier? They only provide the "means of communication". The "content of communication" is created by the users. Many internet companies seem to want to have it both ways. If someone tweets a bomb threat, Twitter will claim it is only the means for communication. If an ISP throttles Twitter's bandwidth, it will claim the ISP is the means and Twitter is the content. My point is just that the content vs means comparison is a very gray area in the age of the internet.
- macspoofing 12y ago
  You're being facetious because you're not that dense that you can't see a difference between a web application and a fiber connection, even if you don't support telecom reclassification. >My point is just that the content vs means comparison is a very gray area in the age of the internet. Yes, there are gray areas everywhere, but sometimes it's not that complicated. This one isn't complicated. In the set of complicated and ambiguous issues, this one is very well defined.
  - rayiner 12y ago
    Its not that crazy. Google and Facebook depend on common carrier type protections to insulate them from, say, liability for the people who send child porn through their service.
  - crazy1van 12y ago
    > You're being facetious because you're not that dense that you can't see a difference between a web application and a fiber connection Of course they are different in many ways. But they do have commonalities too. Its clear that fiber provides a means of communication. But I think if you asked the average person or lawmaker if Gmail provides a means of communication, they would also say yes. Is that even an unreasonable conclusion?
    - esbranson 12y ago
      Yes, when you consider that its not "common carriers" such as FedEx which is being discussed, but "telecommunications common carriers", which inevitably relies on the definition of telecommunications. Which Wikipedia makes pretty clear is commonly understood to mean a physical medium based upon electrical signals or electromagnetic waves.
baldfat 12y ago
We just need a way to kill the localized monopolies. Everything else would "auto-correct" it's self. Image if we all said forget you Time/Warner and Verizon you treat us bad we are going to Sonic.net? What a powerful tool that would be. It's called $$$
- touristtam 12y ago
  May I suggest you have a look at the deregulation of the old state monopolies in Europe? Net neutrality seems to have an impact outside the States, that feels it is being overlooked while you guys are debating of your own national ISP market.
macspoofing 12y ago
Any vision that AT&T has for the Internet would ruin the Internet.
neurobro 12y ago
I don't want the FCC to have any authority over the Internet. I don't want the FCC giving $25,000 fines to web sites that publish dirty words or wardrobe malfunctions. If "fast lanes" ever really become a problem requiring government intervention (which to my knowledge they haven't yet), it should be in the form of direct Congressional action and very limited in scope.
- ASneakyFox 12y ago
  Well right now no one can out compete netflix unless they form the same fast lane deals. That's sort of a issue....
  - neurobro 12y ago
    Nobody can compete with Netflix because it's nigh impossible to match the breadth of their content licensing, and it will take an enormous marketing investment to displace their brand. (Even Amazon and Google have weaker brands to the extent that they compete with Netflix.) "Fast lane deals" would/will be an expense for Netflix and give smaller competitors a slight advantage in that respect (if they can get the content and publicity, and improve the experience for users). If ISPs degrade their services to the point that it's impossible to deliver streaming video without paying fast-lane protection money, that's something that could be resolved directly by lawmakers. E.g., prohibit marketing "up to 100 Mbit" if users can't even stream 2 Mbit video reliably. They could call the service "1 Mbit plus Netflix" or similar. This wouldn't grant any new authority to unelected FCC censors.
    - ASneakyFox 12y ago
      That's the whole reason Netflix buying fast lanes. Comcast throttled netflix to the point of being unreliable. The whole issue started with malicious throttling. I'm not convinced title ii is the answer. But I am convinced that fast lanes don't make for good internet. Its unfortunate that this isn't a competitive industry because then consumers could just resolve the issue through their purchasing decisions.
rasz_pl 12y ago
AT&T claims ‘strong’ net neutrality would ruin AT&T profit margins.
asn0 12y ago
AT&T has been making claims like this since long before the Internet. "Rise of the Stupid Network" is a classic essay on AT&T's perspective of controlling the network http://www.isen.com/stupid.html http://www.isen.com/stupid.html
Karunamon 12y ago
Just about anything a massive corporate ISP has to say on this matter can be safely ignored as self-serving pap.
ChrisLolz 12y ago
I just want the Internet to be open and free of crap like this it might be far fetched but that's all I want.

89 points by opendais 12y ago

Cicconi is self-interested, but he's right on one thing: most proponents of reclassification haven't thought through all the implications of that proposal. Your typical net neutrality advocate has probably never heard of the Universal Service Fund, and certainly couldn't articulate why, e.g. a long distance call made on a Title-II internet using Skype or Google Voice should be treated differently than a long distance call made over a traditional Title II telephone network for the purposes of the USF fees. The author argues that Title-II reclassification wouldn't expose content companies to regulation, but how does he explain the fact that VOIP services are required to contribute to USF? Isn't VOIP just content too? Title II is a Depression-era regulatory regime, designed back when people thought that things like government-regulated rates and prices were a good idea. That's not the way forward, it's the way backward.

Alupis 12y ago
I am not a fan of Title II, however I think it's a very far leap to go from being Net Neutral --> Title II. You can be Net Neutral without being Title II'ed. The problem is, the ISP's (including AT&T) are not Net Neutral.
eli 12y ago
Sounds more like an argument for overhauling or repealing the USF, which has problems beyond the ones you cited.
opendais 12y ago
Replacing Title II with an updated version with similar goals would probably fix that. [e.g. Move the government out of the rate/price control aspects but retain the lack of discrimination requirements] As far as the USF goes it is already being spent on broadband: http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/connecting-america http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/connecting-america At which point, it probably makes sense for the USF to be funded by ISPs as well as phone providers. However, the fee structure would need to be altered to not run off what is basically a long distance call tax. The FCC doesn't have the power to do that, however. Congress would need to fix it. Shall we begin praying for miracles?
- rayiner 12y ago
  I don't think it'll take a miracle. I think that is in fact what we will eventually get: legislation that imposes a neutrality requirement, but with loopholes for QoS and traffic shaping. That's probably not even overtly the wrong thing, although I do think it will drive even more investment out of wireline.
  - opendais 12y ago
    I think you have more faith in Congress than I then. I fully expect the ISPs to manage to buy someone off to make the QoS & traffic shaping loopholes big enough for a lobbyist to sail his new yacht through. ;) "Unfortunately, as Netflix is not determined to be a 'critical service' under Title II 2.0, we are forced to ask for additional funds so that we may meet our QoS guarantees for Hospitals, Police, and other life saving services. You don't really value saving lives beneath your entertainment, do you? You'd be a terrible person if you did..."
    - rayiner 12y ago
      If it was just a matter of cash, it'd be a fairer fight, because the big internet content companies have lots of that.
      - opendais 12y ago
        Do you think it is just a matter of cash? If that is the case, it is going to be Netflix + Google + Token support from other tech companies vs. all of the ISPs. The ISPs are only pulling this stunt with video services and I doubt the other tech companies are going to throw a ton of money to help "other people". I'm not sure the tech side would win that fight which is what makes me uncomfortable.
        rayiner 12y ago
        I don't think it's just a matter of cash. Google actually spends more on lobbying than either AT&T or Verizon: http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?indexType=s&showYear=2014 http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?indexType=s&showYea.... And the numbers aren't of the magnitude people assume: the top spenders are single-digit millions with the exception of the Chamber of Commerce. You need a certain minimum amount of money, but after that it's more about ideology and jobs. The tech industry has plenty of money, but it's ideology is not easy to fit into a traditional classification, and it doesn't create that many jobs per dollar of revenue. AT&T is very effective at lobbying because they can go up to a Republican and say: "look, the internet companies want to revive this FDR-era regulation! Also, we create thousands of jobs for ordinary Americans like utility pole maintenance workers." Per dollar of lobbying expenditure, that's a much more compelling message than: "{something about openness} and also we create a few jobs most people in your district don't have the education to get and most of these jobs are in California anyway."
jdonaldson 12y ago
Calling such regulation "depression-era" and a "regime" sounds like calculated corporate FUD. One could argue that depression era policies were enacted because capital markets proved they could not regulate themselves. I have similar doubts about regulation and internet service providers. The internet was born into this era of regulation, and has become one of the most important achievements of human civilization. It's hard to argue that things would've been better if AT&T would've been able to use the lion's share of internet bandwidth for a select few... private video conferencing streams, etc.
- silverbax88 12y ago
  I don't trust the government, but you cannot trust corporations to police themselves. I just realized as I type this that I trust the U.S. government more than I trust corporations. Which is sort of like saying I'd rather be eaten by wolf than a tiger, because a wolf is smaller.
  - wvenable 12y ago
    In my opinion, the only reason to not trust the government in these matters is that the government itself is bought by corporations. If they had no such interest then the only remaining factor is incompetence.
    - AnthonyMouse 12y ago
      That's like saying you shouldn't trust the police because a lot of police officers accept bribes. Even if it's true, the conclusion can hardly be that we should stop having the police.
      - wvenable 12y ago
        If the majority of police accept bribes then obviously you shouldn't trust the police. I did not advocate any particular solution (such as stop having police or government). But untrustworthy police should not be policing and untrustworthy government should not be governing.
chimeracoder 12y ago
> Your typical net neutrality advocate has probably never heard of the Universal Service Fund As opendais mentioned, an easy fix is to allocate this fund towards broadband connectivity instead of (just) phone service, which seems to be already in the works. > That's not the way forward, it's the way backward. I don't think anybody reasonably argues that Title II reclassification is a panacea; the Title II regulations may very well need to be updated themselves, but the structure of being regulated as a "cable service" no longer makes sense for ISPs. Either way, we're talking about massive changes that need to be made, so you're correct that no single change is going to be sufficient, and it's often the case of "six steps forward, five steps back". But it's still an improvement.
- rayiner 12y ago
  > As opendais mentioned, an easy fix is to allocate this fund towards broadband connectivity instead of (just) phone service, which seems to be already in the works. That's not the point. If Title-II gives the FCC the right to force VOIP companies to contribute to the USF, how is any other content service that runs over the internet safe? It's just an example of the kind of unforeseen consequences of Title-II that net neutrality advocates don't think about.
  - eli 12y ago
    I don't follow. Why does that make other content less safe? Is your only complaint against Title II the USF? That seems like a solvable problem.
    - pessimizer 12y ago
      Because VOIP data isn't any different than any other data?
  - opendais 12y ago
    I probably should add this is why I said it would need to be re-written to change the USF funding mechanism so it makes sense. Likely a flat fee on the ISP bills. People will complain, people will always complain...but it isn't raising taxes, just changing how they are paid.
zenciadam 12y ago
The Universal Service Fund is a joke. If you're out in the country, you're still lucky if you can get 128k DSL.
- evgen 12y ago
  If you are out in the country then you would not have any access at all without USF. No one is going to run thirty miles of wire just so your little farmhouse can get telecom services; wireless may fix part of this, but that also requires towers, maintenance, and a whole lot of other services that do not justify the revenue you would provide in compensation. Consider your 128k a gift from the rest of us, which it is, and say "thanks" every now and then...
  - nitrogen 12y ago
    Consider your 128k a gift from the rest of us, which it is, and say "thanks" every now and then... I don't think I've ever read anything so... conceited on HN, and that's saying something. The choice to live in a rural area may have been made involuntarily.
    - johnsmith198234 12y ago
      How do you mean? I can't see how someone could be forced to live in the middle of nowhere, other than imprisonment. I believe that nearly any person living in a rural area could move to a more populated area, if they desired. What if you want to be a stereotypical farmer, on a farm 50 miles from any city? That is your choice. However, one side effect of that choice is that you have to live with dialup Internet access. Just take that into account when making your decision.
      - zenciadam 12y ago
        Then why is everyone still paying for universal access, if the farmer is using a line installed in 1930? If it cost $10k to run that line in today's money, they're making out like bandits.
      - 12y ago
bradleyjg 12y ago
> Title II is a Depression-era regulatory regime, designed back when people thought that things like government-regulated rates and prices were a good idea. The principle of universal service at a "reasonable charge" (though not the USF) dates from the same period and is also outdated. Life is full of trade-offs and where to live is certainly no exception. Some people have affordable houses on acres of land at affordable prices, pure mountain air, and outdoor recreation at their fingertips. I live in a tiny apartment, directly above a highway, and have to travel a few hours to go camping. It is no more appropriate to ask those who live in areas where it is less expensive to provide telecom services to subsidize those who live in areas where it is expensive than for the federal government to impose a property tax on properties over half an acre to subsidize green spaces in cities.
- dTal 12y ago
  Why isn't it appropriate? I don't see anything qualitatively different about either of those things from other forms of wealth redistribution.
  - lutorm 12y ago
    The grandparent said that they were both equally appropriate, presumably with the argument being that since there is no push to charge rural areas a "green access fee" to build parks in cities, the opposite shouldn't apply either. One could argue that the very highway the grandparent lives by is a government-provided service to make it possible for him to go camping, but I don't know how the cost of building highways is shouldered by rural vs urban areas.
  - bradleyjg 12y ago
    Wealth redistribution schemes utilizing a means test are qualitatively different from those that do not.
- Spooky23 12y ago
  That's a ridiculous position. Should we also deny people electricity because they live outside a metropolitan era? Declaring entire swaths of the population of a country like the United States unworthy of access to things like telephones and access to the global network is ridiculous enough. But it's particularly offensive given that it's cheaper to run and operate these systems today than it ever has been before. Universal service is about more than telephones in the wilderness. I live in a state capital, about 500 yards from a major fiber optic termination point. Pretty sure my employer has a 40GB line on the telephone pole that I can see from my front porch. I have access to 20/1 cable service or 30/5 cable service at a 70% cost premium. Because there are few poor people there, the surrounding suburbs have FIOS and Cable, and the cable service is significantly less expensive.
belorn 12y ago
There is no clear line between what is under Title-II and Title-I of the Communications Act. If there was, then FCC would not have the question put to them, and they could not decide it. To a large degree, its up to the discretion of FCC to decide what is and what isn't Title-II. FCC could defeine ISP as utility, and there would be no obligation to define video streaming as utility too. Cicconi could argue that FCC should not have the power to do this but is choosing not to do so. Rather, he is trying to argue a slipper slope argument. I wonder if this is for political reasons, in order to not challenge the authority of FCC while they are deciding on the issue.
anigbrowl 12y ago
I see your point and you are unusually well qualified to point out the legal slippery slope upon which reclassification would put the broadband industry, but I feel the need to point out that Universal Service Fund fees do not represent very large sums of money in practice. Personally I've never been bothered by paying a few $ a month for this (I think they total up to about $3/mo), even at times when I've struggled to pay the bills. In general I prefer market solutions, but perfect competition isn't a good model for infrastructure, for a whole host of reasons.
- rayiner 12y ago
  I'm just using USF as an example of the unforeseen consequences, because that was the example in the article. I'm not opposed to some regulation in this area, but I worry about driving investment out of wireline. Goldman is already saying Verizon should ditch its wireline business. Also, I think some level of traffic shaping (e.g. throttling Bittorrent and prioritizing HTTP) is necessary just from a network engineering point of view. I don't want my Netflix packets waiting behind some BT packets containing pirated movies.
  - opendais 12y ago
    Eh, I think this is something I've argued with you [or someone before on HN] about. That isn't exactly what Goldman said. http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Goldman-Sachs-Wants-Verizon-to-Sell-All-Landline-Assets-117774 http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Goldman-Sachs-Wants-Veriz... 1) That was when they were trying to get them to merge with Vodafone. 2) That was more about dumping the overhead that came with the union Verizon was dealing with, dumping pension liabilities, etc. and basically splitting the "high growth" business off from the slower growth business. That isn't really the same thing. All utilities are going to be low growth businesses by their very nature. http://seekingalpha.com/article/1599192-slow-growth-but-a-high-dividend-and-low-volatility-our-favorite-utilities-etf http://seekingalpha.com/article/1599192-slow-growth-but-a-hi... Unless you are talking about a newer angle of attack from Goldman about it? EDIT: I guess I'm trying to say it speaks more to Goldman's bias [splitting it up based on what looks to be growing faster so they can invest accordingly].
  - 12y ago
leoc 12y ago
> Title II is a Depression-era regulatory regime, designed back when people thought that things like government-regulated rates and prices were a good idea. That's not the way forward, it's the way backward. Really? There was undoubtedly a lot of enthusiasm for planned economies in the '30s, but wasn't Title II based on older railroad anti-trust legislation? I presume you're not suggesting that the earlier era of the railroad trusts and Standard Oil should be the preferred model for the future...
rsingel 12y ago
Common carrier regulations date back even farther than the depression and they work perfectly well with airlines, prohibiting discrimination. Title II is appropriate. Broadband connections are the telecom infrastructure of the future, and they should be regulated as infrastructure. Title II reclassification doesn't have to include price controls as individual portions of Title II can be forbeared. As for VOIP, the general rule of thumb the FCC set for CALEA compliance works here as well: is the service a replacement for traditional phone service? If so, then they pay into USF. If not, there's no burden. http://askcalea.fbi.gov/archives/voip.html http://askcalea.fbi.gov/archives/voip.html
- rayiner 12y ago
  Fun fact: deregulation of the U.S. airline industry in the 1970's was a tremendous success, paving the way for companies like FedEx and UPS: http://www.aeaweb.org/annual_mtg_papers/2008/2008_264.pdf; http://www.aeaweb.org/annual_mtg_papers/2008/2008_264.pdf; http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/news/allrise/2009/01/30-years-after-airline-deregulation-who-is-the-big-winner http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/news/allrise/2009/01/30-years-after.... As for VOIP: the concerning thing there is the FCC's taxing of a content service that runs on the internet. I don't think that's a precedent most supporters of net neutrality want to embrace, but that's exactly the path you're going down with Title II.
  - wmf 12y ago
    Any company that acts like a phone company (e.g. providing real phone numbers) is regulated and taxed like a phone company. The fact that some of them run part of the call over the Internet isn't why they're being regulated, but it doesn't magically exempt them from regulation either. The same thinking applies to all companies. If you're doing something regulated, then doing it over the Internet will still be regulated. If you're doing something unregulated then doing it over the Internet will still be unregulated. Title II shouldn't make any difference.
    - rayiner 12y ago
      So Google Voice and Skype should be taxed? Beyond that, isn't "real phone numbers" a totally arbitrary distinction when everything is running on the internet? Just a different sort of endpoint identifier. What you're really trying to tax is "real time voice communications." So shouldn't Facetime be taxed too?
Spooky23 12y ago
> Title II is a Depression-era regulatory regime, designed back when people thought that things like government-regulated rates and prices were a good idea. That's not the way forward, it's the way backward. I would agree with you if this discussion were taking place in 1994, when moving away from the legacy of the Bell System was kicking off. Today, we seem to be going to a model where waves of consolidation are essentially rebuilding something that looks like the old days. If that's the future, you're going to need a strong regulatory leash to keep them under control.
warfangle 12y ago
> probably never heard of the Universal Service Fund, That may be, but I have. And if the ISPs are reclassified as Title II, perhaps one of the outcomes would be the use of the USF to bring broadband to underserved communities. The USF does quite a bit more than 'connect the poor to phone service.' * It helps ensure that consumers in all regions of the nation pay similar rates to those in urban areas. * Discounts that make basic service affordable for low-income consumers (Link-Up America and Lifeline) * Subsidies for rural health care, centering around video conferencing infrastructure and high speed internet access for rural medical providers * 'E-Rate,' which provides subsidies for internet access, telecom services, internal infrastructure and maintenance of the connections to schools and libraries. It pays a percentage based on need. If broadband ISPs are reclassified as Title II, that may expand USF to even data costs from rural to urban areas. I'd say that's a win. > [... VOIP & USF ...] It probably shouldn't: the reason it is right now probably comes down to ISPs not being required to contribute to the fund, and VOIP services come closest to the layman concept of what telecommunications is. They had to make up the gap of contribution caused by people dropping traditional telephony services for VOIP services, and Skype and Google Voice didn't have the FCC lobbying power that TimeWarnerComcastVerizon did. > [Depression-era FUD] USF was started by the act of '34, but was seriously updated in '96 to include things like "access to advanced telecommunication services." Unfortunately, since broadband ISPs aren't Title II, they're probably not included in that.
yellowapple 12y ago
> most proponents of reclassification haven't thought through all the implications of that proposal Sure, but that assumes that all those implications are actually relevant. > but how does he explain the fact that VOIP services are required to contribute to USF? Isn't VOIP just content too? Not quite. If that VoIP service an actual phone number (i.e. one that could be called from within a traditional "copper" phone network), then (from what I understand) it acts as a provider of a phone network. Both Skype and Google Voice offer that functionality, so they're subject to USF fees. IANAL, so that should be taken with a grain of salt; that's just my understanding of that particular corner case.
ASneakyFox 12y ago
Title ii could have issues. But I don't think it would be for content providers. There's content providers involved with phones that arent subject to anything title ii related (dialup internet). So that argument doesnt seem sound to me.

coldcode 12y ago

If we actually had politicians that represented the people instead of whoever paid them the most, we might be able to craft laws that made sense to today's situation. But we don't.

logn 12y ago

That's concerning that common carriers can still affect traffic speeds unless it's 'unjust' or 'unreasonable'. I don't see how merely reclassifying ISPs will help anything. I hope the democrats' legislation addresses this. I think the outlook is bleak. We need Congress, the FCC, and likely the Supreme Court to all make decisions that hurt telecoms (which is unlikely). edit: I found the section of the law about 'unjust'/'unreasonable' for common carriers: Sec. 202 providers of basic services must § 202(a) engage in no “unjust or unreasonable discrimination in charges, practices, classifications, regulations, facilities, or services,” and § 202(b) charge “just and reasonable” rates http://www.cybertelecom.org/notes/titleii.htm http://www.cybertelecom.org/notes/titleii.htm

esbranson 12y ago
The FCC will decide what is reasonable, and the doctrine of Chevron deference means that the courts will defer to the reasoning of executive agencies with specialization and expertise (i.e., the FCC) unless it is evidently wrong, arbitrary, or unreasonable.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
a_c_s 12y ago
Why should they pay more per-bit than anybody else? Compared to Comcast, Netflix is certainly the underdog: revenues of $66.75B vs $4.42B. Edit - forgot to include source: https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=netflix+vs+comcast&a=*C.netflix-_*Financial-&a=*DPClash.InternetE.comcast-_*comcast%21.com.dflt- https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=netflix+vs+comcast&a=*...

tokenizerrr 12y ago

I mean, it would probably ruin some of their profits.

crazy1van 12y ago

Why isn't Twitter or Facebook or Gmail a common carrier? They only provide the "means of communication". The "content of communication" is created by the users. Many internet companies seem to want to have it both ways. If someone tweets a bomb threat, Twitter will claim it is only the means for communication. If an ISP throttles Twitter's bandwidth, it will claim the ISP is the means and Twitter is the content. My point is just that the content vs means comparison is a very gray area in the age of the internet.

macspoofing 12y ago
You're being facetious because you're not that dense that you can't see a difference between a web application and a fiber connection, even if you don't support telecom reclassification. >My point is just that the content vs means comparison is a very gray area in the age of the internet. Yes, there are gray areas everywhere, but sometimes it's not that complicated. This one isn't complicated. In the set of complicated and ambiguous issues, this one is very well defined.
- rayiner 12y ago
  Its not that crazy. Google and Facebook depend on common carrier type protections to insulate them from, say, liability for the people who send child porn through their service.
- crazy1van 12y ago
  > You're being facetious because you're not that dense that you can't see a difference between a web application and a fiber connection Of course they are different in many ways. But they do have commonalities too. Its clear that fiber provides a means of communication. But I think if you asked the average person or lawmaker if Gmail provides a means of communication, they would also say yes. Is that even an unreasonable conclusion?
  - esbranson 12y ago
    Yes, when you consider that its not "common carriers" such as FedEx which is being discussed, but "telecommunications common carriers", which inevitably relies on the definition of telecommunications. Which Wikipedia makes pretty clear is commonly understood to mean a physical medium based upon electrical signals or electromagnetic waves.

baldfat 12y ago

We just need a way to kill the localized monopolies. Everything else would "auto-correct" it's self. Image if we all said forget you Time/Warner and Verizon you treat us bad we are going to Sonic.net? What a powerful tool that would be. It's called $$$

touristtam 12y ago
May I suggest you have a look at the deregulation of the old state monopolies in Europe? Net neutrality seems to have an impact outside the States, that feels it is being overlooked while you guys are debating of your own national ISP market.

macspoofing 12y ago

Any vision that AT&T has for the Internet would ruin the Internet.

neurobro 12y ago

I don't want the FCC to have any authority over the Internet. I don't want the FCC giving $25,000 fines to web sites that publish dirty words or wardrobe malfunctions. If "fast lanes" ever really become a problem requiring government intervention (which to my knowledge they haven't yet), it should be in the form of direct Congressional action and very limited in scope.

ASneakyFox 12y ago
Well right now no one can out compete netflix unless they form the same fast lane deals. That's sort of a issue....
- neurobro 12y ago
  Nobody can compete with Netflix because it's nigh impossible to match the breadth of their content licensing, and it will take an enormous marketing investment to displace their brand. (Even Amazon and Google have weaker brands to the extent that they compete with Netflix.) "Fast lane deals" would/will be an expense for Netflix and give smaller competitors a slight advantage in that respect (if they can get the content and publicity, and improve the experience for users). If ISPs degrade their services to the point that it's impossible to deliver streaming video without paying fast-lane protection money, that's something that could be resolved directly by lawmakers. E.g., prohibit marketing "up to 100 Mbit" if users can't even stream 2 Mbit video reliably. They could call the service "1 Mbit plus Netflix" or similar. This wouldn't grant any new authority to unelected FCC censors.
  - ASneakyFox 12y ago
    That's the whole reason Netflix buying fast lanes. Comcast throttled netflix to the point of being unreliable. The whole issue started with malicious throttling. I'm not convinced title ii is the answer. But I am convinced that fast lanes don't make for good internet. Its unfortunate that this isn't a competitive industry because then consumers could just resolve the issue through their purchasing decisions.

rasz_pl 12y ago

AT&T claims ‘strong’ net neutrality would ruin AT&T profit margins.

asn0 12y ago

AT&T has been making claims like this since long before the Internet. "Rise of the Stupid Network" is a classic essay on AT&T's perspective of controlling the network http://www.isen.com/stupid.html http://www.isen.com/stupid.html

Karunamon 12y ago

Just about anything a massive corporate ISP has to say on this matter can be safely ignored as self-serving pap.

ChrisLolz 12y ago

I just want the Internet to be open and free of crap like this it might be far fetched but that's all I want.