
FCC explains how net neutrality will be protected without net neutrality rules - rbanffy
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/12/voluntary-net-neutrality-will-protect-consumers-after-repeal-fcc-claims/
======
simplify
The key piece of the article:

> Consumer advocacy group Public Knowledge said that the FCC/FTC plan will not
> protect consumers from ISPs.

> “Not only is the FCC eliminating basic net neutrality rules, but it’s
> joining forces with the FTC to say it will only act when a broadband
> provider is deceiving the public,” Public Knowledge VP Chris Lewis said.
> “This gives free rein to broadband providers to block or throttle your
> broadband service as long as they inform you of it.”

There are literally zero pro-consumer reasons to repeal net neutrality. It
will only make the rich guys richer.

~~~
ateesdalejr
What's wrong with rich guys becoming richer? Isn't that the entire process of
capitalism? Someone else will come along and topple the monopoly right? If the
ISPs cause problems for the consumer there will be a large amount backlash so
much so that nobody is going to want to use the ISP. Woops there goes another
monopoly.

Most everyone here is a capitalist I'm quite sure of it. You can try refuting
your capitalist roots but any one person could say the same of yourself, "Why
does that really rich overpaid programmer get all of that money. Let's repeal
'profession neutrality' and take his means to make money away." What are you
going to say in response?

~~~
lovich
They have a physical monopoly in this case with access to the wires. A startup
can't just roll out their own network everywhere, even with unlimited capital,
due to the legal rights needed to lay that cable. You also can't choose to not
use them anymore as they have become an integral part of society. Many things
you used to do in person can only be done on the internet now. At this point
there is no functional difference between paying protection money to a gang or
paying the ISPs. Your business will be trashed, your own personal livelihood
can be destroyed due to lack of internet access, and the government will back
up the isp if you fight it in any way.

That is why it's bad that all this does is make the rich richer.

~~~
X86BSD
Google fiber is a perfect example. Google for gods sakes couldn’t make an
entry. They tried! Google! And barely got into a handful of cities and a very
small portion of those cities to boot. If google can’t become a competitor no
one else stands a chance in hell. That’s just the reality. Maybe wireless tech
will change that but I’m not holding my breath. Even with MM wave stuff.

------
exabrial
What they should have said was "FCC explains how net neutrality will be
protected without Title II"

I know it's not a popular opinion around HN, but I'm not a huge fan of Title
II.

EDIT ====

IMHO, better alternatives are having the FTC require 100% transparency on all
information disclosures (how they use your traffic data), 100% transparency on
network management practices, and 100% disclosure of agreements with content
producers. Personally, I'd rather have all of that than Title II.

~~~
kelnos
> IMHO, better alternatives are having the FTC require 100% transparency on
> all information disclosures (how they use your traffic data), 100%
> transparency on network management practices, and 100% disclosure of
> agreements with content producers.

What does that solve? An ISP that is forthright about how it screws over its
customers is still screwing over its customers.

(And please, no vapid "but other ISPs can offer better service and win"
arguments. No, they can't. There is no healthy market competition in ISP-land,
and there isn't going to be.)

~~~
exabrial
In the immediate term, I'll grant you, not a lot. But these regulations stay
around forever. When we regulated the crap out of Bank transfers we ended up
with ACH. At the time, it was revolutionary.

But in the year 2017, we still can't transfer money instantly without credit
checks being involved.

The internet has thrived thus far as a free market. While I agree 'something'
should be done to preserve the competitive nature, I don't think Title II is
the answer.

~~~
natecavanaugh
Also, as any EULA shows us, it's not that hard to hide in plain sight, as most
people won't read those disclosures and they'll be such a fire hose of
information, that it will still require people to reveal this info and get
people motivated to do anything about it, if they can.

I'm not saying those aren't valuable (I think we should have them), and I
agree that premature regulation can choke future growth, but I think we would
need some fundamental regulation to actually prevent the worst fears. Maybe
exclusivity limits on ISPs that lay the groundwork so they can recoup costs,
and even collect some rent, but still allow others to compete on that
groundwork.

I'm sure this had all been debated ad nauseum, and there will always be some
reason why any decent idea will be argued against. But I think if we can try
to find some way align ISPs and customers incentives, it'd be far better than
the current situation.

~~~
exabrial
EULA's are not what I'm talking about. If I get a bill for $5 from my wireless
provider because I went over the messaging limit, I want to know when those
messages were sent. ISPs should be held to the same standard. If I go over
some limit and I'm throttled, I want to know when.

------
maxxxxx
How difficult is it to implement for ISPs net neutrality and check whether
it's implemented? Just wondering. It is really "burdensome"?

~~~
redshirt
From a technical standpoint it’s far easier to be net neutral than throttle
traffic which takes processing power, energy, and programmer time to do so.
This is entirely about the ISPs making yet more money.

~~~
jws
Just imagining life as an ISP in a network neutral world…

What do you need to have in place if someone alleges you are not neutral? Your
accuser might present well collected evidence that Hulu performance to your
customers is worse than Netflix's performance. You will then claim "but we
didn't do it, it is just the luck of the draw on how we choose to buy
interconnect bandwidth". Is that good enough to protect you? How can you prove
you didn't choose the interconnects to screw Hulu?

So there is a burden. If there is no requirement, even if you never take money
to slow down someone's competitor, you are relieved of this burden.

~~~
mindslight
It's generally hard to prove a negative, but for this topic simply not having
a DPI machine on your network resolves most of the question - route the packet
and be done. The remaining constructive hazard is easily analyzed by whether
specific links are habitually overwhelmed or not - private peering and edge
cache boxen are _optimizations_ , with the service yardstick still being the
generic full Internet routes.

------
oceanswave
Looking forward to the local, last mile communications monopolies to promise
nothing for effective higher prices.

~~~
oconnor663
Slight nitpick: Even in a world with net neutrality rules, last mile
monopolies can still charge high prices.

~~~
Johnny555
They can up to a point, but when prices get too high, then it becomes
attractive for other last-mile carriers to come in (like fixed wireless). So
even an entrenched monopoly can't abuse its power too far.

------
redshirt
When will America wake up and realize that it is living with a government
bought and paid for. It is an oligarchy, plain and simple. Screw the consumer,
wanna repair something in America, I hope you have a degree in electrical
engineering and are good at micro soldering. Are you sick, want healthcare,
hah, good luck if you’re poor. Wanna lodge a complaint against somebody, file
charges for a crime? First thing police will do is ask the address and then
they’ll go...hmm, that’s the rich neighborhood, excuse me ma’am we need more
evidence that a crime was actually committed, if it’s a poor neighborhood
they’ll just go shoot somebody or lock them up for good. This is America, the
Idiocracy for rent. I’m being sarcastic, but at this point, you know what,
when I watch the news it seems quite true.

~~~
chmaynard
I totally agree. How does this relate to the FCC chairman? Like Trump, his
public statements are lies. Debating about lies is fruitless. We need to focus
on on the task at hand: removing Trump and his gang from power as quickly as
possible.

