
Tech firms write to U.S. FCC to oppose 'net neutrality' plan - dthal
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/05/07/us-netneutrality-companies-idUSBREA4615420140507
======
DigitalSea
I think as has always been the case, money talks more then words ever could in
a political system. If these 100+ tech companies each put in a few dollars,
they would have enough lobbying money to swing the argument in the right
direction. We are only at the current point in the anti-net neutrality
argument because ISP's and telecommunication providers have been lobbying
Washington rather successfully.

It's a sad fact he with the biggest cheque book wins, especially when it comes
to reform. Look at the whole music/movies piracy argument, it extends as far
back as the late nineties; publisher groups, the likes of the RIAA suing
people and skewing the legal system by throwing money at the right people who
have the power to vote and act upon such decisions. It's happening all over
again, except this time the repercussions will be far worse then any anti-
piracy bill.

I'm not saying lobbying is the only solution, but if the entities on the wrong
side of the argument are doing it, does it matter if Google, Amazon, Facebook
and other companies issue statements and express concerns to congress if it
will only fall on deaf ears or be brushed off as a selfish act?

It kind of reminds me of when Labor were in power in Australia before the
recent election and were in the process of rolling out the National Broadband
Network (NBN) which was a fibre to the premises plan the current party has
basically scrapped. Google Australia issued a statement saying the current
Government needs to understand the value of such a network, but they were
shrugged off. If they opened up their cheque book and started donating to
particular Government interests and districts, would they have been taken more
seriously? Maybe.

~~~
rayiner
You don't think Google, Amazon, Facebook, etc, lobby?

This isn't just a matter of throwing money at the right people. Its part of a
larger ideological debate about how to regulate the telecom industry. The
trend over the last 20 years at the FCC has been rooted in conservative
economic thinking. Deregulate the industry, use auctions to allocate spectrum,
etc. The 1996 reforms didn't achieve everything it was billed to, but the fact
is: 1) at the end of the day, Washington views it as largely successful; 2)
the state of the internet in the U.S. is competitive with other large western
countries:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7709948](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7709948).
The telcos certainly don't lack numbers to point to to show the
competitiveness of the U.S. industry under the existing regime.

Net neutrality is a hard sell because it goes quite against the prevailing
thought at the FCC. It has the support of many netopions, but not really among
the mainstream/conservative economists that carry the most weight in these
policy debates.

The internet companies need to lobby, sure, but they also need a "hook." And
"openness" and "neutrality" which are words that resonate in Silicon Valley on
their own are not ones that resonate in Washington.

To compare, look how the environmental movement has responded. Environmental
groups don't talk about "conservation" and fuzzy ideas like that, not anymore,
not in Washington. They talk about externalized costs and concrete economic
phenomena that justify regulation. The tech industry needs to ground net
neutrality in something like that.

Incidentally, this is part of a debate that has been raging for 30+ years.
Telecom and wireless regulation has spawned thousands of journal articles and
thesises. Politicians don't read these things, of course, but they're hugely
influential to the technocrats that do the first draft proposals. At least to
the extent they can back ideological viewpoints with a theory-based narrative.

~~~
mullingitover
> The internet companies need to lobby, sure, but they also need a "hook." And
> "openness" and "neutrality" which are words that resonate in Silicon Valley
> on their own are not ones that resonate in Washington.

What about 'unleash competition in the ISP industry'? This seems like a really
easy sell--the infrastructure business is a natural monopoly, but there is no
good reason to allow the infrastructure owner to control who can serve bits
over it. Our current situation is like your power company getting to decide
what devices you can plug into your outlets (and trying to shake down device
manufacturers for permisson to use the outlets).

~~~
lifeisstillgood
That is the best and clearest "anti" argument CI have heard in a long time

Lobby on this one folks

~~~
NicoJuicy
There is a faster way, use their own weapons against them:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7714204](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7714204)

------
dsr_
Hey, can someone rewrite Reuter's headline for them?

These companies don't oppose Net Neutrality. They oppose Wheeler's anti-net-
neutrality plan.

~~~
crindit
I read the story twice and was none the wiser... Who was FOR net nutrality,
and who was against? From previous knowledge I knew, but from the text it was
impossible to say!

~~~
josephlord
Everyone is for "net neutrality". The monopoly ISPs would like to redefine it
as they don't mind who gives them money to avoid deliberately degraded
connections.

------
adamnemecek
Apparently, Wheeler (the FCC chairman) used to work as a lobbyist for the
cable and wireless industry
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Wheeler_(lobbyist)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Wheeler_\(lobbyist\))).

That seems as a bit of a conflict of interest.

~~~
tzs
For cable, he was president of a major industry trade group that did lobbying,
but that was from 1979 to 1984, which I believe predates the existence of
cable ISPs. The internet then was still for research and military use.

~~~
rayiner
Right. He was a lobbyist for the NCTA up to the year I was born, back when
cable networks were just basically coax wires carrying OTA signals.

Most recently, he was a managing director at Core Capital Partners, which is a
VC firm that invests in a bunch of internet/cloud computing early-stage
companies: [http://www.core-capital.com/portfolio.aspx](http://www.core-
capital.com/portfolio.aspx).

Arguably, his strongest bias should be towards internet companies, not against
them.

~~~
lawnchair_larry
No, nobody can make that argument. And you're leaving out where he was CEO of
the CTIA for 12 years until 2004. I encourage you to look at the patents for
companies where he has a board seat. He's extremely biased to network
operators.

------
stdgy
Link to letter: [http://cdn1.vox-
cdn.com/assets/4422119/letter_to_FCC.pdf](http://cdn1.vox-
cdn.com/assets/4422119/letter_to_FCC.pdf)

Can anyone spot any big names that are absent, other than Apple?

~~~
nknighthb
Adobe, Valve, game companies in general, Akamai, Salesforce.

By all rights, Cisco, Juniper, Foundry, etc. should be on there, since
neutrality means more business for them, but they can't piss off their biggest
customers.

It's an impressive list, but there are a lot more big names in American tech
than that.

~~~
nness
I would imagine that an absence of neutrality is still well within Cisco's
interests — its an opportunity to design and sell a whole new class of
products and services specifically around throttling and limiting traffic.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
Not necessarily. The current brand of neutrality violation seems to be an ISP
allowing its peering connection(s) with transit providers to languish while
charging large content providers like Netflix a fee to get a separate
uncongested connection to their customers. That doesn't require a lick of
packet inspection hardware and it involves the ISP buying _less_ Cisco gear
because they no longer need to carry packets from all the smaller content
providers who wouldn't/couldn't pay and either went bankrupt or saw less usage
as a result of the degraded performance.

------
justinph
The letter stops short of asking the FCC to classify broadband and the
internet with common carrier status. Bummer.

[http://cdn1.vox-cdn.com/assets/4422119/letter_to_FCC.pdf](http://cdn1.vox-
cdn.com/assets/4422119/letter_to_FCC.pdf)

~~~
pdkl95
Easy fix - just let the anti-porn faction of the religious-right go after the
carriers. If they don't want to be "common carrier", then they can be
responsible for the content, too.

And no, I don't mean trivialities like copyright that they managed to get
immunity from by passing the DMCA. IF they want demonstrate how strongly they
control _what is allowed through their network_ , then they must be the
responsible party. There is not shortage of stuff on the net that - in the
eyes of paranoid parent - "obviously" fails the Miller Test.

If Comcast/etc really wants to play hardball, this idea can be extended to
include all the child pornography they are surely trafficking. I'm sure they
will the strict liability being used in such cases by some judges.

There are a lot of reasons to _want_ common carrier status, before you even
get into the easy stuff like copyright and "streaming movies", and a giant
line of people just waiting for just this kind of opportunity.

------
drawnalong
Can someone with a bit of knowledge help me get a grip on Mozilla's Net
Neutrality plan? I'm reading through this:

[https://blog.mozilla.org/netpolicy/files/2014/05/Mozilla-
Pet...](https://blog.mozilla.org/netpolicy/files/2014/05/Mozilla-Petition.pdf)

and the blog announcing it:
[https://blog.mozilla.org/netpolicy/2014/05/05/protecting-
net...](https://blog.mozilla.org/netpolicy/2014/05/05/protecting-net-
neutrality-and-the-open-internet/)

Anybody think this is a bad idea? Seems to be a safer bet than the more
dangerous brush strokes others are painting the issue with.

------
NicoJuicy
If tech has balls, they can get net neutrality back fast (couple of days):
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7714204](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7714204)

------
blazespin
I'd like to see those 100 firms contribute to a co-op ISP which competes in
the most profitable markets of Comcast and AT&T, etc.

------
vinchuco
In case you want to spread the importance of this to the general public,
there's a simple video from vihart:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAxMyTwmu_M](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAxMyTwmu_M)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7711635](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7711635)

------
seacious
It seems significant to mention that the tech firms are opposing _ineffectual_
net neutrality plans. Not opposing net neutrality.

edit: formatting

------
bchaney
You think the people in politics understand the idea of "net neutrality" LOL.
I'd be surprised if most Senators/House members knew the difference between
USPS and email. Now if you were to tell them that the internet would go away
unless they contributed $100mil maybe they'd open an IE6 window to Wikipedia
to understand whats going on.

------
kokey
Since this has been dragging on for about a decade now, what has been the
effects in the US? Also, will net neutrality force cable companies to unblock
port 25?

------
silveira
Would be better says to oppose the "fast track" plan.

------
callesgg
Dont know if this law is for or against, however the moment My isp starts
charging both sides i would switch.

That is not what i pay for.

I would assume in the bigger picture this would not be very good for ISP's

~~~
Omniusaspirer
While I'd do the same, due to the monopolistic nature of ISPs in the US they
wouldn't have much choice beyond moving to a new location. As much as I'd like
to think everyone else is like me and able to relocate easily I know that
isn't the case for the _vast_ majority of people.

------
liotier
One set of corporate overlords is taking our side to enlarge their own
coffers. Rejoice, peons !

------
knodi
So is this really going to get Wheeler to stop the push? I don't think so the
broadband provider have their hands up his ass up to his mouth.

Fuck you Wheeler.

