
Stop the FCC from Breaking the Internet - moonlighter
http://www.savetheinternet.com/sti-home
======
aylons
In related news [1], Brazil has just sanctioned net neutrality law :
[http://www.engadget.com/2014/04/23/brazil-passes-internet-
bi...](http://www.engadget.com/2014/04/23/brazil-passes-internet-bill-of-
rights/)

Not only that, but also the telcos tried to smooth it out, saying they could
still charge differently, and the president herself said "no, you can't".

[1] Really, no sarcasm here.

~~~
Fuxy
And this is why the US won't be a super power for much longer however they
will resort to insanely crazy laws in a desperate attempt to exploit and
suppress their own population before they die.

~~~
happyscrappy
Some technical people are amazingly inept in world affairs. For the
foreseeable future you will have to suffer under Pax Americana.

------
rdl
There is a reasonable argument for not wanting the FCC involved in setting
technical policy for how a carrier runs its own network. It is at best
disingenuous to claim "net neutrality regulation" is the only way to save the
Internet.

Yes, I want the initial effects of net neutrality (mainly cheap access to
comcast by CDNs and major hosting providers)

If someone builds a non-monopoly network, perhaps via multi-dwelling metro
ethernet or fixed wireless, I _want_ that network to be able to implement
whatever QoS they want. If that means 155M links to buildings with 500
subscribers and some kind of local CDN node for video content which is "free"
and QoS on other traffic, that's a win for consumers.

The correct place for requiring neutrality is when local governments negotiate
with carriers for any monopoly rights. In exchange for a geographic monopoly
on laying infrastructure, it would be reasonable to demand reasonable-and-non-
discriminatory access to the network.

From a practical perspective, local governments are probably too technically
and generally incapable of negotiating with big companies like Comcast, but
that's a problem we're already facing. Model contracts would probably help
with that, or state regulators.

~~~
brokenparser
There may be some misconceptions here, so I'll clarify a few things just in
case:

1) Net neutrality doesn't mean everyone gets the exact same speed. ISPs are
free to offer a plethora of offerings each with their own price, speed and
extras (if any). There are also no new guarantees to subscribers, i.e. if the
wiring is crap deal with it.

2) CDNs have nothing to do with net neutrality. A typical large ISP will offer
co-location services and content providers may use the service the same as any
other customer. There can even be other arrangements as they see fit, but the
important thing is that no one messes with the tubes.

3) Again, just in case because this is brought up a lot, ISPs can still offer
filtered subscriptions. There's a market demand for filtered subscriptions and
catering to that demand is fair game.

4) ISPs are still free to apply filters on traffic in the interests of
maintaining their network. This is important for example when dealing with
(D)DoS attacks or worm outbreaks.

Net neutrality levels the playing field for content providers, so if you get
VoIP from your ISP the service may still be better than that of a given
competitor by virtue of having less latency. But what the ISP cannot do is
artificially inflate their advantage, as doing so would be in violation of a
free market on the Internet.

 _EDIT_ : disambiguated things

~~~
icebraining
_But what the ISP cannot do is artificially inflate their advantage, as doing
so would be in violation of a free market on the Internet._

Can we please stop using this term, please? It's pretty clear that we can't
agree on a definition of "free market"(¹), so we might as well stop using it.

(¹) For many people, the idea that one must restrict the ISP and subscriber's
freedom of contract to preserve the free market is a logical contradiction.

~~~
brokenparser
Yes, there's no one true definition of a free market but to say there's a
logical contradiction rather strikes me as a jump to conclusions. What I meant
was, impeding the flow of packets to or from competing networks prevents _free
trade_ on the Internet. It's easy to get the two mixed up, but the parallels
between net neutrality and the rise of free trade in the 18th and 19th century
seem realistic imho. I'm no historian though, merely biased by being on the
content provider side of the fence.

------
higherpurpose
I thought this was an interesting article on the subject - "The FCC’s New Net
Neutrality Proposal Is Even Worse Than You Think":

[http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/04/24/fcc_s_new...](http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/04/24/fcc_s_new_net_neutrality_proposal_is_even_worse_than_you_think.html)

------
zimbatm
Didn't the FCC lack the authority to enforce net neutrality laws ? Why would
it be different now.

[http://mediafreedom.org/2013/08/net-neutrality-governing-
via...](http://mediafreedom.org/2013/08/net-neutrality-governing-via-
loopholes/)

------
001sky
Seems there is zero chance the incumbents will spurn the TV-monopoloy people
in an election year.

------
gojomo
The Internet is not a delicate flower that must be either rescued by, or
rescued from, the 5 national-political-party functionary lawyer/lobbyists on
the FCC.

It's a fluid force of nature unleashed by digital technology. Companies that
add tolls that don't come with commensurate value will be washed away by
alternate-path competition.

Government should punish deception and break up monopolies (especially those
its own rules and franchising have created). It should open more wireless
spectrum. It shouldn't be designing service packages or determining what's
"commercially reasonable".

~~~
kansface
What competition?

~~~
gojomo
20 years ago, no one had any broadband options. Now, most places have at least
2 wired options, plus 2 or more increasingly-competitive wireless options.

Policy on spectrum and wires should aim to increase those options, not dictate
the technical workings of ISPs, or limit the contractual design-space of
private companies.

If abuse materializes, so will opportunity. There's a glut of capital to build
more paths - towers, blimps, drones, fiber loops - if there's profit to be
made and no local or federal barriers to new models.

~~~
kumbasha
If what you say is true, then no one should be upset at the impending
Comcast/Time Warner merger.

------
bowlofpetunias
I'm getting deja vu...
[http://savetheinternet.eu/](http://savetheinternet.eu/)

------
icebraining
This title sounds like those who write "keep your government hands off my
Medicare!"

Net Neutrality regulations may be good, and they may even "save" the Internet,
but it's not their inaction that will break it. If anything, it's the ISPs'
actions.

------
tomelders
Perhaps the us should consider unlimited terms for presidents. That way you
don't have situations where incumbents have nothing to lose in their second
term and no incentive to fulfill their promises. Or maybe not, I'm just
throwing that out there.

~~~
rdl
Or, one of the two houses of Congress could have strict term limits (e.g. 3 x
2 year terms of the House), so Representatives are more willing to act in the
interests of constituents or the greater public rather than re-election at
least periodically.

(Or a single, possibly six year term for the President). I think political
scientists have proposed and analyzed all of these variations.

------
theexpedience
Government control of the internet. It's like government control, but on the
internet.

I am bewildered when I see freedom types suggesting that a federal agency (!)
is going to grant them more freedom by controlling the services they use.

~~~
kumbasha
I don't see why that's so hard to believe at all. The federal government, at
least in theory, is accountable to its citizens since the citizens vote for
their government. The Board of Directors of Comcast, however, is something
that no citizen anywhere has any power over whatsoever. Why would you choose
the latter scenario, in which you have zero power in principle and in
practice, versus the former scenario where you have some power both in theory
and in practice?

------
laurent123456
It's funny that a website apparently dedicated to this issue doesn't mention:

\- which rules are supposed to kill net neutrality.

\- how do they kill it? (by "picking winners and losers online"???)

Well hopefully Wikipedia will be more informative.

~~~
r0h1n
Except that it's not funny. There is a menu choice called, "Issues", under
which lies this: [http://www.savetheinternet.com/net-neutrality-
resources](http://www.savetheinternet.com/net-neutrality-resources)

------
blazespin
What we need is more competition not more regulation.

~~~
sk5t
Or, we could take the entirely reasonable step of declaring ISPs to be the
common carriers that they obviously are.

~~~
icebraining
That just changes the question from "why should we regulate ISPs" to "why
should we regulate common carriers".

~~~
kumbasha
Fortunately we already have many decades of detailed legal answers to the
latter question.

~~~
icebraining
It's not a legal question, so the legal answers are not relevant. We know that
it is legal to do so, that doesn't mean we should.

------
virb
Only Nixon could go to China; only Obama could establish a tiered internet.

