24 ms·

FCC Chairman: This Is How We Will Ensure Net Neutrality

1275 points by Libertatea 12y ago

zirkonit 12y ago
Holy shit. We did it.
- joncp 12y ago
  There's a republican congress that will shut this down. No we didn't.
  - mikecb 12y ago
    They don't have a veto-proof majority.
    - sp332 12y ago
      Congress only needs a simple majority to prevent a bill from being passed in the first place. It will never hit the President's desk.
      - pc86 12y ago
        Which has what to do with FCC regulations, exactly?
      - mikecb 12y ago
        The implication is that the simple majority in congress would be against these regulations and pass a bill to stop them. However, if the President supports these regulations promulgated under existing statutory authority, he would veto any new bill that revoked that authority.
      - droopybuns 12y ago
        Downvoting statements that are accurate and contribute to the discussion is a hallmark of this topic. Hacker news cannot have useful discussion here because it's all orthodoxy. I always marvelled at historical hatred between protestants and catholics during and prior to the enlightenment. I now realize that this is a symptom of human nature. Humans apparently have to hate the other guys no matter what. In the past it was religion, today it is whether or not you are a network expert with an opinion about the technical implications of net-neutrality proposals. People on the pro-net neutrality side of this debate become furious if you don't spout their orthodoxy. I find it revolting. But yes, by all means, downvote sp332 for making a completely accurate assessment of how our legislative system works. It really improves the quality of the discussion.
        michael_h 12y ago
        Wow. It is an accurate assessment of how our legislative system works, but it is completely irrelevant to the discussion. The FCC is not putting a bill up for a vote by congress, they are proposing telecommunications rules that an internal commission will vote on.
        sp332 12y ago
        johncp brought up Congress, not me. I'm just pointing out that vetos aren't relevant (although mikecb's clarification helped). So why am I getting downvoted instead?
        dragonwriter 12y ago
        > johncp brought up Congress, not me. I'm just pointing out that vetos aren't relevant (although mikecb's clarification helped). So why am I getting downvoted instead Because Congressional opponents of neutrality can (and, in fact, already has) attempt to head this off through legislation (so Congress is relevant, so its not wrong to bring them up), but to do directly undo any regulatory action, they will need to pass new law, to which the veto power is relevant, so it is incorrect to "point out" that vetos aren't relevant.
        anigbrowl 12y ago
        Because your argument has a giant hole in it. Suppose, for argument's sake, that there is big political opposition to this rule. It's reasonable to think that most of this opposition would come from the GOP, going by comments on news websites and so on, and the GOP's demonstrated preference for opposing policies backed by the President (eg the 56th(!) house vote yesterday to repeal Obamacare). If the GOP really decided to make an issue out of this, they have majorities in both houses fo Congress and thus could, in fact, pass a bill that would require a Presidential veto if their caucus were sufficiently united and worked up about the issue. Realistically they probably won't bother, but your claim that it would be impossible to get even a simple majority is unfounded.
      - dragonwriter 12y ago
        > Congress only needs a simple majority to prevent a bill from being passed in the first place. Yes, but the bills that needs to be passed were already passed (most significantly in 1934 and 1996.) In order to stop the FCC taking this action under existing law, Congress would have to pass a new bill, which mean that the filibuster in the Senate and veto by the President are real issues. Wheeler isn't proposing a new law, he is proposing an exercise of the FCC's regulatory authority under existing law.
  - dpierce9 12y ago
    The FCC is an 'independent' agency which means that while congress can ask questions, make suggestions, apply pressure, and vote on members of the commission it cannot force the FCC to introduce, accept, or reject any proposed rule-making. Like most regulatory agencies, the purse power is limited since the FCC is funded by regulatory fees (I say limited and not zero because I believe the fees are paid by industry to the treasury and then allocated by congress). Also, like most regulatory agencies the makeup of the commission is statutorily party-balanced with the president selecting the chairman. The commission still has to vote on this proposed rule-making though.
    - chrisBob 12y ago
      Congress can not directly force a change, but they are the ones that pass the budget, so they can apply a lot of pressure to a federal agency.
    - joshuaheard 12y ago
      The FCC exists by authority of Congress. Congress can expand or limit this authority at will, including any regulations promulgated by the FCC. So, Congress can basically do what it wants. This is true of any federal agency. The "independent" part means independent of the President, as they are not part of the executive branch. However, I don't think Congress will act in this case. One reason Congress delegates regulation to specific agencies is because Congress does not have the expertise to craft the proper regulations. As a Republican, it seems to me the FCC has taken a balanced approach to regulation in this case, so I don't see much negative feedback by Congress.
      - dragonwriter 12y ago
        > Congress can expand or limit this authority at will Congress can do so only by passing new laws, which mean with the consent of the President or over the President's veto. > As a Republican, it seems to me the FCC has taken a balanced approach to regulation in this case, so I don't see much negative feedback by Congress. The Republicans in Congress (and the Republican minority on the FCC, as well) have been fairly consistently opposed to any FCC regulation in the direction of net neutrality, including the previous and much weaker actions the FCC has taken in the past, and have, in fact, already initiated efforts to head this off based on the discussions which indicated that the FCC was considering something in this direction and explicitly deny the FCC authority to make rules regarding net neutrality. So, assuming the FCC actually passes Wheeler's proposal, I expect substantial pushback in Congress. I don't think opponents of neutrality have the votes to pass a law on the matter over the President's veto, though.
pmontra 12y ago
No last mile unbundling: does it mean that every operator has to deploy its own cable from street to home?
- dazzla 12y ago
  Looks like the opposite of that. Every operator will be able to use the single connection from exchange to home. "Local loop unbundling (LLU or LLUB) is the regulatory process of allowing multiple telecommunications operators to use connections from the telephone exchange to the customer's premises." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local-loop_unbundling http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local-loop_unbundling
  - mikecb 12y ago
    So if there is none of that...
    - twohlix_ 12y ago
      It means that any competitor isnt guaranteed access to the line that is already provided. This makes sense as your local loop (in the internets case) may be fiber optics, may be coaxial cable, may be telephone. So if you get FiOS, comcast won't be granted use of the fiber by law, they'll have to get verizon to agree to use of it in a separate contract.
- mikecb 12y ago
  I read it to mean that FCC will not force last mile unbundling. Whether they go further and write a rule that will act to prevent state a local unbundling rules is another matter.
  - taion 12y ago
    Isn't last mile unbundling a bigger deal than Title II for ultimately delivering better broadband service? Common carrier provisions are obviously very good, but excluding the possibility of last mile unbundling seems like a bad thing for the longer term.
jonny_eh 12y ago
"there will be no rate regulation, no tariffs, no last-mile unbundling" Translation?
- gergles 12y ago
  Title II as written requires that rates be filed with the FCC and approved by the FCC (tariffs & rate regulation, respectively). Last-mile unbundling would force the people who currently run lines into your house to let other providers sell services over those lines. These regulations that are part of the law are all going to be removed as part of a process called "forebearance", where the FCC can basically not enforce those parts if they feel it would be contrary to their overarching goal of increased broadband adoption in the country.
  - jonny_eh 12y ago
    "removed … not enforce … contrary", I am so confused. So does this mean that the FCC will force Comcast to allow competition to operate on the existing last mile of cable for broadband?
    - robkix 12y ago
      No, it means the last mile remains exclusive to the provider.
- rayiner 12y ago
  Title II includes several sorts of provisions that apply to "common carriers" very similar to, e.g., how railroads were regulated back in the day. The government sets the prices for carriage (rate regulation), and carriers have to lobby the government to change prices (tariffs). Last-mile unbundling means that carriers must lease out their physical infrastructure to competitors at some wholesale price. These things are bad, which is why the FCC is saying it will not apply these provisions. For example, even today most municipalities set a regulated rate for basic cable service. It averages about $20/month nationwide, and doesn't come close to covering the cost of actually building a modern cable network out to a neighborhood. Unbundling kills investment into the network, because why spend billions of dollars on infrastructure that you'll have to lease out at wholesale prices to your competitors?[1] My theory is that unbundling is what killed DSL as a competitor to cable here in the U.S. FTTN has been quite successful in the U.K.,[2] as a gradual scheme for building fiber further into the network, with a last-hop of VDSL that can get faster as it gets shorter. There has been little FTTN deployment here in the U.S., because there's just no way for telcos to recoup the billions of dollars spent on fiber if they're forced to lease the VDSL at the other end to competitors for a song. [1] See this Brookings Institute (not exactly a conservative hotbed) analysis, which calls the U.S. experiment with unbundling "disastrous" and concludes that it reduces capital investigate. http://www.pff.org/events/eventpowerpoints/022207BrusselsComm/Crandall.ppt http://www.pff.org/events/eventpowerpoints/022207BrusselsCom.... [2] Unbundling is part of the strategy in the U.K. too, but it's structured so that the prices BT charges to competitors are guaranteed to generate a substantial profit.
mikegioia 12y ago
Using this authority, I am submitting to my colleagues the strongest open internet protections ever proposed by the FCC. These enforceable, bright-line rules will ban paid prioritization, and the blocking and throttling of lawful content and services. I propose to fully apply—for the first time ever—those bright-line rules to mobile broadband. My proposal assures the rights of internet users to go where they want, when they want, and the rights of innovators to introduce new products without asking anyone’s permission. I can't believe I'm reading those words!
- frostirosti 12y ago
  Tom Wheeler has really outdone himself with this announcement. It'll apply to mobile networks as well! Turns out this dingo knows how to stand up for what's right! I know it's early but this is a great step forward.
  - coldpie 12y ago
    I'm really impressed with Wheeler. When he was nominated, all the news was about how he was a lobbyist for the cable companies, and it was a perfect example of cronyism. But he's really been knocking it out of the park. Aggressive on net neutrality, redefining broadband, trying to restore municipal Internet. I'm very glad to have been wrong about my initial impressions.
    - morganvachon 12y ago
      I had the same initial impression. All I can think is that he was in "the business" for so long, he was able to see its pitfalls and shortcomings, and chose to take the high road and do right by The People. He sounds like a genuinely good person, rare in American politics.
      - alexqgb 12y ago
        He actually dealt with the initial skepticism about his background in a very straightforward way. In essence, he said "Yes, I was a cable lobbyist, but that a long time ago, when cable companies were very much the outsiders with a crazy seeming business model ("Pay? For TV?") and navigating the maze of telco regulations was a matter of life-or-death. Now my former clients are big and on the inside. It's a very different world. The point is, I actually understand what life is like for those on the outside looking in, and my commitment is to the next generation of people in that position." Again, I'm paraphrasing. And I had no idea (at the time) whether he was being sincere, or just really slick in his deflections. As of today it's looking like the former, and not the latter.
chiph 12y ago
What does the phrase "bright-line rules" mean?
- superobserver 12y ago
  http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/002367.html http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/002367.h... >>bright-line rule = a judicial rule of decision that is simple and straightforward and that avoids or ignore the ambiguities or difficulties of the problems at hand. The phrase dates from the mid-20th century. The metaphor of a bright line is somewhat older than the phrase bright-line rule - e.g.: "The difficult part of this case comes with regard to ... the activity of the Board of Temperance ....A bright line between that which brings conviction to one person and its influence on the body politic cannot be drawn." Girard Trust Co. v. I.R.C., 122 F.2d 108, 110 (3d Cir. 1941)./"[T]he McCambridge majority opinion ... agrees that the Kirby bright-line-rule is but a mere formalism ...." J.G.Trichter, Bright-Lining Away the Right to Counsel, Tex. Law., 6 Nov. 1989, at 26. Cf. hard and fast rule.
- karangoeluw 12y ago
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bright-line_rule http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bright-line_rule
- Bluestrike2 12y ago
  It's a clear line with little (or, ideally, none) room for error or ambiguity. Think big, bright line in the sand that you can't miss; you're either on this side of it or you're not.
pnathan 12y ago
Well, I believe this kicks off the biggest lobbying effort seen in a long time to get this to not happen. I certainly hope that the US internet gets Title II.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- 0x5f3759df-i 12y ago
  The lobbying has been in full effect for a year, looks like they already lost this one.
  - noobermin 12y ago
    I'm curious, how much effect do lobbyists have on the FCC, since they aren't exactly elected officials?
    - GeneralMayhem 12y ago
      The less ethical approach would be to insinuate to Mr. Wheeler that he'll be blackballed when he gets out of office. The more ethical approach would be to lobby Congress to pass laws that override the FCC's decision. Republicans don't have a veto-proof majority, but that's never stopped anyone before - tricks with riders unrelated to the main bill can effectively neuter the veto power.
    - dragonwriter 12y ago
      > I'm curious, how much effect do lobbyists have on the FCC, since they aren't exactly elected officials? The members of the FCC are all political appointees of elected officials, and, like most regulators, two of their primary future employment prospects after their term ends are (1) further political appointments, and (2) employment, often as lobbyists, in the industry regulated by the regulatory body they currently serve on. So, while they may not be amenable directly to the same kind of campaign-support influence that elected officials are, there are good reason to think that lobbyists can influence them in ways beyond the persuasiveness of their substantive policy arguments.
legutierr 12y ago
I personally learned the importance of open networks the hard way. In the mid-1980s I was president of a startup, NABU: The Home Computer Network. My company was using new technology to deliver high-speed data to home computers over cable television lines....But NABU went broke while AOL became very successful....While delivering better service, NABU had to depend on cable television operators granting access to their systems....The phone network was open whereas the cable networks were closed. End of story." A person can't go through an experience like this without having it fundamentally affect their worldview. I wonder why, with all of the coverage the lead-up to this decision has gotten, I have not read this story before.
- supergeek133 12y ago
  Stuff like that is pretty interesting to me too. It's also a nice real-world description of why there is little to no competition in the market. The only reason Google accomplished it is by throwing money at the problem and laying new infrastructure, bypassing the existing in most cases. The barrier to entry of a competitor is so high from the infra cost alone.
  - a8da6b0c91d 12y ago
    It's said a lot that infrastructure cost is the barrier to entry but I don't think that's true. Tacking cable to telephone poles is not terribly expensive. There's no good reason a great many households couldn't have two or three different cables running past their homes. As I understand it the issue is the local governments that issue permits for such things are bought off by the providers. It's a problem of corruption, not infrastructure cost.
    - gnoway 12y ago
      There may be corruption involved, but the infrastructure costs are not imaginary. Modern cable infrastructure is not a big coaxial cable strung along telephone poles. It's often buried fiber with media conversion for a local loop. Either way it costs money to roll out, and where poles are involved there are ongoing leasing fees for those. This is only part of the infrastructure anyway. You've still got all the routing, switching, media conversion, etc. to make that cable do something useful.
cjslep 12y ago
So as someone who has been lightly following the debate, and is not familiar with the FCC's process, what are the next steps to actually start enforcing mobile and landline broadband as Title II? I also wonder how long it will take for the reclassification to become enforceable, and how long the existing companies will have to "become compliant".
- colinbartlett 12y ago
  I am keenly interested in this as well and hoping desperately that it does not involve the United States Congress.
  - orbitur 12y ago
    And it most certainly will involve Congress. Honestly, I'm confused by all the excitement surrounding this on HN and reddit. It's like everyone's forgetting that this has to be submitted and voted on internally, and then billion dollar giants will start attacking, and then Republicans will start attacking. Considering all of that, you'd need to be pretty optimistic to continue with the celebration.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > So as someone who has been lightly following the debate, and is not familiar with the FCC's process, what are the next steps to actually start enforcing mobile and landline broadband as Title II? The next step is for the FCC to vote on the proposal Wheeler is submitting and officially propose the rules (depending on whether they choose to do so as an Notice of Proposed Rulemaking or as a Interim Final Rule with Comment Period, there may or may not be a separate action after that needed to actually put the rules into effect; since this is the action in response to comment on a previous NPRM, I don't think they need to go the NPRM route again, but I think they can choose to, but my knowledge of the detailed requirements of federal administrative procedure is somewhat fuzzy.) > I also wonder how long it will take for the reclassification to become enforceable, and how long the existing companies will have to "become compliant". I think that the effective dates would be specified in the proposal, so when the FCC officially issues it we'll know.
dantheman 12y ago
This looks much better than what I feared. I'm glad they're just not regulating it under Title II, but are modernizing it: For example, there will be no rate regulation, no tariffs, no last-mile unbundling.
- Alphasite_ 12y ago
  From an outsiders perspective, the last mile in unfeeling is the only bit that matters, market forces can resolve everything else, but it's not really possible to lay a dozen sets of last mile infrastructure.
  - dantheman 12y ago
    Last mile unbundling isn't about neutrality though, it's about getting better service. If one wants to advocate for that, it should be decoupled from net neutrality. Net neutrality is about preventing fast lanes, charging companies for access to the network, and degrading competitors products.
- maxsilver 12y ago
  Why not? "Just regulating (Cable and Fiber) under Title II" would have been a far better outcome, as far as I can tell. Rate regulation and last-mile unbundling are the keys to useful internet access. Without those, 95+% of Americans are still forced to buy internet from Comcast and Verizon, with whatever prices, stipulations, and conditions they decide to enforce. Certainly, this situation could have turned out far worse. But I don't see it as a win in any significant way. It simply reinforces internet service as a monopoly land-grab business.
karatekidd32v 12y ago
This is all pretty great. For the first time in a while I feel optimistic about the future of the open internet. My only concern is a small detail: "These enforceable, bright-line rules will ban paid prioritization, and the blocking and throttling of lawful content and services." The specification of 'lawful content and services' seems a bit ominous to me. Does this imply there may be ways to monitor/limit/restrict internet traffic? To use his example, would this language be used to describe the open phone network?
- kijeda 12y ago
  I suspect you need such a carve out to be able to legally block denial-of-service attacks and other such network events that are intended to disrupt regular operation of a service.
  - innguest 12y ago
    That's what they'll swear to you, but of course the government will use it for censorship just like the FCC nowadays censors the TV and Radio. Read up the history of the FCC. At the time it was also "necessary" to regulate airwaves because of several noble reasons but of course what ends up happening is that now you have to get a license from the government to say something on radio waves. You will have to get a license to have a website in the future if the FCC has its way online. Write my words.
    - Karunamon 12y ago
      This is the single most ignorant comment I've seen on HN in a long time. but of course the government will use it for censorship just like the FCC nowadays censors the TV and Radio. You mean how OTA broadcasts are supposed to be family friendly between certain hours of the day? The horror. but of course what ends up happening is that now you have to get a license from the government to say something on radio waves. No, you need to get a license for a certain chunk of spectrum and demonstrate that you know how to design and operate your equipment in such a way that you're not going to ruin the airwaves for everyone else. There is a DAMN good reason that the EM spectrum is not a free for all! How would you like the local EMS service to be unable to communicate because some random down the street decided to start playing music on their band?
ArtDev 12y ago
Obama deserves some credit for pushing and supporting Wheeler on this!
- bluthru 12y ago
  I couldn't imagine if Romney was in office right now...
  - jarin 12y ago
    I suspect it might possibly be the same. Public sentiment is pretty strong about it, and it would be easy for the Republicans to take the angle of "freedom for small businesses and the free market" or whatever.
    - mikeyouse 12y ago
      Public sentiment on the right is definitely not in favor of net neutrality... In Romney's own words: It is not the role of any government to “manage” the Internet. The Internet has flourished precisely because government has so far refrained from regulating this dynamic and essential cornerstone of our economy. I would rely primarily on innovation and market forces, not bureaucrats, to shape the Internet and maximize its economic, social and scientific value. Specifically, the FCC’s “Net Neutrality” regulation represents an Obama campaign promise fulfilled on behalf of certain special interests, but ultimately a “solution” in search of a problem. The government has now interjected itself in how networks will be constructed and managed, picked winners and losers in the marketplace, and determined how consumers will receive access to tomorrow’s new applications and services. The Obama Administration’s overreaching has replaced innovators and investors with Washington bureaucrats. From here: http://sciencedebate.org/2012/debate12/#9 http://sciencedebate.org/2012/debate12/#9
      - jarin 12y ago
        That's because they've spun it as "Obama trying to control the Internet" or whatever. Most rank-and-file conservatives didn't even know what it was until the GOP Powers That Be decided to take up the crusade.
sudioStudio64 12y ago
Turns out that the cable company screwed him too...nice. This is turning out to be great news.
evanb 12y ago
I violated Responsible Reading Of The Internet Rule #1 and accidentally looked at the comments. I am having a hard time reconciling the vehement anti-net-neutrality anti-government hair-on-fire screaming there with the reasoned discussion and general attitude here---I would have thought the majority of readers of Wired would be of similar mind to HN readers.
- innguest 12y ago
  You thought Wired readers were as naive and as communist as you and you're disappointed they are smarter and more cynical. Boo. Hoo. There's no reasoned discussion in HN as discussions get downvoted. There's only a huge circle back-patting which your comment is a part of.
  - remarkEon 12y ago
    So did you have a thoughtful, reasoned argument against this proposal or what?
    - wnevets 12y ago
      "government bad, me sad"
    - ikeboy 12y ago
      I'm against net neutrality. To me it looks like more regulation for not enough gain. I don't see why we should stop the free market; if one internet provider is doing things you don't like, another one will open and the consumer can change to that one if they care. I also feel that companies should have a right to provide some websites at higher speeds. There will always be a trade off; perhaps you could get cheaper internet if you only care about the top few sites. If they charge the same as internet providers that do have net neutrality, then they will quickly lose market share, and I believe that should be the market's choice, not the government. Imagine if all those people who signed the petition for new regulations instead signed a petition promising not to use any provider that throttled some websites. That would make a strong market incentive not to throttle sites. And if the consumers can't do that, why should the government step in to save us? If you argue that it's very hard to open a new cable internet company (which is the argument I got last time I brought this up), my answer is that enough rich people would be interested enough to open a competitor if there was demand.
SandroG 12y ago
Thank you, Tom Wheeler. Today is a good day for the Internet.
innguest 12y ago
Read the history of the FCC, folks. You're being lead on like sheeple. "I can't believe how good this sounds". No kidding.
- scelerat 12y ago
  Are you going to elaborate, or just leave it as a snarky comment?
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
shortformblog 12y ago
The comments on this post are some of the most depressing things I've ever read in response to a regulatory decision. References to Tom Wheeler being a Nazi. Someone calling the plan "Obama-fi." A user who says this: > tom wheeler, seriously, it would be a great thing if you and everyone like you contracted ebola and died a horrible death. This is like giving the entire U.S. population free pizza for a year, and half the population complaining because there's cheese on it.
- innguest 12y ago
  Because you don't understand their argument, they must be wrong, right? And no I can't explain you their argument because whenever I do so I get downvoted. The government wants their hands on all means of communication. The FCC basically shunned the public from using radio waves and TV waves. Now they're going to shun us away from the internet. The same organization, the FCC, will do this as they previously did with other means of communication, and you cheerleaders are being fooled and don't even know it. Not only that but you criticize those who see this for the fascism it is. It must be great to be ignorant because you can even attack those who read history and think you're coming out on top.
  - socialist_coder 12y ago
    Can you please explain this argument? Who cares if you get downvoted. I do not understand how a reasonable person who is not in cahoots with "big internet" can see this as a bad thing.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
  - warfangle 12y ago
    There's a difference between trying to explain your point of view and fulfilling godwin's law...
  - jarin 12y ago
    Ah yes, that explains why radio stations and OTA TV channels don't exist anymore... Oh wait
kevinchen 12y ago
> my proposal includes a general conduct rule that can be used to stop new and novel threats to the internet. This means the action we take will be strong enough and flexible enough not only to deal with the realities of today, but also to establish ground rules for the as yet unimagined. What does that mean? Sounds like a euphemism for an Internet kill switch?
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  From the text and context, it sounds like in addition to the bright-line rules on things like throttling, paid prioritization, and blocking of lawful content and services, there is a more general rule prohibiting conduct by ISPs that discriminates against or impedes access to lawful content but doesn't fall into neat buckets of blocking, throttling, etc. But, yeah, this is one thing (of many) that its going to be worth reading the actual text, when it is made public, to understand.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
beauzero 12y ago
The "thoughts and feelings" are in the right direction...now let's wait for the actual proposal.
nickthemagicman 12y ago
Why are libertarians so pro- free market when this is a perfect example of how the 'unregulated free market' has no problem manipulating in the name of greed and control at the expense of consumers? This seems to be strong evidence that government is better at keeping trade free than an 'unregulated free market'?
- JoeAltmaier 12y ago
  Its cultural. At a local level, people can be motivated by 'enlightened self-interest' and operate in a way that's rational considering the local economy. I think libertarians are not naive; they're old boys accustomed to dealing with other old boys in that network. So they see free market working pretty well in that context, and want to extend it.
  - nickthemagicman 12y ago
    Interesting/Bizzare. It's not far fetched to make parallels from this that if the 'privatized' major corporations aren't above squashing competitors through unfair trade practices and lobbying for biased regulations in the telecom industries....then they would do it in other industries. And this kills the market.
- robkix 12y ago
  Not to dive too off topic, but the telecom industry has been heavily regulated and in no way represents a free market. Through franchise fees, fighting public right of way sharing, and other forms of lobbying these large corporations have used law and regulation to their favor. This is not a position libertarians support and it is not a market anyone would point at and call "unregulated" in any sense of the term.
  - pbz 12y ago
    Is it fair to call it regulation when the corporation benefits? (regulation tends to mean "regulation against corporations")
notdonspaulding 12y ago
The internet wouldn’t have emerged as it did, for instance, if the FCC hadn’t mandated open access for network equipment in the late 1960s. Before then, AT&T prohibited anyone from attaching non-AT&T equipment to the network. By the 1960s AT&T was a well-established government-sanctioned monopoly [0]. It's a bold claim that says we wouldn't have gotten an internet without FCC regulation of AT&T. An easier conclusion to draw is that we wouldn't have needed an FCC if we hadn't given Ma Bell a pass on being a monopoly for the previous 5 decades and instead focused on policies that encourage innovation and investment at the local level. Yes, the last-mile is a natural monopoly, but there's a wide gulf of possible solutions between "Let AT&T kill all competitors" as they have been for the last century and "Have the FCC regulate competition into existence" as they did in 1996 [1]. Neither of those extremes worked, and to the extent that this policy seems to understand that, it looks like a good outcome. The line about "no rate regulation, no tariffs, no last-mile unbundling" is especially promising in this regard. However, the proof is in the pudding, and I think we have yet to see an FCC that is truly effective in inspiring local broadband competition through regulatory policies. [0]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingsbury_Commitment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingsbury_Commitment [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_Act_of_1996 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_Act_of_1996
- th0ma5 12y ago
  Darn it if this isn't correct. It is very true to say we don't really know what the market forces would've done, because it was all already mucked with. I'm not sure I agree though that the last mile is a natural monopoly. A market could create more distributed solutions, we're seeing that with solar grid power contribution. The early Edison systems were sometimes a single location for DC power. The early net benefited from something a little more peer-to-peer than it is today. Also all of these things will never exist independently of each other. If we had an anarcho-syndicalist system, we'd be complaining about the inability to use omnidirectional antennas effectively because of all of the interference of the airwaves, possibly...
- TheRealDunkirk 12y ago
  You're obviously much more versed in this than I am, so I'm probably missing something here. But your comment reminds me that, if we could get the cables to stop killing muni wifi initiatives, that'd be a great start.
wnevets 12y ago
> ban paid prioritization, and the blocking and throttling of lawful content and services. Too bad the regulation isnt simply this one line of text without the "lawful" caveat
- EpicEng 12y ago
  Why is that too bad? Do you think that the rules would stand of that caveat weren't present? Do you think that ISP's should not have the ability to block illegal traffic? What happens when they receive a court order to do so, yet doing so would violate FCC regulations? Don't be naive; that exception must be there, and out changes nothing in regards to the current situation.
  - wnevets 12y ago
    My biggest problem with that caveat is that its really just a foot in the door for further regulation by the federal government, none of which has anything to do with network neutrality. Network neutrality by definition is about all packets being treated equally regardless of the source or destination.
    - EpicEng 12y ago
      It's not though because it changes nothing. The government can already stop traffic via a court order. Besides, the FCC is not a legislative body. A set of rules which allowed, for example, unimpeded access to child pornography would never be allowed, nor should it. Net neutrality can exist alongside the laws which govern what is and is not ok to do on the internet.
      - wnevets 12y ago
        Does the FCC currently have rules that allow the blocking of "illegal" traffic?
        dragonwriter 12y ago
bmoresbest55 12y ago
This is very nice but I hope that it will be able to withstand the impending lawsuits by the ISPs. One can only hope.
nostromo 12y ago
Apparently I'm in the minority here, but I have some concerns. 1) The problem this fixes is largely non-existent today. The threat of fast and slow-lanes is one I've yet to experience. 2) Opening the door for more internet regulation seems risky. At first, things may go swimmingly, but I suspect regulatory capture will creep up on this industry, just as it has so many others. You may trust Obama and the current FCC head, but if and when the next Nixon comes to power, will you be as comfortable with his appointee? 3) The language "lawful content and services" seems like the kind of opening that could be the death of services like Bit Torrent or Tor. 4) Holding up the old telephonic lines as having been improved by regulation seems specious. In fact, the telephone system has been frozen in amber for decades. Perhaps overregulation is part of the reason we get our high-speed internet via the much less regulated cable lines and not phone lines.
- ryneandal 12y ago
  What? The Netflix/Verizon paid peering agreement was a fast/slow lane issue, was it not?
  - 0x5f3759df-i 12y ago
    Or Comcast blocking/throttling all bittorrent traffic? \ http://www.cnet.com/news/comcast-really-does-block-bittorrent-traffic-after-all/ http://www.cnet.com/news/comcast-really-does-block-bittorren...
    - cheald 12y ago
      That actually was a fast/slow lane issue, and you may remember that was resolved without additional regulation or legislation.
  - nostromo 12y ago
    It's not clear to me that paid-peering agreements will change at all based on this announcement. The FCC said previously that it doesn't see such agreements as a net neutrality issue. http://time.com/80192/netflix-verizon-paid-peering-agreement/ http://time.com/80192/netflix-verizon-paid-peering-agreement...
jrochkind1 12y ago
> The internet wouldn’t have emerged as it did, for instance, if the FCC hadn’t mandated open access for network equipment in the late 1960s. Before then, AT&T prohibited anyone from attaching non-AT&T equipment to the network. The modems that enabled the internet were usable only because the FCC required the network to be open. DAMN right.
Eric_WVGG 12y ago
The New Yorker, last May: “Obama’s Bad Pick: A Former Lobbyist at the F.C.C.” http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/obamas-bad-pick-a-former-lobbyist-at-the-f-c-c http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/obamas-bad-pick-a... “Rewarding campaign contributors is par for the course in Washington, of course. Usually, though, the prizes are ambassadorships or appointments to obscure boards rather than the chairmanship of a big federal regulatory agency. That’s another thing that makes Wheeler’s appointment look like just the sort of Washington inside job that Obama used to decry as a candidate. […] Perhaps the best that can be said about his nomination is that, assuming he’s confirmed, he’ll have an incentive to demonstrate that he isn’t a patsy for the companies he used to lobby for.”
- gfodor 12y ago
  Yeah I think it's time more than a few people eat a little crow.
toast0 12y ago
"For example, there will be no rate regulation, no tariffs, no last-mile unbundling." No last-mile unbundling means instead of fostering better service through competition, we're attempting to foster better service through regulation.
Randgalt 12y ago
Make a deal with the Devil and you'll only get burned. The FCC regulating the internet, what could go wrong?
- IanDrake 12y ago
  Future HN comments when things go wrong: This isn't what we wanted... We never indented for X to be interpreted that way... It would have worked, but they didn't go far enough... It would have worked, but they went too far... We need this new law X to protect the cable companies because upstart Y's new technology doesn't have to deal with FCC regulation which gives it an unfair advantage... Give it ten years and the FCC will be about as popular as TSA or the NSA on HN.
  - Randgalt 12y ago
    What's terribly sad to me is the pro-authority comments here on HN. The Tech world doesn't seem to understand the true nature of regulation. Well, they're going to get what they deserve to the detriment of everyone else.
    - IanDrake 12y ago
      Sure they will, but they won't blame themselves.
- angrymonk 12y ago
  I stopped arguing with them months ago. Now I just want this to pass exactly as they want ... Then I get to watch it blow up in their faces.
geekamongus 12y ago
The comments on the article make me really, really sad.
grecy 12y ago
I like how many times he says "Congress gave us the power to make this decision". Kind of like he's daring them to try and stop him.
- geekamongus 12y ago
  I think it's more a justification to explain why non-elected officials are putting laws into motion.
- jstalin 12y ago
  I hope they try. The same people that run the post office running the internet? Oh god...
markthethomas 12y ago
This is really encouraging. Having trouble not assuming it'll get torn down by 'interested parties', though.
gxs 12y ago
I don't think I've ever cussed on my HN account, but unfuckingbelievable. I'm in complete and utter awe that they listened to the people and not the rich corporations for once.
forgotAgain 12y ago
As I'm writing this the stock market is having the opposite take on this than I Would have expected. Netflix is down while the providers (ATT, Verizon, Comcast) are up. Is there something going on here that's not obvious?
- programmarchy 12y ago
  Yes! The public has amnesia and doesn't remember the history of progressive regulation :) In a nutshell, in order for big business to cut production and raise prices, they need the state to act as an enforcer or regulator for their cartel. Their strategy has been to lobby under the guise of a public good, in this case "net neutrality" (a term which I'd bet has its origins with some very expensive marketing/PR firm), but the end effect is for state regulation to create artificial scarcity and subsidize costs to increase profits for big business. This is state capitalism, or corporate liberalism - how corporatism operates in the U.S. Big corporations want regulation because they fear competition. Before the Progressive Era, big businesses wanted to cut production and increase prices, but failed in doing so in the (relatively) free market that existed at the time. New competitors would arise or cartel members would cheat and lower prices, and the cartel agreement would fall apart. This kept prices low, trending toward the cost of production, which was great for consumers. However, with state regulation, cartels can be maintained. The state can raise barriers to entry to protect cartel members from competition, and it can also bring down the hammer on cartel members who cheat and try to lower prices. Of course, this isn't how it's sold to the public. Lobbyists tell the story of how "big bad corporations" need to be reigned in for the public good by benevolent big government, and voters seem to buy it every time. Behind the scenes, big business is colluding with the state for monopoly privilege. See the history of railroads, Big Agri, Big Oil, the telecoms, the Federal Reserve for examples of this playing out. The state has granted corporations so many privileges, it's really quite unbelievable -- tariffs, patents, copyrights, licensing, regulation -- all of this subsidized by the public to grant corporations the privilege of giving us less for more. For our own good, of course. This is how the rich get richer, and wealth continues to centralize and concentrate. By conning the public, and using the state as a blunt force instrument to keep competition out, and keep prices high. Murray Rothbard gave a short lecture on the history of progressive regulation [1], and he also wrote a book called Power and Market [2] if you want a detailed overview of power dynamics in the market. Rothbard was heavily influenced by Gabriel Kolko, a Progressive Era historian and leftist anti-capitalist, who wrote: > Despite the large number of mergers, and the growth in the absolute size of many corporations, the dominant tendency in the American economy at the beginning of this [the twentieth] century was toward growing competition. Competition was unacceptable to many key business and financial interests... As new competitors sprang up, and as economic power was diffused throughout an expanding nation, it became apparent to many important businessmen that only the national government could rationalize the economy. Although specific conditions varied from industry to industry, internal problems that could be solved only by political means were the common denominator in those industries whose leaders advocated greater federal regulation. Ironically, contrary to the consensus of historians, it was not the existence of monopoly that caused the federal government to intervene in the economy, but the lack of it. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62rI8OYFzGg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62rI8OYFzGg [2] http://mises.org/sites/default/files/Man,%20Economy,%20and%20State,%20with%20Power%20and%20Market_2.pdf http://mises.org/sites/default/files/Man,%20Economy,%20and%2...
marssaxman 12y ago
I think this is the first time in my life that I've been happy about and excited by news of government action concerning the Internet.
datashovel 12y ago
In general I think this is a sign that many people in D.C. actually do want to do the right thing, but have (for too long) let the wrong people tell them what the right thing is.
someITguyWI 12y ago
Careful here boys and girls. Words matter, and the word to focus on in his statement is "lawful" content and services. What exactly is defined as lawful? Is porn lawful? What about torrents to pirated software? What about stuff the government just doesn't like. This same paragraph could be read in China and be just as accurate, but China has a very different definition of "lawful content and services".
- lsaferite 12y ago
  I would imagine it means anything that is not legislated to be unlawful.
someITguyWI 12y ago
Careful here boys and girls. Words matter, and the word to focus on in his statement is "lawful" content and services. What exactly is defined as lawful? Is porn lawful? What about torrents to pirated software? What about stuff the government just doesn't like. This same paragraph could be read in China and be just as accurate, but China has a very different definition of "lawful content and services".
gdne 12y ago
> The proposal I present to the commission will ensure the internet remains open, now and in the future, for all Americans. I really wish they would acknowledge that this type of decision isn't just "for Americans". Pretty much the entire world was watching to see how they were going to handle it.
jalopy 12y ago
I read this as beneficial to the wireless data carriers. Toward the bottom: "there will be no rate regulation, no tariffs, no last-mile unbundling" Meaning no more MVNOs and no more competition other than the "big 4". Read the arstech article here: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/06/we-dont-need-net-neutrality-we-need-competition/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/06/we-dont-need-net-... to see how unbundling would have been best for the consumer; without it, looks like the wireless co's win big actually.
- organsnyder 12y ago
  MVNOs don't exist because of regulation - they exist because some wireless carriers have decided that they'd rather sell wholesale access to their network instead of leaving the market entirely to their competitors. I don't have a problem with the lack of unbundling. I was a Covad customer for a number of years, and it was atrocious - whenever there was an issue, Covad and Ameritech/SBC/AT&T would go round and round with finger-pointing. Later, when AT&T began their U-verse (FTTN) deployment, Covad was shut out, stuck with the longer copper lines all the way back to the CO.
andrewrice 12y ago
Is usage-based internet billing a possibility now (e.g., $0.05 per gigabyte of data), just as electric companies charge per kilowatt-hour?
delinka 12y ago
ArsTechnica's article[0] mentions this: "To preserve incentives for broadband operators to invest in their networks, my proposal will modernize Title II, tailoring it for the 21st century..." This concerns me. What kinds of changes are coming to Title II? 0 - http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/02/why-the-ex-cable-lobbyist-running-the-fcc-turned-against-his-old-clients/ http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/02/why-the-ex-cable-lob...
cheald 12y ago
So, will this make it illegal for GoGo to block streaming video sites on airplanes during domestic flights? 200 people trying to stream Netflix over a satellite downlink? That should be a riot.
- acdha 12y ago
  > So, will this make it illegal for GoGo to block streaming video sites on airplanes during domestic flights? It should allow them to be consistent about it and rate-limit everyone evenly, which would have the same effect. The really interesting question would be what happens with their on-plan video systems – my understanding is that they cache a selection of videos on the plane which are pre-seeded to avoid clogging the connection. Even running a public proxy wouldn't help with that unless everyone is watching the same Netflix/Hulu/etc. videos. I'm not sure whether they could get some sort of waiver but it's definitely something to look for as the policy details emerge.
  - lsaferite 12y ago
    Hah, why not have a Netflix OpenConnect box on the plane then? That would be... interesting.
    - acdha 12y ago
      It just seems like the cache hit rates would be dismal if it had to handle so many content providers and such a wide range of content, even if you had some Hollywood-doomed way for e.g. Netflix and Hulu to use the same cached MP4 for titles which they both offer. I don't see how that could work without some protocol where e.g. Netflix, et al. could preload content in advance and how could that work – voting at the gate, only being able to see the top n most-popular on <service>?
    - ddispaltro 12y ago
      This is actually kinda what united is doing with their in-flight entertainment system. It's a limited selection of movies that you can stream. I am assuming it doesn't need internet to stream them.
xophe 12y ago
Tom Wheeler for president
sparaker 12y ago
Good to see someone make an effort in this regard.
kordless 12y ago
This thread is old, and has tons of comments. I searched for "paid prioritization" to see if anyone else had the thought I just did about what may be happening here. I don't believe anyone has yet, so either I'm wrong about my assertion or I'm the first to post. :) > These enforceable, bright-line rules will ban paid prioritization 'Prioritize' means arranging things in order of their relative importance. Paid prioritization means arranging delivery of goods (Internet services for example) by order of the relative amount you charge for things that are important to you. Revenue, for example. Or no revenue, more specifically. My gut says that free Internet should be a basic human right. Period. Nobody should be able to charge for it. I'm not sure how in the hell we're going to put that into practice though. I'm thinking about it. As for compute services, well, those aren't free to run. And those compute jobs require bandwidth to complete. Should those be free? I think not. Should someone be allowed to use their 'free' allowance of Internet when it takes away from the compute services interconnects? No. I could be off on a wrong tangent, so I'll just stop now.
my3681 12y ago
This, to me, is one of the most interesting topics of our time, and I find it fascinating the similarities (both philosophically and economically) to that of the railroads at the turn of the 20th century. Much like net neutrality is the topic of the FCC, cargo neutrality on rail lines was the topic of the ICC [1] in their day. The problem of the early 1900s began with a bounty of riches in the highly competitive American Railway sector. Merchants using the railways were demanding "rebates" from railway companies for large shipments threatening to take business elsewhere and driving their shipping costs down. Of course, the same leverage was not available to smaller shippers, making their rates much higher and forcing them to raise the prices of their goods. The system was out of balance. In 1903, congress and President Theodore Roosevelt, passed the Elkins Act [2], which eliminated rebates, but had the unfortunate side-effect of increasing price collusion between shippers and the railroads. The Elkins act did not establish a fixed rate, leaving interests to make deals that, again, were disadvantageous for smaller businesses. The only metric of discrimination was the diverting from a fixed railway schedule [3]. To correct the problems of the Elkins Act, the Hepburn Act was passed in 1906 greatly expanding the power of the ICC to regulate the Railroad Industry. The result was fixed prices on shipping deemed "just and reasonable" by the ICC, increased penalties for non-compliance, and an open and standard accounting system for the railroad companies. (As an aside, the depreciation of railway companies contributed to the Panic of 1907. A good word on that here: [4]) If all this back and forth sounds familiar, it is because we are facing the same problem today shipping bits that we were shipping coal and shirts all those years ago. The idea of prioritized delivery is not new or novel, but was dealt with before Netflix and Verizon began suing one another. What interests me is whether we will see legislation similar to the Elkins and Hepburn act for digital goods and services. I doubt very seriously that we will get fixed $/(Mbps) or $/GB mandates from the FCC, but already we are seeing definitions being made and lines being drawn [5]. There is already language from Wheeler about "responsibility to the 20 percent [without 25down/3up]", just as there was strong language from Roosevelt about the railway industries. 2015 will be an interesting year indeed. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Commerce_Commission http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Commerce_Commission [2] http://www.theodorerooseveltcenter.org/Learn-About-TR/TR-Encyclopedia/Capitalism-and-Labor/The-Elkins-Act.aspx http://www.theodorerooseveltcenter.org/Learn-About-TR/TR-Enc... [3] http://books.google.com/books?id=g-pCAAAAIAAJ&dq=elkins%20act&pg=PA201#v=onepage&q=roosevelt&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=g-pCAAAAIAAJ&dq=elkins%20ac... [4] http://books.google.com/books?id=R3koAAAAYAAJ&hl=en http://books.google.com/books?id=R3koAAAAYAAJ&hl=en [5] http://www.fiercetelecom.com/story/broadband-now-defined-25-mbps-fcc-says/2015-01-29 http://www.fiercetelecom.com/story/broadband-now-defined-25-...
Animats 12y ago
This is neutrality for big data sources only. "For example, there will be no rate regulation, no tariffs, no last-mile unbundling." This is a deal for Netflix and Google. It won't get you out from under AT&T forcing you to take their TV service to get their Internet service. There was a time when you could rent a local loop from a regulated telco and have it connected to an independent Internet service provider. Remember independent DSL ISPs? I still have a connection through one, "Sonic.net". They no longer offer that to new customers.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
CSMastermind 12y ago
Serious question: I was under the impression that mobile data networks were exempted from this type of regulation, is what he proposing going to eliminated things like the throttling AT&T / T-Mobile / Sprint does above a certain data threshold?
phragg 12y ago
If millions of people can shut down SOPA/PIPA, millions of dollars can make this not happen, sadly.
- jamiek88 12y ago
  Those two things are exactly opposite, surely? Millions of people beat millions of dollars with SOPA. the same seems to be happening here. Say what you like about the slacktivism online but when the actual web is threatened people do seem to mobilize effectively. We can't get complacent though their pockets are deep and their patience is endless. SOPA will be back and this needs riding all the way to signature.

1275 points by Libertatea 12y ago

zirkonit 12y ago

Holy shit. We did it.

joncp 12y ago
There's a republican congress that will shut this down. No we didn't.
- mikecb 12y ago
  They don't have a veto-proof majority.
  - sp332 12y ago
    Congress only needs a simple majority to prevent a bill from being passed in the first place. It will never hit the President's desk.
    - pc86 12y ago
      Which has what to do with FCC regulations, exactly?
    - mikecb 12y ago
      The implication is that the simple majority in congress would be against these regulations and pass a bill to stop them. However, if the President supports these regulations promulgated under existing statutory authority, he would veto any new bill that revoked that authority.
    - droopybuns 12y ago
      Downvoting statements that are accurate and contribute to the discussion is a hallmark of this topic. Hacker news cannot have useful discussion here because it's all orthodoxy. I always marvelled at historical hatred between protestants and catholics during and prior to the enlightenment. I now realize that this is a symptom of human nature. Humans apparently have to hate the other guys no matter what. In the past it was religion, today it is whether or not you are a network expert with an opinion about the technical implications of net-neutrality proposals. People on the pro-net neutrality side of this debate become furious if you don't spout their orthodoxy. I find it revolting. But yes, by all means, downvote sp332 for making a completely accurate assessment of how our legislative system works. It really improves the quality of the discussion.
      - michael_h 12y ago
        Wow. It is an accurate assessment of how our legislative system works, but it is completely irrelevant to the discussion. The FCC is not putting a bill up for a vote by congress, they are proposing telecommunications rules that an internal commission will vote on.
        sp332 12y ago
        johncp brought up Congress, not me. I'm just pointing out that vetos aren't relevant (although mikecb's clarification helped). So why am I getting downvoted instead?
        dragonwriter 12y ago
        > johncp brought up Congress, not me. I'm just pointing out that vetos aren't relevant (although mikecb's clarification helped). So why am I getting downvoted instead Because Congressional opponents of neutrality can (and, in fact, already has) attempt to head this off through legislation (so Congress is relevant, so its not wrong to bring them up), but to do directly undo any regulatory action, they will need to pass new law, to which the veto power is relevant, so it is incorrect to "point out" that vetos aren't relevant.
        anigbrowl 12y ago
        Because your argument has a giant hole in it. Suppose, for argument's sake, that there is big political opposition to this rule. It's reasonable to think that most of this opposition would come from the GOP, going by comments on news websites and so on, and the GOP's demonstrated preference for opposing policies backed by the President (eg the 56th(!) house vote yesterday to repeal Obamacare). If the GOP really decided to make an issue out of this, they have majorities in both houses fo Congress and thus could, in fact, pass a bill that would require a Presidential veto if their caucus were sufficiently united and worked up about the issue. Realistically they probably won't bother, but your claim that it would be impossible to get even a simple majority is unfounded.
    - dragonwriter 12y ago
      > Congress only needs a simple majority to prevent a bill from being passed in the first place. Yes, but the bills that needs to be passed were already passed (most significantly in 1934 and 1996.) In order to stop the FCC taking this action under existing law, Congress would have to pass a new bill, which mean that the filibuster in the Senate and veto by the President are real issues. Wheeler isn't proposing a new law, he is proposing an exercise of the FCC's regulatory authority under existing law.
- dpierce9 12y ago
  The FCC is an 'independent' agency which means that while congress can ask questions, make suggestions, apply pressure, and vote on members of the commission it cannot force the FCC to introduce, accept, or reject any proposed rule-making. Like most regulatory agencies, the purse power is limited since the FCC is funded by regulatory fees (I say limited and not zero because I believe the fees are paid by industry to the treasury and then allocated by congress). Also, like most regulatory agencies the makeup of the commission is statutorily party-balanced with the president selecting the chairman. The commission still has to vote on this proposed rule-making though.
  - chrisBob 12y ago
    Congress can not directly force a change, but they are the ones that pass the budget, so they can apply a lot of pressure to a federal agency.
  - joshuaheard 12y ago
    The FCC exists by authority of Congress. Congress can expand or limit this authority at will, including any regulations promulgated by the FCC. So, Congress can basically do what it wants. This is true of any federal agency. The "independent" part means independent of the President, as they are not part of the executive branch. However, I don't think Congress will act in this case. One reason Congress delegates regulation to specific agencies is because Congress does not have the expertise to craft the proper regulations. As a Republican, it seems to me the FCC has taken a balanced approach to regulation in this case, so I don't see much negative feedback by Congress.
    - dragonwriter 12y ago
      > Congress can expand or limit this authority at will Congress can do so only by passing new laws, which mean with the consent of the President or over the President's veto. > As a Republican, it seems to me the FCC has taken a balanced approach to regulation in this case, so I don't see much negative feedback by Congress. The Republicans in Congress (and the Republican minority on the FCC, as well) have been fairly consistently opposed to any FCC regulation in the direction of net neutrality, including the previous and much weaker actions the FCC has taken in the past, and have, in fact, already initiated efforts to head this off based on the discussions which indicated that the FCC was considering something in this direction and explicitly deny the FCC authority to make rules regarding net neutrality. So, assuming the FCC actually passes Wheeler's proposal, I expect substantial pushback in Congress. I don't think opponents of neutrality have the votes to pass a law on the matter over the President's veto, though.

pmontra 12y ago

No last mile unbundling: does it mean that every operator has to deploy its own cable from street to home?

dazzla 12y ago
Looks like the opposite of that. Every operator will be able to use the single connection from exchange to home. "Local loop unbundling (LLU or LLUB) is the regulatory process of allowing multiple telecommunications operators to use connections from the telephone exchange to the customer's premises." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local-loop_unbundling http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local-loop_unbundling
- mikecb 12y ago
  So if there is none of that...
  - twohlix_ 12y ago
    It means that any competitor isnt guaranteed access to the line that is already provided. This makes sense as your local loop (in the internets case) may be fiber optics, may be coaxial cable, may be telephone. So if you get FiOS, comcast won't be granted use of the fiber by law, they'll have to get verizon to agree to use of it in a separate contract.
mikecb 12y ago
I read it to mean that FCC will not force last mile unbundling. Whether they go further and write a rule that will act to prevent state a local unbundling rules is another matter.
- taion 12y ago
  Isn't last mile unbundling a bigger deal than Title II for ultimately delivering better broadband service? Common carrier provisions are obviously very good, but excluding the possibility of last mile unbundling seems like a bad thing for the longer term.

jonny_eh 12y ago

"there will be no rate regulation, no tariffs, no last-mile unbundling" Translation?

gergles 12y ago
Title II as written requires that rates be filed with the FCC and approved by the FCC (tariffs & rate regulation, respectively). Last-mile unbundling would force the people who currently run lines into your house to let other providers sell services over those lines. These regulations that are part of the law are all going to be removed as part of a process called "forebearance", where the FCC can basically not enforce those parts if they feel it would be contrary to their overarching goal of increased broadband adoption in the country.
- jonny_eh 12y ago
  "removed … not enforce … contrary", I am so confused. So does this mean that the FCC will force Comcast to allow competition to operate on the existing last mile of cable for broadband?
  - robkix 12y ago
    No, it means the last mile remains exclusive to the provider.
rayiner 12y ago
Title II includes several sorts of provisions that apply to "common carriers" very similar to, e.g., how railroads were regulated back in the day. The government sets the prices for carriage (rate regulation), and carriers have to lobby the government to change prices (tariffs). Last-mile unbundling means that carriers must lease out their physical infrastructure to competitors at some wholesale price. These things are bad, which is why the FCC is saying it will not apply these provisions. For example, even today most municipalities set a regulated rate for basic cable service. It averages about $20/month nationwide, and doesn't come close to covering the cost of actually building a modern cable network out to a neighborhood. Unbundling kills investment into the network, because why spend billions of dollars on infrastructure that you'll have to lease out at wholesale prices to your competitors?[1] My theory is that unbundling is what killed DSL as a competitor to cable here in the U.S. FTTN has been quite successful in the U.K.,[2] as a gradual scheme for building fiber further into the network, with a last-hop of VDSL that can get faster as it gets shorter. There has been little FTTN deployment here in the U.S., because there's just no way for telcos to recoup the billions of dollars spent on fiber if they're forced to lease the VDSL at the other end to competitors for a song. [1] See this Brookings Institute (not exactly a conservative hotbed) analysis, which calls the U.S. experiment with unbundling "disastrous" and concludes that it reduces capital investigate. http://www.pff.org/events/eventpowerpoints/022207BrusselsComm/Crandall.ppt http://www.pff.org/events/eventpowerpoints/022207BrusselsCom.... [2] Unbundling is part of the strategy in the U.K. too, but it's structured so that the prices BT charges to competitors are guaranteed to generate a substantial profit.

mikegioia 12y ago

Using this authority, I am submitting to my colleagues the strongest open internet protections ever proposed by the FCC. These enforceable, bright-line rules will ban paid prioritization, and the blocking and throttling of lawful content and services. I propose to fully apply—for the first time ever—those bright-line rules to mobile broadband. My proposal assures the rights of internet users to go where they want, when they want, and the rights of innovators to introduce new products without asking anyone’s permission. I can't believe I'm reading those words!

frostirosti 12y ago
Tom Wheeler has really outdone himself with this announcement. It'll apply to mobile networks as well! Turns out this dingo knows how to stand up for what's right! I know it's early but this is a great step forward.
- coldpie 12y ago
  I'm really impressed with Wheeler. When he was nominated, all the news was about how he was a lobbyist for the cable companies, and it was a perfect example of cronyism. But he's really been knocking it out of the park. Aggressive on net neutrality, redefining broadband, trying to restore municipal Internet. I'm very glad to have been wrong about my initial impressions.
  - morganvachon 12y ago
    I had the same initial impression. All I can think is that he was in "the business" for so long, he was able to see its pitfalls and shortcomings, and chose to take the high road and do right by The People. He sounds like a genuinely good person, rare in American politics.
    - alexqgb 12y ago
      He actually dealt with the initial skepticism about his background in a very straightforward way. In essence, he said "Yes, I was a cable lobbyist, but that a long time ago, when cable companies were very much the outsiders with a crazy seeming business model ("Pay? For TV?") and navigating the maze of telco regulations was a matter of life-or-death. Now my former clients are big and on the inside. It's a very different world. The point is, I actually understand what life is like for those on the outside looking in, and my commitment is to the next generation of people in that position." Again, I'm paraphrasing. And I had no idea (at the time) whether he was being sincere, or just really slick in his deflections. As of today it's looking like the former, and not the latter.

chiph 12y ago

What does the phrase "bright-line rules" mean?

superobserver 12y ago
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/002367.html http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/002367.h... >>bright-line rule = a judicial rule of decision that is simple and straightforward and that avoids or ignore the ambiguities or difficulties of the problems at hand. The phrase dates from the mid-20th century. The metaphor of a bright line is somewhat older than the phrase bright-line rule - e.g.: "The difficult part of this case comes with regard to ... the activity of the Board of Temperance ....A bright line between that which brings conviction to one person and its influence on the body politic cannot be drawn." Girard Trust Co. v. I.R.C., 122 F.2d 108, 110 (3d Cir. 1941)./"[T]he McCambridge majority opinion ... agrees that the Kirby bright-line-rule is but a mere formalism ...." J.G.Trichter, Bright-Lining Away the Right to Counsel, Tex. Law., 6 Nov. 1989, at 26. Cf. hard and fast rule.
karangoeluw 12y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bright-line_rule http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bright-line_rule
Bluestrike2 12y ago
It's a clear line with little (or, ideally, none) room for error or ambiguity. Think big, bright line in the sand that you can't miss; you're either on this side of it or you're not.

pnathan 12y ago

Well, I believe this kicks off the biggest lobbying effort seen in a long time to get this to not happen. I certainly hope that the US internet gets Title II.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
0x5f3759df-i 12y ago
The lobbying has been in full effect for a year, looks like they already lost this one.
- noobermin 12y ago
  I'm curious, how much effect do lobbyists have on the FCC, since they aren't exactly elected officials?
  - GeneralMayhem 12y ago
    The less ethical approach would be to insinuate to Mr. Wheeler that he'll be blackballed when he gets out of office. The more ethical approach would be to lobby Congress to pass laws that override the FCC's decision. Republicans don't have a veto-proof majority, but that's never stopped anyone before - tricks with riders unrelated to the main bill can effectively neuter the veto power.
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    > I'm curious, how much effect do lobbyists have on the FCC, since they aren't exactly elected officials? The members of the FCC are all political appointees of elected officials, and, like most regulators, two of their primary future employment prospects after their term ends are (1) further political appointments, and (2) employment, often as lobbyists, in the industry regulated by the regulatory body they currently serve on. So, while they may not be amenable directly to the same kind of campaign-support influence that elected officials are, there are good reason to think that lobbyists can influence them in ways beyond the persuasiveness of their substantive policy arguments.

legutierr 12y ago

I personally learned the importance of open networks the hard way. In the mid-1980s I was president of a startup, NABU: The Home Computer Network. My company was using new technology to deliver high-speed data to home computers over cable television lines....But NABU went broke while AOL became very successful....While delivering better service, NABU had to depend on cable television operators granting access to their systems....The phone network was open whereas the cable networks were closed. End of story." A person can't go through an experience like this without having it fundamentally affect their worldview. I wonder why, with all of the coverage the lead-up to this decision has gotten, I have not read this story before.

supergeek133 12y ago
Stuff like that is pretty interesting to me too. It's also a nice real-world description of why there is little to no competition in the market. The only reason Google accomplished it is by throwing money at the problem and laying new infrastructure, bypassing the existing in most cases. The barrier to entry of a competitor is so high from the infra cost alone.
- a8da6b0c91d 12y ago
  It's said a lot that infrastructure cost is the barrier to entry but I don't think that's true. Tacking cable to telephone poles is not terribly expensive. There's no good reason a great many households couldn't have two or three different cables running past their homes. As I understand it the issue is the local governments that issue permits for such things are bought off by the providers. It's a problem of corruption, not infrastructure cost.
  - gnoway 12y ago
    There may be corruption involved, but the infrastructure costs are not imaginary. Modern cable infrastructure is not a big coaxial cable strung along telephone poles. It's often buried fiber with media conversion for a local loop. Either way it costs money to roll out, and where poles are involved there are ongoing leasing fees for those. This is only part of the infrastructure anyway. You've still got all the routing, switching, media conversion, etc. to make that cable do something useful.

cjslep 12y ago

So as someone who has been lightly following the debate, and is not familiar with the FCC's process, what are the next steps to actually start enforcing mobile and landline broadband as Title II? I also wonder how long it will take for the reclassification to become enforceable, and how long the existing companies will have to "become compliant".

colinbartlett 12y ago
I am keenly interested in this as well and hoping desperately that it does not involve the United States Congress.
- orbitur 12y ago
  And it most certainly will involve Congress. Honestly, I'm confused by all the excitement surrounding this on HN and reddit. It's like everyone's forgetting that this has to be submitted and voted on internally, and then billion dollar giants will start attacking, and then Republicans will start attacking. Considering all of that, you'd need to be pretty optimistic to continue with the celebration.
dragonwriter 12y ago
> So as someone who has been lightly following the debate, and is not familiar with the FCC's process, what are the next steps to actually start enforcing mobile and landline broadband as Title II? The next step is for the FCC to vote on the proposal Wheeler is submitting and officially propose the rules (depending on whether they choose to do so as an Notice of Proposed Rulemaking or as a Interim Final Rule with Comment Period, there may or may not be a separate action after that needed to actually put the rules into effect; since this is the action in response to comment on a previous NPRM, I don't think they need to go the NPRM route again, but I think they can choose to, but my knowledge of the detailed requirements of federal administrative procedure is somewhat fuzzy.) > I also wonder how long it will take for the reclassification to become enforceable, and how long the existing companies will have to "become compliant". I think that the effective dates would be specified in the proposal, so when the FCC officially issues it we'll know.

dantheman 12y ago

This looks much better than what I feared. I'm glad they're just not regulating it under Title II, but are modernizing it: For example, there will be no rate regulation, no tariffs, no last-mile unbundling.

Alphasite_ 12y ago
From an outsiders perspective, the last mile in unfeeling is the only bit that matters, market forces can resolve everything else, but it's not really possible to lay a dozen sets of last mile infrastructure.
- dantheman 12y ago
  Last mile unbundling isn't about neutrality though, it's about getting better service. If one wants to advocate for that, it should be decoupled from net neutrality. Net neutrality is about preventing fast lanes, charging companies for access to the network, and degrading competitors products.
maxsilver 12y ago
Why not? "Just regulating (Cable and Fiber) under Title II" would have been a far better outcome, as far as I can tell. Rate regulation and last-mile unbundling are the keys to useful internet access. Without those, 95+% of Americans are still forced to buy internet from Comcast and Verizon, with whatever prices, stipulations, and conditions they decide to enforce. Certainly, this situation could have turned out far worse. But I don't see it as a win in any significant way. It simply reinforces internet service as a monopoly land-grab business.

karatekidd32v 12y ago

This is all pretty great. For the first time in a while I feel optimistic about the future of the open internet. My only concern is a small detail: "These enforceable, bright-line rules will ban paid prioritization, and the blocking and throttling of lawful content and services." The specification of 'lawful content and services' seems a bit ominous to me. Does this imply there may be ways to monitor/limit/restrict internet traffic? To use his example, would this language be used to describe the open phone network?

kijeda 12y ago
I suspect you need such a carve out to be able to legally block denial-of-service attacks and other such network events that are intended to disrupt regular operation of a service.
- innguest 12y ago
  That's what they'll swear to you, but of course the government will use it for censorship just like the FCC nowadays censors the TV and Radio. Read up the history of the FCC. At the time it was also "necessary" to regulate airwaves because of several noble reasons but of course what ends up happening is that now you have to get a license from the government to say something on radio waves. You will have to get a license to have a website in the future if the FCC has its way online. Write my words.
  - Karunamon 12y ago
    This is the single most ignorant comment I've seen on HN in a long time. but of course the government will use it for censorship just like the FCC nowadays censors the TV and Radio. You mean how OTA broadcasts are supposed to be family friendly between certain hours of the day? The horror. but of course what ends up happening is that now you have to get a license from the government to say something on radio waves. No, you need to get a license for a certain chunk of spectrum and demonstrate that you know how to design and operate your equipment in such a way that you're not going to ruin the airwaves for everyone else. There is a DAMN good reason that the EM spectrum is not a free for all! How would you like the local EMS service to be unable to communicate because some random down the street decided to start playing music on their band?

ArtDev 12y ago

Obama deserves some credit for pushing and supporting Wheeler on this!

bluthru 12y ago
I couldn't imagine if Romney was in office right now...
- jarin 12y ago
  I suspect it might possibly be the same. Public sentiment is pretty strong about it, and it would be easy for the Republicans to take the angle of "freedom for small businesses and the free market" or whatever.
  - mikeyouse 12y ago
    Public sentiment on the right is definitely not in favor of net neutrality... In Romney's own words: It is not the role of any government to “manage” the Internet. The Internet has flourished precisely because government has so far refrained from regulating this dynamic and essential cornerstone of our economy. I would rely primarily on innovation and market forces, not bureaucrats, to shape the Internet and maximize its economic, social and scientific value. Specifically, the FCC’s “Net Neutrality” regulation represents an Obama campaign promise fulfilled on behalf of certain special interests, but ultimately a “solution” in search of a problem. The government has now interjected itself in how networks will be constructed and managed, picked winners and losers in the marketplace, and determined how consumers will receive access to tomorrow’s new applications and services. The Obama Administration’s overreaching has replaced innovators and investors with Washington bureaucrats. From here: http://sciencedebate.org/2012/debate12/#9 http://sciencedebate.org/2012/debate12/#9
    - jarin 12y ago
      That's because they've spun it as "Obama trying to control the Internet" or whatever. Most rank-and-file conservatives didn't even know what it was until the GOP Powers That Be decided to take up the crusade.

sudioStudio64 12y ago

Turns out that the cable company screwed him too...nice. This is turning out to be great news.

evanb 12y ago

I violated Responsible Reading Of The Internet Rule #1 and accidentally looked at the comments. I am having a hard time reconciling the vehement anti-net-neutrality anti-government hair-on-fire screaming there with the reasoned discussion and general attitude here---I would have thought the majority of readers of Wired would be of similar mind to HN readers.

innguest 12y ago
You thought Wired readers were as naive and as communist as you and you're disappointed they are smarter and more cynical. Boo. Hoo. There's no reasoned discussion in HN as discussions get downvoted. There's only a huge circle back-patting which your comment is a part of.
- remarkEon 12y ago
  So did you have a thoughtful, reasoned argument against this proposal or what?
  - wnevets 12y ago
    "government bad, me sad"
  - ikeboy 12y ago
    I'm against net neutrality. To me it looks like more regulation for not enough gain. I don't see why we should stop the free market; if one internet provider is doing things you don't like, another one will open and the consumer can change to that one if they care. I also feel that companies should have a right to provide some websites at higher speeds. There will always be a trade off; perhaps you could get cheaper internet if you only care about the top few sites. If they charge the same as internet providers that do have net neutrality, then they will quickly lose market share, and I believe that should be the market's choice, not the government. Imagine if all those people who signed the petition for new regulations instead signed a petition promising not to use any provider that throttled some websites. That would make a strong market incentive not to throttle sites. And if the consumers can't do that, why should the government step in to save us? If you argue that it's very hard to open a new cable internet company (which is the argument I got last time I brought this up), my answer is that enough rich people would be interested enough to open a competitor if there was demand.

SandroG 12y ago

Thank you, Tom Wheeler. Today is a good day for the Internet.

innguest 12y ago

Read the history of the FCC, folks. You're being lead on like sheeple. "I can't believe how good this sounds". No kidding.

scelerat 12y ago
Are you going to elaborate, or just leave it as a snarky comment?
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]

shortformblog 12y ago

The comments on this post are some of the most depressing things I've ever read in response to a regulatory decision. References to Tom Wheeler being a Nazi. Someone calling the plan "Obama-fi." A user who says this: > tom wheeler, seriously, it would be a great thing if you and everyone like you contracted ebola and died a horrible death. This is like giving the entire U.S. population free pizza for a year, and half the population complaining because there's cheese on it.

innguest 12y ago
Because you don't understand their argument, they must be wrong, right? And no I can't explain you their argument because whenever I do so I get downvoted. The government wants their hands on all means of communication. The FCC basically shunned the public from using radio waves and TV waves. Now they're going to shun us away from the internet. The same organization, the FCC, will do this as they previously did with other means of communication, and you cheerleaders are being fooled and don't even know it. Not only that but you criticize those who see this for the fascism it is. It must be great to be ignorant because you can even attack those who read history and think you're coming out on top.
- socialist_coder 12y ago
  Can you please explain this argument? Who cares if you get downvoted. I do not understand how a reasonable person who is not in cahoots with "big internet" can see this as a bad thing.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
- warfangle 12y ago
  There's a difference between trying to explain your point of view and fulfilling godwin's law...
- jarin 12y ago
  Ah yes, that explains why radio stations and OTA TV channels don't exist anymore... Oh wait

kevinchen 12y ago

> my proposal includes a general conduct rule that can be used to stop new and novel threats to the internet. This means the action we take will be strong enough and flexible enough not only to deal with the realities of today, but also to establish ground rules for the as yet unimagined. What does that mean? Sounds like a euphemism for an Internet kill switch?

dragonwriter 12y ago
From the text and context, it sounds like in addition to the bright-line rules on things like throttling, paid prioritization, and blocking of lawful content and services, there is a more general rule prohibiting conduct by ISPs that discriminates against or impedes access to lawful content but doesn't fall into neat buckets of blocking, throttling, etc. But, yeah, this is one thing (of many) that its going to be worth reading the actual text, when it is made public, to understand.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

beauzero 12y ago

The "thoughts and feelings" are in the right direction...now let's wait for the actual proposal.

nickthemagicman 12y ago

Why are libertarians so pro- free market when this is a perfect example of how the 'unregulated free market' has no problem manipulating in the name of greed and control at the expense of consumers? This seems to be strong evidence that government is better at keeping trade free than an 'unregulated free market'?

JoeAltmaier 12y ago
Its cultural. At a local level, people can be motivated by 'enlightened self-interest' and operate in a way that's rational considering the local economy. I think libertarians are not naive; they're old boys accustomed to dealing with other old boys in that network. So they see free market working pretty well in that context, and want to extend it.
- nickthemagicman 12y ago
  Interesting/Bizzare. It's not far fetched to make parallels from this that if the 'privatized' major corporations aren't above squashing competitors through unfair trade practices and lobbying for biased regulations in the telecom industries....then they would do it in other industries. And this kills the market.
robkix 12y ago
Not to dive too off topic, but the telecom industry has been heavily regulated and in no way represents a free market. Through franchise fees, fighting public right of way sharing, and other forms of lobbying these large corporations have used law and regulation to their favor. This is not a position libertarians support and it is not a market anyone would point at and call "unregulated" in any sense of the term.
- pbz 12y ago
  Is it fair to call it regulation when the corporation benefits? (regulation tends to mean "regulation against corporations")

notdonspaulding 12y ago

The internet wouldn’t have emerged as it did, for instance, if the FCC hadn’t mandated open access for network equipment in the late 1960s. Before then, AT&T prohibited anyone from attaching non-AT&T equipment to the network. By the 1960s AT&T was a well-established government-sanctioned monopoly [0]. It's a bold claim that says we wouldn't have gotten an internet without FCC regulation of AT&T. An easier conclusion to draw is that we wouldn't have needed an FCC if we hadn't given Ma Bell a pass on being a monopoly for the previous 5 decades and instead focused on policies that encourage innovation and investment at the local level. Yes, the last-mile is a natural monopoly, but there's a wide gulf of possible solutions between "Let AT&T kill all competitors" as they have been for the last century and "Have the FCC regulate competition into existence" as they did in 1996 [1]. Neither of those extremes worked, and to the extent that this policy seems to understand that, it looks like a good outcome. The line about "no rate regulation, no tariffs, no last-mile unbundling" is especially promising in this regard. However, the proof is in the pudding, and I think we have yet to see an FCC that is truly effective in inspiring local broadband competition through regulatory policies. [0]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingsbury_Commitment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingsbury_Commitment [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_Act_of_1996 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_Act_of_1996

th0ma5 12y ago
Darn it if this isn't correct. It is very true to say we don't really know what the market forces would've done, because it was all already mucked with. I'm not sure I agree though that the last mile is a natural monopoly. A market could create more distributed solutions, we're seeing that with solar grid power contribution. The early Edison systems were sometimes a single location for DC power. The early net benefited from something a little more peer-to-peer than it is today. Also all of these things will never exist independently of each other. If we had an anarcho-syndicalist system, we'd be complaining about the inability to use omnidirectional antennas effectively because of all of the interference of the airwaves, possibly...
TheRealDunkirk 12y ago
You're obviously much more versed in this than I am, so I'm probably missing something here. But your comment reminds me that, if we could get the cables to stop killing muni wifi initiatives, that'd be a great start.

wnevets 12y ago

> ban paid prioritization, and the blocking and throttling of lawful content and services. Too bad the regulation isnt simply this one line of text without the "lawful" caveat

EpicEng 12y ago
Why is that too bad? Do you think that the rules would stand of that caveat weren't present? Do you think that ISP's should not have the ability to block illegal traffic? What happens when they receive a court order to do so, yet doing so would violate FCC regulations? Don't be naive; that exception must be there, and out changes nothing in regards to the current situation.
- wnevets 12y ago
  My biggest problem with that caveat is that its really just a foot in the door for further regulation by the federal government, none of which has anything to do with network neutrality. Network neutrality by definition is about all packets being treated equally regardless of the source or destination.
  - EpicEng 12y ago
    It's not though because it changes nothing. The government can already stop traffic via a court order. Besides, the FCC is not a legislative body. A set of rules which allowed, for example, unimpeded access to child pornography would never be allowed, nor should it. Net neutrality can exist alongside the laws which govern what is and is not ok to do on the internet.
    - wnevets 12y ago
      Does the FCC currently have rules that allow the blocking of "illegal" traffic?
      - dragonwriter 12y ago

bmoresbest55 12y ago

This is very nice but I hope that it will be able to withstand the impending lawsuits by the ISPs. One can only hope.

nostromo 12y ago

Apparently I'm in the minority here, but I have some concerns. 1) The problem this fixes is largely non-existent today. The threat of fast and slow-lanes is one I've yet to experience. 2) Opening the door for more internet regulation seems risky. At first, things may go swimmingly, but I suspect regulatory capture will creep up on this industry, just as it has so many others. You may trust Obama and the current FCC head, but if and when the next Nixon comes to power, will you be as comfortable with his appointee? 3) The language "lawful content and services" seems like the kind of opening that could be the death of services like Bit Torrent or Tor. 4) Holding up the old telephonic lines as having been improved by regulation seems specious. In fact, the telephone system has been frozen in amber for decades. Perhaps overregulation is part of the reason we get our high-speed internet via the much less regulated cable lines and not phone lines.

ryneandal 12y ago
What? The Netflix/Verizon paid peering agreement was a fast/slow lane issue, was it not?
- 0x5f3759df-i 12y ago
  Or Comcast blocking/throttling all bittorrent traffic? \ http://www.cnet.com/news/comcast-really-does-block-bittorrent-traffic-after-all/ http://www.cnet.com/news/comcast-really-does-block-bittorren...
  - cheald 12y ago
    That actually was a fast/slow lane issue, and you may remember that was resolved without additional regulation or legislation.
- nostromo 12y ago
  It's not clear to me that paid-peering agreements will change at all based on this announcement. The FCC said previously that it doesn't see such agreements as a net neutrality issue. http://time.com/80192/netflix-verizon-paid-peering-agreement/ http://time.com/80192/netflix-verizon-paid-peering-agreement...

jrochkind1 12y ago

> The internet wouldn’t have emerged as it did, for instance, if the FCC hadn’t mandated open access for network equipment in the late 1960s. Before then, AT&T prohibited anyone from attaching non-AT&T equipment to the network. The modems that enabled the internet were usable only because the FCC required the network to be open. DAMN right.

Eric_WVGG 12y ago

The New Yorker, last May: “Obama’s Bad Pick: A Former Lobbyist at the F.C.C.” http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/obamas-bad-pick-a-former-lobbyist-at-the-f-c-c http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/obamas-bad-pick-a... “Rewarding campaign contributors is par for the course in Washington, of course. Usually, though, the prizes are ambassadorships or appointments to obscure boards rather than the chairmanship of a big federal regulatory agency. That’s another thing that makes Wheeler’s appointment look like just the sort of Washington inside job that Obama used to decry as a candidate. […] Perhaps the best that can be said about his nomination is that, assuming he’s confirmed, he’ll have an incentive to demonstrate that he isn’t a patsy for the companies he used to lobby for.”

gfodor 12y ago
Yeah I think it's time more than a few people eat a little crow.

toast0 12y ago

"For example, there will be no rate regulation, no tariffs, no last-mile unbundling." No last-mile unbundling means instead of fostering better service through competition, we're attempting to foster better service through regulation.

Randgalt 12y ago

Make a deal with the Devil and you'll only get burned. The FCC regulating the internet, what could go wrong?

IanDrake 12y ago
Future HN comments when things go wrong: This isn't what we wanted... We never indented for X to be interpreted that way... It would have worked, but they didn't go far enough... It would have worked, but they went too far... We need this new law X to protect the cable companies because upstart Y's new technology doesn't have to deal with FCC regulation which gives it an unfair advantage... Give it ten years and the FCC will be about as popular as TSA or the NSA on HN.
- Randgalt 12y ago
  What's terribly sad to me is the pro-authority comments here on HN. The Tech world doesn't seem to understand the true nature of regulation. Well, they're going to get what they deserve to the detriment of everyone else.
  - IanDrake 12y ago
    Sure they will, but they won't blame themselves.
angrymonk 12y ago
I stopped arguing with them months ago. Now I just want this to pass exactly as they want ... Then I get to watch it blow up in their faces.

geekamongus 12y ago

The comments on the article make me really, really sad.

grecy 12y ago

I like how many times he says "Congress gave us the power to make this decision". Kind of like he's daring them to try and stop him.

geekamongus 12y ago
I think it's more a justification to explain why non-elected officials are putting laws into motion.
jstalin 12y ago
I hope they try. The same people that run the post office running the internet? Oh god...

markthethomas 12y ago

This is really encouraging. Having trouble not assuming it'll get torn down by 'interested parties', though.

gxs 12y ago

I don't think I've ever cussed on my HN account, but unfuckingbelievable. I'm in complete and utter awe that they listened to the people and not the rich corporations for once.

forgotAgain 12y ago

As I'm writing this the stock market is having the opposite take on this than I Would have expected. Netflix is down while the providers (ATT, Verizon, Comcast) are up. Is there something going on here that's not obvious?

programmarchy 12y ago
Yes! The public has amnesia and doesn't remember the history of progressive regulation :) In a nutshell, in order for big business to cut production and raise prices, they need the state to act as an enforcer or regulator for their cartel. Their strategy has been to lobby under the guise of a public good, in this case "net neutrality" (a term which I'd bet has its origins with some very expensive marketing/PR firm), but the end effect is for state regulation to create artificial scarcity and subsidize costs to increase profits for big business. This is state capitalism, or corporate liberalism - how corporatism operates in the U.S. Big corporations want regulation because they fear competition. Before the Progressive Era, big businesses wanted to cut production and increase prices, but failed in doing so in the (relatively) free market that existed at the time. New competitors would arise or cartel members would cheat and lower prices, and the cartel agreement would fall apart. This kept prices low, trending toward the cost of production, which was great for consumers. However, with state regulation, cartels can be maintained. The state can raise barriers to entry to protect cartel members from competition, and it can also bring down the hammer on cartel members who cheat and try to lower prices. Of course, this isn't how it's sold to the public. Lobbyists tell the story of how "big bad corporations" need to be reigned in for the public good by benevolent big government, and voters seem to buy it every time. Behind the scenes, big business is colluding with the state for monopoly privilege. See the history of railroads, Big Agri, Big Oil, the telecoms, the Federal Reserve for examples of this playing out. The state has granted corporations so many privileges, it's really quite unbelievable -- tariffs, patents, copyrights, licensing, regulation -- all of this subsidized by the public to grant corporations the privilege of giving us less for more. For our own good, of course. This is how the rich get richer, and wealth continues to centralize and concentrate. By conning the public, and using the state as a blunt force instrument to keep competition out, and keep prices high. Murray Rothbard gave a short lecture on the history of progressive regulation [1], and he also wrote a book called Power and Market [2] if you want a detailed overview of power dynamics in the market. Rothbard was heavily influenced by Gabriel Kolko, a Progressive Era historian and leftist anti-capitalist, who wrote: > Despite the large number of mergers, and the growth in the absolute size of many corporations, the dominant tendency in the American economy at the beginning of this [the twentieth] century was toward growing competition. Competition was unacceptable to many key business and financial interests... As new competitors sprang up, and as economic power was diffused throughout an expanding nation, it became apparent to many important businessmen that only the national government could rationalize the economy. Although specific conditions varied from industry to industry, internal problems that could be solved only by political means were the common denominator in those industries whose leaders advocated greater federal regulation. Ironically, contrary to the consensus of historians, it was not the existence of monopoly that caused the federal government to intervene in the economy, but the lack of it. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62rI8OYFzGg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62rI8OYFzGg [2] http://mises.org/sites/default/files/Man,%20Economy,%20and%20State,%20with%20Power%20and%20Market_2.pdf http://mises.org/sites/default/files/Man,%20Economy,%20and%2...

marssaxman 12y ago

I think this is the first time in my life that I've been happy about and excited by news of government action concerning the Internet.

datashovel 12y ago

In general I think this is a sign that many people in D.C. actually do want to do the right thing, but have (for too long) let the wrong people tell them what the right thing is.

someITguyWI 12y ago

Careful here boys and girls. Words matter, and the word to focus on in his statement is "lawful" content and services. What exactly is defined as lawful? Is porn lawful? What about torrents to pirated software? What about stuff the government just doesn't like. This same paragraph could be read in China and be just as accurate, but China has a very different definition of "lawful content and services".

lsaferite 12y ago
I would imagine it means anything that is not legislated to be unlawful.

someITguyWI 12y ago

gdne 12y ago

> The proposal I present to the commission will ensure the internet remains open, now and in the future, for all Americans. I really wish they would acknowledge that this type of decision isn't just "for Americans". Pretty much the entire world was watching to see how they were going to handle it.

jalopy 12y ago

I read this as beneficial to the wireless data carriers. Toward the bottom: "there will be no rate regulation, no tariffs, no last-mile unbundling" Meaning no more MVNOs and no more competition other than the "big 4". Read the arstech article here: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/06/we-dont-need-net-neutrality-we-need-competition/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/06/we-dont-need-net-... to see how unbundling would have been best for the consumer; without it, looks like the wireless co's win big actually.

organsnyder 12y ago
MVNOs don't exist because of regulation - they exist because some wireless carriers have decided that they'd rather sell wholesale access to their network instead of leaving the market entirely to their competitors. I don't have a problem with the lack of unbundling. I was a Covad customer for a number of years, and it was atrocious - whenever there was an issue, Covad and Ameritech/SBC/AT&T would go round and round with finger-pointing. Later, when AT&T began their U-verse (FTTN) deployment, Covad was shut out, stuck with the longer copper lines all the way back to the CO.

andrewrice 12y ago

Is usage-based internet billing a possibility now (e.g., $0.05 per gigabyte of data), just as electric companies charge per kilowatt-hour?

delinka 12y ago

ArsTechnica's article[0] mentions this: "To preserve incentives for broadband operators to invest in their networks, my proposal will modernize Title II, tailoring it for the 21st century..." This concerns me. What kinds of changes are coming to Title II? 0 - http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/02/why-the-ex-cable-lobbyist-running-the-fcc-turned-against-his-old-clients/ http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/02/why-the-ex-cable-lob...

cheald 12y ago

So, will this make it illegal for GoGo to block streaming video sites on airplanes during domestic flights? 200 people trying to stream Netflix over a satellite downlink? That should be a riot.

acdha 12y ago
> So, will this make it illegal for GoGo to block streaming video sites on airplanes during domestic flights? It should allow them to be consistent about it and rate-limit everyone evenly, which would have the same effect. The really interesting question would be what happens with their on-plan video systems – my understanding is that they cache a selection of videos on the plane which are pre-seeded to avoid clogging the connection. Even running a public proxy wouldn't help with that unless everyone is watching the same Netflix/Hulu/etc. videos. I'm not sure whether they could get some sort of waiver but it's definitely something to look for as the policy details emerge.
- lsaferite 12y ago
  Hah, why not have a Netflix OpenConnect box on the plane then? That would be... interesting.
  - acdha 12y ago
    It just seems like the cache hit rates would be dismal if it had to handle so many content providers and such a wide range of content, even if you had some Hollywood-doomed way for e.g. Netflix and Hulu to use the same cached MP4 for titles which they both offer. I don't see how that could work without some protocol where e.g. Netflix, et al. could preload content in advance and how could that work – voting at the gate, only being able to see the top n most-popular on <service>?
  - ddispaltro 12y ago
    This is actually kinda what united is doing with their in-flight entertainment system. It's a limited selection of movies that you can stream. I am assuming it doesn't need internet to stream them.

xophe 12y ago

Tom Wheeler for president

sparaker 12y ago

Good to see someone make an effort in this regard.

kordless 12y ago

This thread is old, and has tons of comments. I searched for "paid prioritization" to see if anyone else had the thought I just did about what may be happening here. I don't believe anyone has yet, so either I'm wrong about my assertion or I'm the first to post. :) > These enforceable, bright-line rules will ban paid prioritization 'Prioritize' means arranging things in order of their relative importance. Paid prioritization means arranging delivery of goods (Internet services for example) by order of the relative amount you charge for things that are important to you. Revenue, for example. Or no revenue, more specifically. My gut says that free Internet should be a basic human right. Period. Nobody should be able to charge for it. I'm not sure how in the hell we're going to put that into practice though. I'm thinking about it. As for compute services, well, those aren't free to run. And those compute jobs require bandwidth to complete. Should those be free? I think not. Should someone be allowed to use their 'free' allowance of Internet when it takes away from the compute services interconnects? No. I could be off on a wrong tangent, so I'll just stop now.

my3681 12y ago

This, to me, is one of the most interesting topics of our time, and I find it fascinating the similarities (both philosophically and economically) to that of the railroads at the turn of the 20th century. Much like net neutrality is the topic of the FCC, cargo neutrality on rail lines was the topic of the ICC [1] in their day. The problem of the early 1900s began with a bounty of riches in the highly competitive American Railway sector. Merchants using the railways were demanding "rebates" from railway companies for large shipments threatening to take business elsewhere and driving their shipping costs down. Of course, the same leverage was not available to smaller shippers, making their rates much higher and forcing them to raise the prices of their goods. The system was out of balance. In 1903, congress and President Theodore Roosevelt, passed the Elkins Act [2], which eliminated rebates, but had the unfortunate side-effect of increasing price collusion between shippers and the railroads. The Elkins act did not establish a fixed rate, leaving interests to make deals that, again, were disadvantageous for smaller businesses. The only metric of discrimination was the diverting from a fixed railway schedule [3]. To correct the problems of the Elkins Act, the Hepburn Act was passed in 1906 greatly expanding the power of the ICC to regulate the Railroad Industry. The result was fixed prices on shipping deemed "just and reasonable" by the ICC, increased penalties for non-compliance, and an open and standard accounting system for the railroad companies. (As an aside, the depreciation of railway companies contributed to the Panic of 1907. A good word on that here: [4]) If all this back and forth sounds familiar, it is because we are facing the same problem today shipping bits that we were shipping coal and shirts all those years ago. The idea of prioritized delivery is not new or novel, but was dealt with before Netflix and Verizon began suing one another. What interests me is whether we will see legislation similar to the Elkins and Hepburn act for digital goods and services. I doubt very seriously that we will get fixed $/(Mbps) or $/GB mandates from the FCC, but already we are seeing definitions being made and lines being drawn [5]. There is already language from Wheeler about "responsibility to the 20 percent [without 25down/3up]", just as there was strong language from Roosevelt about the railway industries. 2015 will be an interesting year indeed. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Commerce_Commission http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Commerce_Commission [2] http://www.theodorerooseveltcenter.org/Learn-About-TR/TR-Encyclopedia/Capitalism-and-Labor/The-Elkins-Act.aspx http://www.theodorerooseveltcenter.org/Learn-About-TR/TR-Enc... [3] http://books.google.com/books?id=g-pCAAAAIAAJ&dq=elkins%20act&pg=PA201#v=onepage&q=roosevelt&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=g-pCAAAAIAAJ&dq=elkins%20ac... [4] http://books.google.com/books?id=R3koAAAAYAAJ&hl=en http://books.google.com/books?id=R3koAAAAYAAJ&hl=en [5] http://www.fiercetelecom.com/story/broadband-now-defined-25-mbps-fcc-says/2015-01-29 http://www.fiercetelecom.com/story/broadband-now-defined-25-...

Animats 12y ago

This is neutrality for big data sources only. "For example, there will be no rate regulation, no tariffs, no last-mile unbundling." This is a deal for Netflix and Google. It won't get you out from under AT&T forcing you to take their TV service to get their Internet service. There was a time when you could rent a local loop from a regulated telco and have it connected to an independent Internet service provider. Remember independent DSL ISPs? I still have a connection through one, "Sonic.net". They no longer offer that to new customers.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

CSMastermind 12y ago

Serious question: I was under the impression that mobile data networks were exempted from this type of regulation, is what he proposing going to eliminated things like the throttling AT&T / T-Mobile / Sprint does above a certain data threshold?

phragg 12y ago

If millions of people can shut down SOPA/PIPA, millions of dollars can make this not happen, sadly.

jamiek88 12y ago
Those two things are exactly opposite, surely? Millions of people beat millions of dollars with SOPA. the same seems to be happening here. Say what you like about the slacktivism online but when the actual web is threatened people do seem to mobilize effectively. We can't get complacent though their pockets are deep and their patience is endless. SOPA will be back and this needs riding all the way to signature.