
GOP Bill Would Prohibit FCC From Reclassifying ISPs as Common Carriers - atomicfiredoll
http://techcrunch.com/2014/05/29/house-republicans-look-to-curb-fccs-authority-to-enforce-net-neutrality/
======
zanny
I like how an industry that exists in its current state due to local monopoly
grants and subsidized infrastructure deployment (and billions in taxpayer
money for infrastructure never built) wants a "free market".

I'd love one too. I'm just wondering how you have a free market where market
access requires digging up everyones front yards and roads. Almost like how
"hmm, I want to start a rail / aerospace / automotive / etc) transport system
of any kind. I want to build a better sewer system. Or water system. Or
electrical grid. And all these industries require transports that go through
private property.

And all of the _other_ ones are considered common carrier infrastructure.

Maybe the real problem is that townships and such can dictate who can lay
fiber cable. Would it be feasible for companies to run fiber to the home if
they had to ask each private property holder to let them lay the lines in
their yards? That doesn't happen now because townships et al would intervene
and not let people do what they want with their land, even if you could dodge
ever touching public property with a line deployment. I wonder how that would
work.

Thing is, these assholes aren't suggesting anything like that. They just want
monopoly power and extortion rights to hold back progress and innovation for
generations while robbing people.

~~~
rayiner
> I like how an industry that exists in its current state due to local
> monopoly grants and subsidized infrastructure deployment (and billions in
> taxpayer money for infrastructure never built) wants a "free market"

The vast majority of the existing fiber-coax cable networks were built with
private money after exclusive cable franchises were made illegal in 1992.

------
rayiner
> "Reclassification would heap 80 years of regulatory baggage on broadband
> providers, restricting their flexibility to innovate and placing them at the
> mercy of a government agency."

He's not wrong. Title II is the worst kind of 1970's era regulatory framework,
the kind we've been trying hard to leave behind since the Reagan. It was
initially penned in 1934, for a world where AT&T was government-sanctioned
monopoly. Worries about investment in the telecom sector were not applicable,
because AT&T was guaranteed monopoly returns in consideration for being
heavily regulated.

If you impose monopoly-era regulations without the security of having an
actual monopoly, all you'll do is turn telecom into an investment ghetto. Who
will want to invest tens of billions of dollars into "dumb pipes," just so
software/internet companies can take all the profits because they're not
regulated?

Note that countries that have gone the way of regulated telecom infrastructure
didn't just impose common carrier regulations on existing privately-funded
networks. E.g. when British Telecom was privatized, the government devised a
system to guarantee that they would get substantial returns on their
investment, and wrote those terms into the prospectus for private investors
who bough the stock.

~~~
jrochkind1
Where I live, along with where many people live, Comcast is pretty much
indistinguishable from an 'actual monopoly'.

You think someone's going to invest tens of billions of dollars to try and lay
down parallel wires to all of comcasts to compete with them? And would this be
an efficient use of social resources?

You think Comcast is going to invest tens of billions of dollars into
upgrading their infrastructure already, when they are already the only choice
their customers have for broadband?

~~~
rayiner
If municipalities would let them, I do think companies will lay down wires to
pick off the high-end of the market from existing companies. Where I'm moving
to in Baltimore, several high-end apartment buildings are wired with FIOS,
even though the city wouldn't let Verizon wire more parts of the city.
Competition like that will do a lot to encourage existing companies to upgrade
their networks.

Moreover, you're taking a very narrow view of "competition" here. The average
Comcast customer uses something like 2-3GB/month of data. That's easily
accommodated by wireless. Demand for wireless data is exploding right now, not
so much demand for wired data. That's real competition for Comcast.

~~~
jrochkind1
So if you wanted good service beyond what is easily accomodated by wireless,
you'd have to live in a 'high end' neighborhood?

Also, I'd like more information on the city not 'letting' Verizon wire
Baltimore. It's possible this is what's going on, but the coverage I've seen
is that Verizon simply chose not to, presumably because their market analysis
was that it wouldn't be profitable enough. (I live in Baltimore too).
[http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Baltimore-Still-
Begging-V...](http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Baltimore-Still-Begging-
Verizon-for-FiOS-123588)

------
delinka
I paint myself as conservative. So I don't think we need more laws on the
books protecting corporate interests. Play in a proper capitalist market (that
indeed includes protections for consumers) or GTFO.

~~~
eli
Other self-described conservatives would argue that's just what this bill is
doing: preventing the FCC from unduly interfering with the ISP/content
delivery market.

------
Alupis
This is not really a "GOP Bill". It's really one Representative's bill.
(perhaps influenced by the big5 isp's)

I doubt it will go anywhere.

(Let's not let partisanship get in the way of net neutrality folks.)

~~~
ceejayoz
He's the Vice Chair of the House Subcommittee on Communications and
Technology.

~~~
Alupis
That does not matter. In the USA, House Representatives can draft their own
bills at any time.

Now, if a huge portion of the party co-signs or sign-support of the bill, then
it would be fair to call it a "GOP Backed Bill". But right now, it's not.

~~~
dragonwriter
How about if a huge portion of the party had already both overtly stated
support for what the bill does and voted in favor of bills with near identical
substance (explicitly prohibiting the FCC from adopting neutrality
regulations) every time the FCC has proposed net neutrality regulations?

I mean, its not yet as well-worn a thing as Republican bills to repeal the
Affordable Care Act, but...

------
vaadu
As much as I want fierce competition in this industry, the House of
representatives is elected and the FCC is not.

IMHO all US regulations that have the force of law should have to be passed by
both houses of congress to be legal.

~~~
Alupis
> IMHO all US regulations that have the force of law should have to be passed
> by both houses of congress to be legal.

They do. House and Senate both have to approve, then comes the possible veto
by the pres.

~~~
pdonis
He's talking about regulations made by executive branch agencies, not
statutes. Take a look at the Federal Register:

[https://www.federalregister.gov/](https://www.federalregister.gov/)

Everything in there is regulations that were never passed explicitly by
Congress or signed by the President. Congress passes laws giving broad
regulatory guidelines, and executive agencies then write the detailed
regulations that actually matter. The FCC is one such agency.

One could argue (and I would not disagree) that this is not really what the
people who wrote the US Constitution intended. But it's how the system
currently works.

------
vampirechicken
Two questions: 1) Do you think the Democrats will not filibuster this bill in
the Senate? 2) Do you think the President will sign it or veto it if it makes
it to his desk?

------
dang
Although net neutrality is on topic here, this story seems just to be
ephemeral political churn, which is off topic here.

