6 ms·

There Are Only Two Weeks Left to Comment on Net Neutrality

143 points by ted0 12y ago

felipesabino 12y ago
What was that? I am so disappointed to see that they featured a video showing net neutrality being ONLY about facebook, youtube and more video streaming... If they wanted to go mainstream, John Oliver did a much better job (and funnier, btw) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpbOEoRrHyU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpbOEoRrHyU
- doctorshady 12y ago
  It seems like such a strange example, doesn't it? Judging by what's happened on the mobile side, Facebook will be the last thing to disappear if net neutrality goes away. Youtube on the other hand, I dunno. It is a video hosting site - probably ripe for the capping/throttling/whatever, but it's also a much higher profile target then something like Netflix.
- ohitsdom 12y ago
  They did link to the John Oliver rant, but I agree it should have been the video that was featured.
- minimaxir 12y ago
  It should be noted that particular rant caused a measurable uptick in the number of comments to the FCC: http://i.imgur.com/QkAysKU.png http://i.imgur.com/QkAysKU.png
- tzs 12y ago
  Oliver implied that we have net neutrality now, and the FCC is trying to take it away. If the large number of people who watched that video and then commented based their comments on that, there is a decent chance that they told the FCC to not regulate the internet, which in effect telling the FCC that the commentator is against net neutrality.
golemotron 12y ago
I thought the deadline was a month or so ago.
- doctorshady 12y ago
  The FCC ended up extending the comment date by a month.
- ted0 12y ago
  for the first period, yes. then they extended the 2nd period.
- kyrra 12y ago
  They extended it because the website died when everyone tried submitting comments near the deadline.
kristopolous 12y ago
Honest Question: Doesn't the FCC have the privilege of disregarding every comment and moving forward however they want?
- hgsigala 12y ago
  Yes and No. They must reply to all comments in their FNPRM. They must say why the did and didn't do something that someone suggested.
  - kristopolous 12y ago
    So if I was to engage in this, what would be an effective plea?
- exelius 12y ago
  Yes; as they should. Net neutrality is (and always has been) a good philosophical idea that is completely impractical to implement given the business structure that has arisen around content distribution. Right now, we have a situation where the big guys (i.e. the major ISPs) can effectively force companies that are pushing large amounts of bandwidth to sign private interconnect agreements. This is less onerous than it seems, because the industry is already largely split functionally into creation and distribution. The only companies this really affects significantly are the ones who are big enough that having vertically integrated creation and distribution functions create a cost savings. Paying interconnect fees cuts into margins for those companies. Smaller companies are just going to pay CDNs (who have always paid ISPs for interconnects) for delivery anyway: the value a CDN provides is more than just network connectivity. With true net neutrality, we would have a situation where the big guys (in this case, large traffic generators like Netflix/Amazon/YouTube/Akamai etc.) flood the small guys off the net. The popular assumption is that ISPs would throw more money into upgrading their networks to deal with the flood of data; but every industry person I've spoken with believes the opposite. It would lead to a mass exodus of investment dollars from wired broadband because there would be no way for the ISPs to recover those dollars in the future. These companies have other things they can invest in; and they will likely choose to spend the money they would have spent on infrastructure on restructuring their companies to look more like Netflix because the FCC has effectively blessed that business model. This would be bad for the consumer and bad for companies like Netflix. Net neutrality is a good idea in principle, but there is no good way to get to true net neutrality from where we are. If the goal of net neutrality is to create a faster Internet, it would need to be accompanied with about a half a trillion dollars of government money over the next decade; and the FCC doesn't have the power to do that without Congress.
mmagdic 12y ago
A question: is the commenting only open to residents of USA?
- juanplusjuan 12y ago
  They ask for a US address but I doubt it's verified. I used a random one because I'd rather not have my personal details on the public FCC web page.
spindritf 12y ago
There is now a vocal “net neutrality” chorus that will fight any form of price discrimination in wireless services, including fighting zero-rated apps. I think that they are misguided and represent no actual consumers. However, the FCC will do everything to make them seem important, because that in turn justifies having the FCC do more regulatory meddling.[1] And this how the comments will be used: mined to support yet another power grab. Later, do you really think that a regulatory body will side with you in the long term over organized interests and large corporations? [1] http://www.arnoldkling.com/blog/data-price-discrimination/ http://www.arnoldkling.com/blog/data-price-discrimination/
- smutticus 12y ago
  It's not a 'power grab' for the FCC to regulate wireless transmissions. Congress gave them that explicit authority in 1934. I really don't understand your comment.

143 points by ted0 12y ago

What was that? I am so disappointed to see that they featured a video showing net neutrality being ONLY about facebook, youtube and more video streaming... If they wanted to go mainstream, John Oliver did a much better job (and funnier, btw) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpbOEoRrHyU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpbOEoRrHyU

doctorshady 12y ago
It seems like such a strange example, doesn't it? Judging by what's happened on the mobile side, Facebook will be the last thing to disappear if net neutrality goes away. Youtube on the other hand, I dunno. It is a video hosting site - probably ripe for the capping/throttling/whatever, but it's also a much higher profile target then something like Netflix.
ohitsdom 12y ago
They did link to the John Oliver rant, but I agree it should have been the video that was featured.
minimaxir 12y ago
It should be noted that particular rant caused a measurable uptick in the number of comments to the FCC: http://i.imgur.com/QkAysKU.png http://i.imgur.com/QkAysKU.png
tzs 12y ago
Oliver implied that we have net neutrality now, and the FCC is trying to take it away. If the large number of people who watched that video and then commented based their comments on that, there is a decent chance that they told the FCC to not regulate the internet, which in effect telling the FCC that the commentator is against net neutrality.

golemotron 12y ago

I thought the deadline was a month or so ago.

doctorshady 12y ago
The FCC ended up extending the comment date by a month.
ted0 12y ago
for the first period, yes. then they extended the 2nd period.
kyrra 12y ago
They extended it because the website died when everyone tried submitting comments near the deadline.

kristopolous 12y ago

Honest Question: Doesn't the FCC have the privilege of disregarding every comment and moving forward however they want?

hgsigala 12y ago
Yes and No. They must reply to all comments in their FNPRM. They must say why the did and didn't do something that someone suggested.
- kristopolous 12y ago
  So if I was to engage in this, what would be an effective plea?
exelius 12y ago
Yes; as they should. Net neutrality is (and always has been) a good philosophical idea that is completely impractical to implement given the business structure that has arisen around content distribution. Right now, we have a situation where the big guys (i.e. the major ISPs) can effectively force companies that are pushing large amounts of bandwidth to sign private interconnect agreements. This is less onerous than it seems, because the industry is already largely split functionally into creation and distribution. The only companies this really affects significantly are the ones who are big enough that having vertically integrated creation and distribution functions create a cost savings. Paying interconnect fees cuts into margins for those companies. Smaller companies are just going to pay CDNs (who have always paid ISPs for interconnects) for delivery anyway: the value a CDN provides is more than just network connectivity. With true net neutrality, we would have a situation where the big guys (in this case, large traffic generators like Netflix/Amazon/YouTube/Akamai etc.) flood the small guys off the net. The popular assumption is that ISPs would throw more money into upgrading their networks to deal with the flood of data; but every industry person I've spoken with believes the opposite. It would lead to a mass exodus of investment dollars from wired broadband because there would be no way for the ISPs to recover those dollars in the future. These companies have other things they can invest in; and they will likely choose to spend the money they would have spent on infrastructure on restructuring their companies to look more like Netflix because the FCC has effectively blessed that business model. This would be bad for the consumer and bad for companies like Netflix. Net neutrality is a good idea in principle, but there is no good way to get to true net neutrality from where we are. If the goal of net neutrality is to create a faster Internet, it would need to be accompanied with about a half a trillion dollars of government money over the next decade; and the FCC doesn't have the power to do that without Congress.

mmagdic 12y ago

A question: is the commenting only open to residents of USA?

juanplusjuan 12y ago
They ask for a US address but I doubt it's verified. I used a random one because I'd rather not have my personal details on the public FCC web page.

spindritf 12y ago

There is now a vocal “net neutrality” chorus that will fight any form of price discrimination in wireless services, including fighting zero-rated apps. I think that they are misguided and represent no actual consumers. However, the FCC will do everything to make them seem important, because that in turn justifies having the FCC do more regulatory meddling.[1] And this how the comments will be used: mined to support yet another power grab. Later, do you really think that a regulatory body will side with you in the long term over organized interests and large corporations? [1] http://www.arnoldkling.com/blog/data-price-discrimination/ http://www.arnoldkling.com/blog/data-price-discrimination/

smutticus 12y ago
It's not a 'power grab' for the FCC to regulate wireless transmissions. Congress gave them that explicit authority in 1934. I really don't understand your comment.