6 ms·

The opinions of the dissenting FCC commissioners are exactly what you expect. They claim the FCC is engaging in over reach. I'm curious to hear more about the

The opinions of the dissenting FCC commissioners are exactly what you expect. They claim the FCC is engaging in over reach. I'm curious to hear more about the '15 "Broadband Subscriber Access Services" pages' you mention. Where is this mentioned? You might want to check out a recent talk @ NANOG from John Yoo. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVJV1gWYPX8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVJV1gWYPX8 IMO the questions are more interesting than the actual preso. What we got with this FCC ruling is an arrangement between the ISPs and the edge. Or you might call them the pipes and the content. It's striking to me how little discussions of the last-mile were framing the debate, or how little consumer choice was taken into consideration. According to Wheeler, my interests as a consumer end at me not having my traffic biased. When in fact, most consumers are more interested in having choice in last-mile providers, or just paying less for their Internet connectivity. In short, I'm bummed we didn't get unbundling in the last-mile. The pipes got a monopoly. Content got the right to offer services without having to pay the pipes for the privilege. Google got the right to access utility poles. Google is the interesting hybrid with a history in content, but quickly moving into pipes. None of these interests really care if you or I have choice in our last-mile ISP, or how much we pay. So Comcast, TWC and Verizon get handed a monopoly by the FCC. Americans shouldn't have to clamor and beg Google to deliver fiber to their homes. Also, what happens once Google is everywhere and they turn tyrannical? Do we need to have yet another last-mile provider invest billions to deliver service to our homes? How many Internet wires do I need running into my house to get competition? Imagine how stupid it would seem if I had multiple water pipes running into my house, or electricity wires. The FCC missed an opportunity to reframe the debate away from net neutrality and towards monopoly in the last mile. If I had choice in last-mile providers net neutralty wouldn't be an issue. If my provider treated me like crap I could simply choose another one.

supergeek133 12y ago
The general response I've seen to that is they're encouraging more last-mile providers to be developed from Title II opening up the equipment poles/lines. Basically, making it easier for the Google Fiber types to do their thing. But then they have to live under the same rules as the big guys, and that was one of the rebuttal points. Valid or not.
- gojomo 12y ago
  I can't find any section of the rules that have to do with equipment poles/lines. Can you point it out? Everything I can find indicates this limits existing providers, rather than opening any possibilities for new providers, and is thus likely to decrease competition/variety. That is, it's making local ISP service more like a commodity/monopoly than it currently is.
  - cheald 12y ago
    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/224 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/224 By classifying ISPs under Title II, they become subject to these rules.
    - gojomo 12y ago
      But the FCC hasn't applied all of Title II. There's nothing in today's document about poles.
      - smutticus 12y ago
        It's paragraph 56, page 17.
digikata 12y ago
This step gives a foundation to curb many aspects of monopoly broadband providers. There needs to be another related but separate fight on competition in the last mile.
intrasight 12y ago
I lean towards the belief that the FCC is involved specifically because there is little or no competition in broadband because it has characteristics of a natural monopoly when delivered via wire/cable/fiber. The FCC didn't hand them a monopoly. The market handed them a monopoly and therefore the FCC needs to regulate it. Besides that, I agree with your other sentiments.
- nostromo 12y ago
  > The market handed them a monopoly Local governments handed them a monopoly. http://www.wired.com/2013/07/we-need-to-stop-focusing-on-just-cable-companies-and-blame-local-government-for-dismal-broadband-competition/ http://www.wired.com/2013/07/we-need-to-stop-focusing-on-jus... I disagree that ISPs are a natural monopoly. It's crazy to think that my house could choose between two competing road systems, but my house already has multiple wired communications networks. And if we all agree that ISP monopolies are real -- then we have a way of dealing with monopolies: break up the companies. It seems to me that this is the proper solution -- yet for some reason it's never discussed and instead we just keep rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
  - mfisher87 12y ago
    It seems like the idea of going AT&T on modern corporations is completely off the table. Any time I bring this up, people look at me like I'm pro-tyranny. Break them up. They're holding our nation back and don't deserve to use us as a crutch.
    - gojomo 12y ago
      Given that Google, Amazon, and Apple are all larger than Comcast in market-cap and most measures of market-share or customer count, will those three be broken up before Comcast, or after?
      - pessimizer 12y ago
        During.
rektide 12y ago
What we got with this FCC ruling is an arrangement between the ISPs and the edge. Or you might call them the pipes and the content. It's striking to me how little discussions of the last-mile were framing the debate, or how little consumer choice was taken into consideration. According to Wheeler, my interests as a consumer end at me not having my traffic biased. When in fact, most consumers are more interested in having choice in last-mile providers, or just paying less for their Internet connectivity. In short, I'm bummed we didn't get unbundling in the last-mile. I agree 100%. I was agape that Wheeler at least twice used his old company NABU as an opening shtick- a story about trying to create a competitive cable provider, but not having unbundling to pull it off; for him to transition into regulation instead of competition was comedically dissonant. As for actually undoing bundling, it's the courts. They decided that given that fiber investments were going to be costly, and given the threat that build-outs might not happen, the scales somehow tipped to allow them to overturn (on purely economic merits) the FCC's rules on local loop unbundling. Thus, we determine that, particularly in light of a competitive landscape in which competitive LECs are leading the deployment of FTTH, removing incumbent LEC unbundling obligations on FTTH loops will promote their deployment of the network infrastructure necessary to provide broadband services to the mass market. https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-36A1.pdf https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-36A1.pd... , paragraph 278. Truly one of the worst, least well-structured Court rulings to have occurred. And worse, here we are almost 15 years in, with fiber no longer rolling out, and there's no structure or hope to revise this court edict made at a particular time balancing particular economic factors to demand a reassesment- the FCC's Triennial Review. On the bright side, I'm very happy that on the same day that the FCC announced Open Access approval, they also announced they were going to move to block states and municipalities from legally obstructing community and municipal competitors.
- smutticus 12y ago
  BrandX challenged the rules you quote which eventually went to SCOTUS. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Cable_%26_Telecommunications_Ass%27n_v._Brand_X_Internet_Services https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Cable_%26_Telecommuni... The FCC fought all the way to the Supreme Court to ensure last-mile ISPs don't have to unbundle. Of course that was in 2005 under the Bush Administration when the FCC was run by Michael Powell.
hackuser 12y ago
> check out a recent talk @ NANOG from John Yoo Christopher Yoo. John Yoo is the advocate for torture.
- smutticus 12y ago
  Sorry about that. I can't edit my comment for some reason, oh well.

supergeek133 12y ago

The general response I've seen to that is they're encouraging more last-mile providers to be developed from Title II opening up the equipment poles/lines. Basically, making it easier for the Google Fiber types to do their thing. But then they have to live under the same rules as the big guys, and that was one of the rebuttal points. Valid or not.

gojomo 12y ago
I can't find any section of the rules that have to do with equipment poles/lines. Can you point it out? Everything I can find indicates this limits existing providers, rather than opening any possibilities for new providers, and is thus likely to decrease competition/variety. That is, it's making local ISP service more like a commodity/monopoly than it currently is.
- cheald 12y ago
  https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/224 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/224 By classifying ISPs under Title II, they become subject to these rules.
  - gojomo 12y ago
    But the FCC hasn't applied all of Title II. There's nothing in today's document about poles.
    - smutticus 12y ago
      It's paragraph 56, page 17.

digikata 12y ago

This step gives a foundation to curb many aspects of monopoly broadband providers. There needs to be another related but separate fight on competition in the last mile.

intrasight 12y ago

I lean towards the belief that the FCC is involved specifically because there is little or no competition in broadband because it has characteristics of a natural monopoly when delivered via wire/cable/fiber. The FCC didn't hand them a monopoly. The market handed them a monopoly and therefore the FCC needs to regulate it. Besides that, I agree with your other sentiments.

nostromo 12y ago
> The market handed them a monopoly Local governments handed them a monopoly. http://www.wired.com/2013/07/we-need-to-stop-focusing-on-just-cable-companies-and-blame-local-government-for-dismal-broadband-competition/ http://www.wired.com/2013/07/we-need-to-stop-focusing-on-jus... I disagree that ISPs are a natural monopoly. It's crazy to think that my house could choose between two competing road systems, but my house already has multiple wired communications networks. And if we all agree that ISP monopolies are real -- then we have a way of dealing with monopolies: break up the companies. It seems to me that this is the proper solution -- yet for some reason it's never discussed and instead we just keep rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
- mfisher87 12y ago
  It seems like the idea of going AT&T on modern corporations is completely off the table. Any time I bring this up, people look at me like I'm pro-tyranny. Break them up. They're holding our nation back and don't deserve to use us as a crutch.
  - gojomo 12y ago
    Given that Google, Amazon, and Apple are all larger than Comcast in market-cap and most measures of market-share or customer count, will those three be broken up before Comcast, or after?
    - pessimizer 12y ago
      During.

rektide 12y ago

What we got with this FCC ruling is an arrangement between the ISPs and the edge. Or you might call them the pipes and the content. It's striking to me how little discussions of the last-mile were framing the debate, or how little consumer choice was taken into consideration. According to Wheeler, my interests as a consumer end at me not having my traffic biased. When in fact, most consumers are more interested in having choice in last-mile providers, or just paying less for their Internet connectivity. In short, I'm bummed we didn't get unbundling in the last-mile. I agree 100%. I was agape that Wheeler at least twice used his old company NABU as an opening shtick- a story about trying to create a competitive cable provider, but not having unbundling to pull it off; for him to transition into regulation instead of competition was comedically dissonant. As for actually undoing bundling, it's the courts. They decided that given that fiber investments were going to be costly, and given the threat that build-outs might not happen, the scales somehow tipped to allow them to overturn (on purely economic merits) the FCC's rules on local loop unbundling. Thus, we determine that, particularly in light of a competitive landscape in which competitive LECs are leading the deployment of FTTH, removing incumbent LEC unbundling obligations on FTTH loops will promote their deployment of the network infrastructure necessary to provide broadband services to the mass market. https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-36A1.pdf https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-36A1.pd... , paragraph 278. Truly one of the worst, least well-structured Court rulings to have occurred. And worse, here we are almost 15 years in, with fiber no longer rolling out, and there's no structure or hope to revise this court edict made at a particular time balancing particular economic factors to demand a reassesment- the FCC's Triennial Review. On the bright side, I'm very happy that on the same day that the FCC announced Open Access approval, they also announced they were going to move to block states and municipalities from legally obstructing community and municipal competitors.

smutticus 12y ago
BrandX challenged the rules you quote which eventually went to SCOTUS. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Cable_%26_Telecommunications_Ass%27n_v._Brand_X_Internet_Services https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Cable_%26_Telecommuni... The FCC fought all the way to the Supreme Court to ensure last-mile ISPs don't have to unbundle. Of course that was in 2005 under the Bush Administration when the FCC was run by Michael Powell.

hackuser 12y ago

> check out a recent talk @ NANOG from John Yoo Christopher Yoo. John Yoo is the advocate for torture.

smutticus 12y ago
Sorry about that. I can't edit my comment for some reason, oh well.