
FCC Chairman: This Is How We Will Ensure Net Neutrality - Libertatea
http://www.wired.com/2015/02/fcc-chairman-wheeler-net-neutrality/
======
mikegioia

        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!

~~~
MAGZine

        These enforceable, bright-line rules will ban paid prioritization, and the blocking and throttling of lawful content and services
    

of 'lawful content and services'. I don't mean to ruin a good thing, but is it
implied here that ISPs may become the gatekeepers? I don't want what happened
to YouTube (automatic content blocking because it's "unlawful") to take place
with the general internet. One of the most important aspects of the internet,
in my own opinion, is an unfiltered, uncensored stream of data.

I'd be very cautious about what shaping we permit to our network traffic. Laws
are fickle, knowledge is power.

~~~
Someone1234
I think you're reading a LOT more into that than was actually said.

All he is saying is, if an ISP gets a court order, that they can then block
access to content like they do now, and the FCC won't go after them as a
result.

It isn't a new power or an expansion, just continuing the current situation
that exists.

------
legutierr

      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.

~~~
eggnet
How then, with this powerful backstory, did Wheeler choose not to unbundle
last mile access?

The cable networks are still closed.

~~~
gnoway
I wonder about that too. In my mind at least, there is a distinction between
requiring neutral treatment of traffic routing through a network and requiring
an operator to let a competitor hook up their equipment in your facilities and
sell a competitive service using infrastructure you laid.

The latter IMO is a lot less fair, even though my personal experience is that
I had more choices for service when it was done w/ DSL.

~~~
pyre
The latter makes sense for DSL, but most of the cable monopolies are not
government-granted at the Federal level. Some localities have a cable
monopoly, but the local government is responsible for that.

Yes, the cable companies have gotten government hand-outs to build out
infrastructure, but teasing apart which of that was public and private money
(and therefore which would be 'fair' to force open) would be a nightmare.

~~~
eggnet
Many things that are worth doing are difficult. This is one of them.

~~~
pyre
My point was mostly that the argument for doing so w/ DSL is more cut-and-dry
in that most/all of the infrastructure was laid under a nation-wide
government-granted monopoly. The Federal government weighing in on the matter
makes sense.

~~~
eggnet
I agree with you except where you imply that the Federal government weighing
in on cable doesn't make sense.

------
notdonspaulding

        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
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...

------
nostromo
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
What? The Netflix/Verizon paid peering agreement was a fast/slow lane issue,
was it not?

~~~
0x5f3759df-i
Or Comcast blocking/throttling all bittorrent traffic? \

[http://www.cnet.com/news/comcast-really-does-block-
bittorren...](http://www.cnet.com/news/comcast-really-does-block-bittorrent-
traffic-after-all/)

~~~
cheald
That actually was a fast/slow lane issue, and you may remember that was
resolved without additional regulation or legislation.

------
evanb
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.

~~~
revscat
For what it's worth, it was linked to from Drudge.

~~~
jgrowl
This is the real reason. You can go to any article that is linked on drudge
and you will see the exact same kind of comments.

------
cjslep
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".

~~~
dragonwriter
> 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.

~~~
coldpie
The unspoken next step will be the dozen lawsuits from Verizon, AT&T, etc.
Comcast's actions actually seem to be on the right side, here, though maybe
that's simply a side-effect of their NBC merger terms.

~~~
nandhp
And Comcast still wants to merge with Time Warner, so there will be a certain
amount of playing nice (at least for a while).

------
shortformblog
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
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
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.

------
Eric_WVGG
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...](http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/obamas-bad-pick-a-
former-lobbyist-at-the-f-c-c)

“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
Yeah I think it's time more than a few people eat a little crow.

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

~~~
bluthru
I couldn't imagine if Romney was in office right now...

~~~
jarin
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
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
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.

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

~~~
subway
That's my (rather depressing) understanding.

I still dream of a non-profit or municipal cable plant, serviced by multiple
ISPs. The last mile is a natural monopoly, and we need to stop pretending
otherwise.

~~~
rmac
Wireless last mile might be an option if the FCC actually opens up the 3.5ghz
"innovation band" : [http://www.fcc.gov/blog/35-ghz-new-ideas-innovation-
band](http://www.fcc.gov/blog/35-ghz-new-ideas-innovation-band)

~~~
wtallis
That proposal seems to be for a 150MHz block. If you try to offer broadband
speeds to multiple customers simultaneously with that little spectrum you'll
end up needing to use cell sizes so small that it would essentially become a
fiber to the curb deployment, at which point you might as well finish off with
a handful of ethernet segments instead of several radio links that won't work
well.

~~~
rmac
LTE seems to work well enough with less bandwidth (~60MHz). However I'm not
sure what kind of range you can get with 3.5ghz. Surely at least a few city
blocks?

~~~
wtallis
LTE works well by the standards of its predecessors, when constrained by
draconian data caps and overage charges. It is completely unsuitable as a
replacement for wired connections like VDSL and DOCSIS.

------
pnathan
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.

~~~
0x5f3759df-i
The lobbying has been in full effect for a year, looks like they already lost
this one.

~~~
noobermin
I'm curious, how much effect do lobbyists have on the FCC, since they aren't
exactly elected officials?

~~~
dragonwriter
> 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.

------
gdne
> 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.

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

Translation?

~~~
rayiner
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/022207BrusselsCom...](http://www.pff.org/events/eventpowerpoints/022207BrusselsComm/Crandall.ppt).

[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.

~~~
angersock
You appear to be quite against this (judging by your other posts on the
matter). The fact remains that the current system is not going to hold, and
that left to its own devices will end up with a bunch of walled gardens and
other issues.

I agree that it is wise to be wary of regulation in this case--but honestly, I
think it's time we at least experiment. The market and regulatory forces at
play have basically forced themselves into this position.

~~~
rayiner
My complaint is that everyone's ignoring the economics of the situation. What
becomes apparent if you dig into the numbers is that there's no money in
building these networks, at least at scale--they are justified only when
there's a money-making opportunity with respect to the content flowing through
them. Historically, this has been the cable video service that brings in the
lion's share of revenue. Even with Google--I have yet to see a story for the
profitability of Fiber that isn't predicated on the nexus with Google
services.

You can't legislate-away economics. If you make cable and fiber networks into
an unattractive investment, nobody will invest in them, and they'll go on
life-support just like the phone network. Cable companies will pivot to
content, like Comcast is already doing with its purchase of NBC. The vacuum
won't be filled, because at the end of the day no VC is going to put up
billions of dollars to eke out shit returns on a heavily-regulated service.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
> What becomes apparent if you dig into the numbers is that there's no money
> in building these networks, at least at scale--they are justified only when
> there's a money-making opportunity with respect to the content flowing
> through them.

It seems like the crux of your argument is that it costs something like
$60/month to provide internet service and $20/month on top of that to provide
TV service but they charge $50/month for each, so they wouldn't be profitable
without the TV service. But who is setting these prices?

Is there some law that requires them to charge a money losing price for
internet service and then make it up on TV service? Why don't they just charge
a profit-making price for internet service?

~~~
rayiner
The market sets the prices of the services at what people are willing to pay.
If the cable companies could charge more for internet than they are now, don't
you think they would? People are willing to pay a lot more for television
service,[1] so if the product you're selling is TV+internet, you can charge
enough to justify building a modern fiber/coax network. If it's just internet,
you probably can't, at least not in many places.

[1] In my building, in downtown Baltimore, I can get 50/15 FiOS for $50/month,
no cap but no TV service, or triple-play cable at 50/5, capped for $109 per
month. Almost everyone subscribes to cable rather than FiOS.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
I don't get your argument. You seem to be saying that if the internet-only
plan is made too expensive then customers will subscribe to the not very much
more expensive TV+internet plan. Isn't that what they want customers to do?

~~~
rayiner
No, in this hypothetical the net neutrality advocates have won decisively and
the cable companies are in the business of building "dumb pipes."

~~~
AnthonyMouse
So you're proposing there is no TV+internet package available from the ISP,
they offer only internet and you get your TV from someone like Netflix.

If the ISPs at this point charge a price for just internet service that makes
offering that service profitable, what are you expecting customers to do? Go
without internet service?

------
dantheman
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_
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
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.

------
karatekidd32v
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
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
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.

~~~
d23
I don't think people should be downvoting you, but I think you're conflating a
bunch of things.

For radio, the broadcasting space is limited and multiple people broadcasting
onto the same frequencies would ruin it for everyone. By your standard, why
haven't they started censoring telephone conversations? The pressures that
brought the FCC into putting those regulations in place just don't make sense
for the internet.

~~~
innguest
> multiple people broadcasting onto the same frequencies would ruin it for
> everyone.

Let's see who is conflating things. Enforcing the rights of frequency band
owners has nothing to do with needing an FCC. All you need is regular
enforcement of property rights. If someone has a right to use a frequency and
someone else is disturbing that right then they will be prosecuted according
to the law. Just like with land.

Ok, so what's the problem with the FCC? If I find a frequency that is
unassigned (no current owner) and unused (no current squatter) then I _can 't_
start using it (homesteading) and I _can 't_ acquire property rights from
mixing my labor with it. Instead, I have to go to the FCC and hope they
approve me for broadcast license; and they will approve it or not depending on
their political opinions about what I am going to be saying in that frequency.
Also, broadcasting licenses are non-transferable so I can't buy your license
even if we both agree on the transaction - the FCC needs to vet me first. This
is a huge problem, as I hope you can see. That means the government must
approve of my message before I can say it. It is an impingement on free
speech. If people could yell high enough that others could hear without
needing radio waves (websites = yelling high enough) then the government would
want to curb that too (and indeed it is, with Net Neutrality).

Hopefully this clarifies my point.

> why haven't they started censoring telephone conversations

Because it is usually two-way, with both parties usually being part of the
government's tax farm (ie. regular folks), in which case there's more in it
for the government if they record our conversations than if they censored it
(which would make people weary of communicating, and harder for the government
to spy on its citizens).

Also the telephone is usually one-to-one communication, not one-to-many like
radio stations, tv channels and internet websites. So the damage from unwanted
information getting out to the public at large easily, and therefore the need
to censor it, are almost non-existent.

And just to clarify for the impolite person below, Karunamon:

By censorhip I don't mean censoring existing stations. I mean disallowing
stations from ever coming to be, because the FCC disagrees politically with
the folks asking for a broadcast license. The public at large ends up losing
out, because they have only government-approved stations to listen to, and
never get to hear _truly dissenting opinions_. This is curbed free speech.

As for the excuse that one must get a license to prove they are technically
capable, a technical test would suffice, just like a technical test suffices
for handling guns. The government can't choose not to give guns to people of
certain political opinions, but it can choose not to give broadcast licenses
to those people. That's what's wrong. If you own a frequency and it is
disturbed you have the right to sue and collect reparation from the person who
disturbed your property. The FCC is not needed for this just as there's no FCC
for land - if someone disturbs your land you call the police.

------
delinka
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-
lob...](http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/02/why-the-ex-cable-lobbyist-
running-the-fcc-turned-against-his-old-clients/)

------
someITguyWI
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
I would imagine it means anything that is not legislated to be unlawful.

------
zirkonit
Holy shit. We did it.

~~~
joncp
There's a republican congress that will shut this down. No we didn't.

~~~
dpierce9
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.

~~~
joshuaheard
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.

~~~
hackuser
> 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.

What about the extremist anti-regulatory positions of many in the GOP? Not
every Republican thinks that way, but enough to do generate a lot of noise and
elect a substantial portion of Congress.

~~~
joshuaheard
It's true my first reaction was against internet regulation. If it ain't
broke... However, I read his statement, and his decision seems well
considered. And, the regulations are in the direction of ensuring openness. My
biggest concern is that now that there is regulation, it can go in any
direction in the future.

------
jrochkind1
> 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.

------
nickthemagicman
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'?

~~~
robkix
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
Is it fair to call it regulation when the corporation benefits? (regulation
tends to mean "regulation against corporations")

~~~
dragonwriter
> Is it fair to call it regulation when the corporation benefits?

Yes. Most regulation benefits some corporations, because there are very few
regulatory issues where there aren't corporations on all sides of the issue.

> (regulation tends to mean "regulation against corporations")

No, it doesn't. There is certainly a particular faction that sees regulation
as inherently "anti-business", and a popular association of business =
corporation, so I can see how that idea would come about, but its not at all
what regulation _means_.

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

------
toast0
"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.

------
jalopy
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-...](http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/06/we-dont-need-net-
neutrality-we-need-competition/) to see how unbundling would have been best
for the consumer; without it, looks like the wireless co's win big actually.

~~~
organsnyder
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.

------
Animats
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.

------
cheald
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
> 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.

~~~
cheald
> It should allow them to be consistent about it and rate-limit everyone
> evenly, which would have the same effect.

That's an allocation of about 450kbit/sec (~56kb/sec) down per seat on a 737
assuming the plane is outfitted with GoGo's latest tech. Upload would be a
tiny fraction of that. It's in everyone's interest to disallow high-throughput
usage while permitting burstable high-bandwidth low-throughput usage.

"Bright line" rules that no type or source of content may be discriminated
against by carriers only make sense if bandwidth is not a scarce resource.

~~~
acdha
> It's in everyone's interest to disallow high-throughput usage while
> permitting burstable high-bandwidth low-throughput usage. > "Bright line"
> rules that no type or source of content may be discriminated against by
> carriers only make sense if bandwidth is not a scarce resource.

There's no reason to believe that this couldn't be solved with some variation
of fair queuing with bursting and since that's content and source neutral
because it applies to all users equally.

This is a basic network admin skill and the technology is already pervasively
deployed – in the 90s, 56kpbs was the speed you assumed for the average home
users and businesses used to have a hundred people behind a 1.5Mb T1. The only
challenges since then have either been extreme scale or the more expensive
things the major ISPs have tried to do to throttle traffic selectively.

------
wnevets
> 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
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
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
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
Does the FCC currently have rules that allow the blocking of "illegal"
traffic?

~~~
dragonwriter
The FCC currently has no rules on blocking, so providers can freely block
legal and illegal traffic.

(The FCC adopted non-blocking rules for lawful content and applications in the
previous Open Internet Order that was struck down by the courts.)

------
gxs
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.

------
marssaxman
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.

------
kevinchen
> 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
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.

------
grecy
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
I think it's more a justification to explain why non-elected officials are
putting laws into motion.

------
bmoresbest55
This is very nice but I hope that it will be able to withstand the impending
lawsuits by the ISPs. One can only hope.

------
kordless
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.

------
CSMastermind
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?

------
forgotAgain
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
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%2...](http://mises.org/sites/default/files/Man,%20Economy,%20and%20State,%20with%20Power%20and%20Market_2.pdf)

------
datashovel
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.

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

~~~
superobserver
[http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/002367.h...](http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/002367.html)

>>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.

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

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

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

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

~~~
jamiek88
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.

------
sudioStudio64
Turns out that the cable company screwed him too...nice. This is turning out
to be great news.

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

------
sparaker
Good to see someone make an effort in this regard.

------
my3681
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-
Enc...](http://www.theodorerooseveltcenter.org/Learn-About-TR/TR-
Encyclopedia/Capitalism-and-Labor/The-Elkins-Act.aspx) [3]
[http://books.google.com/books?id=g-pCAAAAIAAJ&dq=elkins%20ac...](http://books.google.com/books?id=g-pCAAAAIAAJ&dq=elkins%20act&pg=PA201#v=onepage&q=roosevelt&f=false)
[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-...](http://www.fiercetelecom.com/story/broadband-now-
defined-25-mbps-fcc-says/2015-01-29)

------
xophe
Tom Wheeler for president

------
innguest
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
Are you going to elaborate, or just leave it as a snarky comment?

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

~~~
IanDrake
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
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
Sure they will, but they won't blame themselves.

