
FCC Releases Open Internet Order - revscat
http://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-releases-open-internet-order
======
grellas
U.S. law fundamentally rests on the idea of checks and balances and a division
of power so that no one person or body can easily enact or execute laws that
are against the interests of the people. The legislative branch enacts laws,
the executive branch laws executes them, and the judicial branch interprets
them.

In the modern era, when a law requires complex administration, its enactment
by the legislative branch does not end the process of defining what the law
will be and how it will function. For any complex area, an administrative body
is set up to implement and administer the law in its details. That means
appointing bureaucrats who take the broad mandate of the law and give it life
by applying it to the countless details that actually affect people's lives.
So, the tax laws specify broad enactments saying that people must pay income
taxes, estate taxes, excise taxes, etc. But the IRS exists to give those laws
life and to promulgate a mountain of regulations that tell us when this is
that item constitutes an item of income or a deductible expense or an
exemption from this or that, etc., etc. Of course, under the way that U.S. law
works, any such agency must be given full authority to exercise discretion to
give reasonable interpretations to whatever legislative enactments set up the
statutory authority under which it functions. At the same time, the power of
the agency is strictly limited to working within that statutory authority.
Within its bounds, the agency has vast powers; outside its bounds, it can do
nothing.

Thus, the essence of administrative law is the idea of reasonable discretion
to promulgate and enforce regulations to see that the law's underlying
purposes are fulfilled. The power of the bureaucrats who make such regulations
is _enormous_ , as long as they stay within their bounds. And courts routinely
accept this. So long as the regulations adopted by the bureaucrats are deemed
to be within their bounds, and not deemed to be acting arbitrarily or
capriciously or without rational basis, the courts defer to the bureaucratic
judgment and uphold whatever they do.

And so we now have the FCC of "we will censor this and that" and of "we will
revoke your license for this or that" fame being entrusted with broad powers
to regulate the internet, powers that could be legally used to do all sorts of
things deemed abhorrent and restrictive of freedom but as to which the agency
assures us it will use voluntary restraint in exercising.

This, I believe, is hardly a sure foundation upon which to base a long-term
hope of assuring a free and open internet.

I do believe, given the political climate, that it will be a short-term
solution for guaranteeing "net neutrality," whatever that means exactly.

But, in our federal system, amid the various ways the idea of net neutrality
might have been won and protected, the worst imaginable way from a conceptual
standpoint is to say that internet freedom can best be guaranteed by giving
broad discretionary power to bureaucrats to do what they will within the
nebulous confines of a communications act enacted 80 years ago that did not
even contemplate modern technology as we now know it. This is the very act
that has been most characterized for decades now by an orgy of lobbying by one
competitive group or interest or another to gain this or that advantage over
others and whose crowning glory appears to rest in a mountain of endless
litigation over what this or that may mean in the act.

I have purposely framed the above comments with multiple "this or that"
references because that is the whole idea behind a nebulous bureaucratic
framework: it can morph and shift in ways scarcely imaginable as time passes,
as vested interests mount campaigns for their pet issues, and things get
carved up by insiders with the nominal aim of protecting consumers but with
the normal goal of carving up the booty for those who have the biggest stakes
in the process.

Even in this thread (and many others like it), we already see vigorous debates
over the meaning of this or that interpretation and of the motives behind
them. This is all deemed safe for the moment because it is discussing an issue
over which people are passionate, an issue which is right before us, and an
issue over which each of us believes we have sound reasoning that ought to be
adopted in the current debate.

But take that same process, extend it to a whole range of issues that the FCC
might now address, add to the mix the vigorous energies of everybody and his
uncle who has a stake in getting this or that competitive advantage on the
issue, and then toss it to the courts to sort out who is right, well, you then
have a lethal brew that in my view leaves us vulnerable to future abuse that
is hardly trivial but affects the very essence of how a free and open internet
ought to function.

Remember, you always believe the "good guys" will be in charge. But give
enough unrestricted power to any governmental agency with very few checks on
that power and the "bad guys" may then run wild with what you have done, much
to your chagrin.

I realize this is a very unpopular position in this forum. But it has to be
said. I truly hope I am wrong in my concerns.

~~~
digikata
The alternative is that your only last-mile private broadband provider is in
complete control of your link to the internet, and you can't even begin to
have a say in how the link is managed...

Markets with multiple private competitors end up the most efficient, but when
you exclude a government based solution, what do we do about critical markets
without competition?

~~~
gojomo
Very few places in the US have "only" one last-mile provider. Most have 2 or
more wired, and 3 or more wireless options. (The wireless isn't usually cost-
competitive for bulk HD video yet... but will get there in another 5-10
years.)

Running new wires is also always possible. It'll be even easier now, with a
richer society and new automation, and municipalities less likely to offer
monopoly franchises, than the cable deployments of the 60s-80s.

Bits are bits, and the ways to deliver them to any point on the planet keep
growing. Any brief advantage one medium or company may have – such as cable &
Comcast at this precise moment – can disappear quickly. And will disappear
even faster if they try to abuse their power, providing an easy
motivational/marketing/profitability hook for competitive alternatives.

~~~
Spooky23
Huh? Wireless isn't a legit broadband solution, and 2+ wired situations are
very rare for residential service.

Large swaths of the remote state of New York are in precisely this
circumstance. Verizon has essentially abandoned POTS, and _many_ places cannot
provision new DSL service, or can only receive very low speed DSL. Outside of
the FIOS footprint, the cable company is it. In some cases, you can subscribe
to an unbundled cable offering and get 10/1 EarthLink cable service for $4
less than 25/2 Time Warner.

~~~
gojomo
Why isn't wireless 'legit'? Monkeybrains is wiring up much of San Francisco
with service that's ~300Mbps (6X Comcast's best) for $35/month. My T-Mobile
LTE gets 20-45Mbps throughout my apartment. Yes, it's more expensive – as I'd
mentioned, not yet cost-competitive for lots of HD video watching. But it's
good for everything else, and getting better.

Almost everywhere has both cable and DSL options – that is, two providers, not
"only" one. Some places have more than one cable option – including my
previous SF address. And more wires can be run: for example Google Fiber, or
even actual Ethernet cabling.

By all means, add new options to areas with limited choices! Use antitrust, or
have localities take steps tuned to their needs. But forcing a unified,
commodity-like national regulated-service model on the whole industry doesn't
run any new wires or add any consumer options... it only adds constraints &
compliance costs for potential new entrants.

~~~
jacquesm
Rural areas are completely different from large metropolitan areas like San
Francisco in this respect and vast chunks of the US have only one provider for
the last mile creating de-facto monopolies. The money isn't there to keep
multiple sets of infrastructure going which in turn leads to exorbitant
pricing for the customers of the one remaining option. And due to the
distances involved and lack of 3G/4G coverage in those areas the other obvious
option is usually also in short supply.

~~~
gojomo
In my experience, rural (but still populated) areas have great wireless
coverage in the US – the networks have plenty of places to put their towers,
and the service is uncongested. Wired service is more hit-or-miss.

Still, if the problem were in fact limited rural options, for the minority of
citizens who live in rural areas, the fix would be new options for them, or
regulations of their monppoly provider – not new federal rules and
discretionary oversight for _every_ ISP, including those in urban areas with
vigorous competition.

------
rektide
Are the dissenting opinions available?

The FCC delayed this release, declaring that they were obligated to respond to
dissenters and that they were going to hold off releasing until dissenters had
written up their opinions and they could prepare a rebuttal. (This strikes me
as a surprisingly sensible, all-cards-on-the-table governance model, rather
than an ongoing media-frenzy feeding blow-by-blow release.)

It pains me greatly knowing that Google worked hard to get a piece of this
document dropped. Alas due to a lack of transparency and openness among the
FCC and Google's discussion, we'll never have more than faint rumormongering
to do here, but in tandem to "Broadband Internet Access Services" it seemed
like there was to be another leg of openness, "Broadband Subscriber Access
Services." Google not only got to know what was being proposed but got to get
it dropped before the public had any idea what was under consideration here.
[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/02/26/net_neutrality_rules...](http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/02/26/net_neutrality_rules/?mt=1426176998774)

To me it comes off as a denigration of the public by the FCC and Google, and
the scant evidence about is hard to interpret as anything but subterfuge and
sabotage done at the very last minute. A more transparent process would have
been appreciated- rather than this "Government as a Service" model of building
regulations and applying them, I'd like to have seen the FCC use some
transparency and openness in their creation of these regulations to bootstrap
regulations better meeting the public mandate.

I expect most registered, official dissent is going to focus on the FCC doing
too much, and that no one is going to dissent saying these protections fail to
address core points. But gee do I want to know what was in the 15 "Broadband
Subscriber Access Services" pages the FCC dropped at the last minute, and why
Google lobbied to drop them.

~~~
smutticus
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.

~~~
intrasight
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
> The market handed them a monopoly

Local governments handed them a monopoly.

[http://www.wired.com/2013/07/we-need-to-stop-focusing-on-
jus...](http://www.wired.com/2013/07/we-need-to-stop-focusing-on-just-cable-
companies-and-blame-local-government-for-dismal-broadband-competition/)

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
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
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?

~~~
ssmoot
They each have meaningful competition. I'm not sure what your definition of
"monopoly" is if it includes companies like those.

~~~
gojomo
Almost everywhere in the US, almost every ISP faces at least 4 (and often
more) alternative ways to get on the internet. How is that a "monopoly"?

Compared to Google or Apple, Comcast has a smaller market cap and smaller
profit margins – and profit margins are a more reliable indicator of market
power than eyeballing whether the competition looks "meaningful".

~~~
mfisher87
>Almost everywhere in the US, almost every ISP faces at least 4 (and often
more) alternative ways to get on the internet.

When you typed "ISP" is that supposed to mean "customer"? Citation?

Against whom is Comcast competing? I know very few people who can choose even
between Comcast & AT&T. It's widely known that Comcast colludes with other
cable companies (Time Warner) to avoid competition.

You're using a straw man argument. "Comcast is a monopoly." "Hey, look over
there at something unrelated to your statement! Therefore, Comcast faces
competition."

------
sschueller
The phrase "lawful content" occurs 32 times.

"No-Blocking. First, we adopt a bright-line rule prohibiting broadband
providers from blocking lawful content, applications, services, or non-harmful
devices."

So I guess that means they can block thepiratebay.com, wikileaks or any
content congress deems unlawful.

Couldn't these new rules be applied to the Chinese internet and nothing would
change? The great firewall only filters what is not lawful.

~~~
smutticus
This gets brought up on HN whenever these rules get mentioned. The point is
that the FCC cannot stop ISPs from blocking unlawful content. If an ISP is
under some other obligation to block unlawful content these FCC rules cannot
overrule that.

That's really all that's going on. By using the term 'lawful content' the FCC
is limiting the scope of their rules, nothing more.

~~~
wnevets
Your post makes sense and I don't wanna make it sound like I'm disagreeing
with you but can't this be used as a launching point by congress to start
deeming new internet content as unlawful?

~~~
snowwrestler
Congress does not need a launching point from the FCC; Congress can pass
whatever law they want, whenever they want. It might later be found to be
unconstitutional, but until then it will be the law.

Congress can overrule the FCC; the FCC cannot overrule Congress. That's why
the "lawful" language in FCC rules does not matter much.

~~~
sigzero
Exactly right.

------
arh68

      Today we include packet loss as a necessary
      part of the network performance disclosure.
    

Interesting! Wireless carriers could definitely compete on that..

    
    
      The 2014 Open Internet NPRM tentatively concluded that we should require 
      that broadband providers disclose meaningful information regarding the 
      source, location, timing, speed, packet loss, and duration of network 
      congestion. As discussed above, we continue to require disclosure of actual 
      network speed and latency (as in 2010), and also require disclosure of 
      packet loss. We decline at this time to require disclosure of the source, 
      location, timing, or duration of network congestion, noting that congestion 
      may originate beyond the broadband provider’s network and the limitations 
      of a broadband provider’s knowledge of some of these performance 
      characteristics.

------
vlan0
I saw so many people complaining about how this would increase taxes. Yet, the
full details of the ruling had yet to be seen by the public. Now they can eat
their words.

37\. "Nor will our actions result in the imposition of any new federal taxes
or fees; the ability of states to impose fees on broadband is already limited
by the congressional Internet tax moratorium."

~~~
neonhomer
It won't be taxes, it will be the ISP's that raise rates.

~~~
wmf
I don't know why this was voted down. If ISPs are not allowed to double-bill
or drop packets, it's likely that they will increase prices (or not increase
speed while keeping prices the same, which amounts to an increase over what it
should be).

~~~
wtallis
Who said anything about not letting ISPs drop packets?

------
tubbs
Here's the portion about unlawful content I was waiting for (page 132m para.
304), with the parts I found especially interesting italicized:

"In the NPRM, we tentatively concluded that we should retain the definition of
reasonable network management we previously adopted, which does not include
preventing transfer of unlawful content or the unlawful transfer of content as
a reasonable practice.782 We affirm this tentative conclusion and re-state
that open Internet rules do not prohibit broadband providers from making
reasonable efforts to address the transfer of unlawful content or unlawful
transfers of content to ensure that open Internet rules are not used as a
shield to enable unlawful activity or to deter prompt action against such
activity.

 _For example, the no-blocking rule should not be invoked to protect copyright
infringement, which has adverse consequences for the economy, nor should it
protect child pornography._ We reiterate that our rules do not alter the
copyright laws and are not intended to prohibit or discourage voluntary
practices undertaken to address or mitigate the occurrence of copyright
infringement.783 After consideration of the record, we retain this rule, which
is applicable to both fixed and mobile broadband providers engaged in
broadband Internet access service and reads as follows: Nothing in this part
prohibits reasonable efforts by a provider of broadband Internet access
service to address copyright infringement or other unlawful activity.

305\. _Some commenters contend that this rule promotes the widespread use of
intrusive packet inspection technologies by broadband providers to filter
objectionable content and that such monitoring poses a threat to customers’
privacy rights.784 Certainly, many broadband providers have the technical
tools to conduct deep packet inspection of unencrypted traffic on their
networks,785 and consumer privacy is a paramount concern in the Internet age.
Nevertheless, we believe that broadband monitoring concerns are adequately
addressed by the rules we adopt today, so we decline to alter this provision._
This rule is limited to protecting “reasonable efforts . . . to address
copyright infringement or other unlawful activity.”786

 _We retain the discretion to evaluate the reasonableness of broadband
providers’ practices under this rule on a case-by-case basis. Consumers also
have many tools at their disposal to protect their privacy against deep packet
inspection—including SSL encryption, virtual private networks, and routing
methods like TOR._ 787 Further, the complaint processes we adopt today add to
these technical methods and advance consumer interests in this area.788"

~~~
nickodell
One part I found particularly interesting:

>In the NPRM, we tentatively concluded that we should retain the definition of
reasonable network management we previously adopted, which does not include
preventing transfer of unlawful content or the unlawful transfer of content as
a reasonable practice.

What about cases where an ISP can't tell? For example, if a user is using
encrypted BitTorrent, could an ISP block it on the basis that 89% of files on
BitTorrent are illegal? [1]

[1]: [http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2010/07/only-03-of-
files-...](http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2010/07/only-03-of-files-on-bit-
torrent-confirmed-to-be-legal/)

~~~
AnthonyMouse
That's what concerns me about the rules. It's kind of a bait and switch. First
they say that it isn't permissible to block "lawful content", which is
actually quite reasonable because it's hard to complain about something that
blocks _exclusively_ unlawful content. But then we get this insanity from the
quoted portion above:

"Nothing in this part prohibits reasonable efforts by a provider of broadband
Internet access service to address copyright infringement or other unlawful
activity."

Which is a total inversion of the principle. Instead of allowing blocking only
when you're sure it's only blocking unlawful content, it's purporting to allow
blocking of unspecified amounts of entirely _lawful_ content as long as it's
part of "reasonable" (whatever that means) efforts to address unlawful
activity. It's a loophole you could fit a carrier battle group through.

------
eck
> 30\. But this Order does not apply the open Internet rules to
> interconnection.

TLDR: Relax, Comcast. You can still intentionally let all your transit ports
saturate every evening so Netflix will blow unless they pay you to peer. Which
is what you really wanted to do.

~~~
madanosliw
But Netflix (or their service provider) probably should be paying to peer. The
problem is that Comcast is also in the media game so they have an incentive to
use the peering as leverage against a competitor. An ISP should be able to
make technical decisions on how they connect to other networks. Unfortunately
the big oligopo-ISPs make those technical decisions based on desires other
than having an optimal network.

~~~
eck
My point is that they ban explicit prioritization yet ISPs can achieve the
exact same result through network topology. It's a huge loophole.

Put another way, if I pay Comcast for XX mbps, it should be possible for some
company to send me data at XX mbps without paying Comcast. Otherwise what
exactly am I paying for?

One solution would be to _force_ last-mile ISPs to designate a location for
each customer (for example "all Manhattan subscribers => 60 Hudson St") where
Netflix etc could peer without settlement only with those customers. Comcast
doesn't have to carry Netflix's traffic across the country, just from the
nearest IX to the customer. If the customer monthly fees don't cover _that_ ,
what exactly _are_ they paying for? Any VOD offerings from Comcast would be
required to routed through the same points, without routing preference over
3rd party traffic like Netflix.

In some sense, that would be a light version of forced cable leasing, since
instead of movies, a service could offer a vpn/tunnel to general internet
access with better transit provisioning than the last-mile ISP.

~~~
MichaelGG
OK, I want to send you XX mbps and you want to receive it. You pay Comcast. Am
I now entitled to a free connection?

It seems that the real complication is the Comcast has such a huge marketshare
that they don't need to be competitive on peering. Whereas if they had real
competition, then subscribers would drop Comcast and go with an ISP that peers
better.

~~~
wmf
In that situation Comcast has two choices: they can receive that traffic via
free peering or they can buy transit to receive it.

~~~
MichaelGG
Cool, so you buy 1Gbps from Comcast. Then request 1Gbps from 10 different
networks, each day, for a month. So you're saying Comcast should setup free
peering on the order of 300Gbps just to service you?

And buying transit is even cooler! Let's do this, you go signup for 1Mbps from
Comcast, then I'll put a server on my own ISP and you can go force Comcast to
buy from me. I charge $1000/Kbps.

~~~
wmf
There are many ISPs that offer transit, so Comcast can choose which one(s) to
buy from.

The Comcast/Netflix intentional congestion thing actually happened and caused
actual harm, so I'm not sure why you're responding with trolling.

~~~
MichaelGG
I know. So why is Comcast obligated to connect to discount ISPs like Cogent?
Just because Netflix decided to buy connectivity from them? What's stopping
Netflix from buying connectivity from MyISP (who only has a single FastE
connection to L3), then demanding Comcast peer or pay with me? What's so
special about Cogent, or HE?

~~~
wmf
I don't think Comcast should be obligated to connect to any particular ISP.
But every ISP along the chain needs to provision enough capacity that there
isn't congestion.

------
supergeek133
Situational/real world situation comment.

Take the scenario where Comcast never allowed HBO Go access on PS3 and more
recently PS4. Do these rules apply to that?

That's the kind of stuff real consumers are interested in.

~~~
Igglyboo
That was due to a DNSSEC misconfiguration, it had nothing to do with net
neutrality. The misconfiguration affected android devices as well.

~~~
dublinben
You seem to be mistaking the newly launched HBO Now for the existing HBO Go
service. Comcast continues to block the latter on certain devices, even for
paying customers.

------
jamiesonbecker
Dissenting Opinions:

FCC Chairman Pai:
[http://www.fcc.gov/article/fcc-15-24a5](http://www.fcc.gov/article/fcc-15-24a5)

FCC Chairman O'Rielly:
[http://www.fcc.gov/article/fcc-15-24a6](http://www.fcc.gov/article/fcc-15-24a6)

------
0x09
This part sounds neat

> Section 254: Promoting Universal Broadband. Section 254 promotes the
> deployment and availability of communications networks to all Americans,
> including rural and low-income Americans—furthering our goals of more and
> better broadband.

The FCC has been running pilots related to this under the existing Lifeline
program, but nothing has materialized yet. Seems they're taking seriously the
U.N. report that regarded Internet access as a basic human right.

[http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/low-income-broadband-
pilot-p...](http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/low-income-broadband-pilot-
program)

~~~
ctdonath
Note that the FCC recently redefined "broadband" to >=25Mbps.

Note that the term "broadband" has largely disappeared in last-mile ISP
advertising. (I briefly talked to AT&T about it a la "I signed up for
broadband, but am not getting anywhere close to 25Mbps", rep got vague about
what was promised.)

This all may provide interesting consequences. By redefining, suddenly large
swaths of the country which have & are generally satisfied with 3-20Mbps
connections are suddenly "without broadband" and subject to renewed FCC
bureaucratic campaigns to bring them out of such third-world conditions.

------
petecooper
>FFC published full Net Neutrality rules [pdf]

Typo in title: FFC should be FCC.

------
ForHackernews
So where are all the people who in the last thread[0] were so very concerned
that the FCC was "hiding" the rules? Are you satisfied?

[0]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9113976](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9113976)

------
remarkEon
For the sake of not reading things in a vacuum, linked is the _Verizon v. FCC_
opinion for further context.

[http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/3AF8B4D93...](http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/3AF8B4D938CDEEA685257C6000532062/$file/11-1355-1474943.pdf)

------
Shivetya
Going to have to withhold judgement on this document until better minds have
their time with it. While I agree with rule that providers may not establish
preference with regards to content I am mostly concerned with the idea it
takes four hundred pages to document this requirement.

~~~
tzs
It takes 8 pages. See Appendix A, which is the actual rules. All the rest is
commentary, analysis, historical background, and something like 80 pages of
dissents by the Republican Commissioners.

------
adelevie
I put together some quick and dirty scripts for searching the text of the
Order: [https://github.com/adelevie/open-internet-
order](https://github.com/adelevie/open-internet-order).

------
Rhapso
mirror:
[http://gateway.ipfs.io/ipfs/QmNRGTQjo6FGjD3JHZUrDsqwxucCz63Y...](http://gateway.ipfs.io/ipfs/QmNRGTQjo6FGjD3JHZUrDsqwxucCz63YiJi9jzg4P9Gzc7/FCC-15-24A1.pdf)

------
Randgalt
These are the rules today. Another FCC on another day will change the rules.
400 pages will become 4000. There is no end to this. It's a sad day.

~~~
rubbingalcohol
The "free market" failed when telco companies started flexing their monopoly
muscle to punish their competitors. In the U.S. we have a rich history of
regulating monopolies, and these companies brought it on themselves with their
inability to behave like good corporate citizens.

"Free markets" should be limited when they obstruct the liberty of the
majority of the public or limit competition on a massive scale. This creates
deadweight loss which is an economic net negative.

Imagine if, six months after moving to a new house, your electricity bill
doubled because you were no longer in the "promotional period." Your electric
company claims there's a free market, because you're free to install solar
panels. Comcast et. al are no different than other local monopolies. Their
claims of providing a "vibrant and innovative" broadband market are laughable
when you look at the far superior state of broadband in other countries.

The cable companies were acting like a cartel of corporate thugs, they openly
defied the government's ability to do anything about it, and they got served a
massive dish of justice. All because the people spoke out and pushed the
government to act in their interest. This is a great moment for American
activism and democracy.

~~~
Randgalt
The Cable Cos have a government granted monopoly. No free market there. The
simplest solution is to eliminate this monopoly.

------
oh_sigh
*FCC

------
emeraldd
Any chance someone could fix the title? It should be FCC shouldn't it?

~~~
dang
Thanks! (Submitted title was "FFC publishes full Net Neutrality rules".)

------
freeasinfree
Pai's dissent touched on a point no one I've talked to has considered: the
hundreds of tiny carriers--mostly WISPs--across the US who might/will be
affected by this. They can barely compete against big telco and cable as is.

~~~
wmf
Brett Glass has written quite a bit about the WISP perspective, but my
interpretation is that WISP networks are so limited that they can only compete
if they lie about either their speeds or about how much of the Internet
they're providing access to. I don't want competition that bad.

------
dang
Url changed from
[http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2015...](http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2015/db0312/FCC-15-24A1.pdf)
via
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9191125](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9191125).

------
supergeek133
Oh thank god, all I've been asking for is to read this. BRB.

