

F.C.C. Chairman Adds More Ambiguity to His Position on Network Neutrality - doctorshady
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/15/f-c-c-chairman-adds-more-ambiguity-to-his-position-on-network-neutrality/

======
ihsw
Personally I recommend reading the actual FCC blog entry before voicing your
outrage or relief:

[http://www.fcc.gov/blog/ensuring-open-internet-now-and-
futur...](http://www.fcc.gov/blog/ensuring-open-internet-now-and-future)

It's far more well-written -- and notably prescient -- than the NYTimes blog
post.

That said, AT&T's "Sponsored Data" announcement _ahead of_ the court's ruling
is very interesting and I would not at all be surprised that both events have
resulted in a _Sword of Damocles_ [1] hanging over the FCC -- or, more to the
point, we are all holding our breaths anticipating a final clarification of
policy.

Most notably is that the growth of the internet has been _mostly_ organic
where regulation has been scarce, however I would be fairly content with
reducing the impossibly tight grip of telecom monopolies in municipal
environments. The Chairman touches on this saying that broadband is terribly
scarce, and attempts to exert pressure on such monopolies could have
unintended side-effects -- most notably reduction in service to customers.

That is a valid concern that's very difficult to approach, however I believe
competition should be enforced in larger municipalities (>1M population) and
'sponsored data' initiatives would be more suited for mobile broadband
services.

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damocles](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damocles)

~~~
jessaustin
The FCC link certainly articulates a laudable set of principles, but it seems
rather late in the game for platitudes. If FCC don't have an actual policy
reaction to the ruling yet, when do they plan on having one? Do they expect
the Republicans to retake the Senate this year? Maybe they'd like to see
another presidential election? What's the hold-up?

I'm not surprised to see the self-serving "very high fixed costs and very
large minimum efficient scale" canard floated again. Of course backbones and
other fiber networks are costly, but astute observers will note a great deal
of competition in _that_ market. It's only in the first mile that competition
is lacking, and FCC are largely to blame for that fact.

We have the radio tech we have because it is the radio tech the FCC has
allowed. If they hadn't been dragging their feet on white spaces for a decade,
the USA's abysmal placing on all the broadband lists would never have come
about. Only in the most crowded urban areas should consumers and most
businesses be connecting through anything other than a WISP. There is no
economic driver for WISPs to be large, so lobbyists and other FCC hangers-on
wouldn't make as much money from them. WISPs operating in unlicensed space
would take millions of dollars out of the pockets of MNOs, CATVs, and ILECs,
and give that money back to consumers, so again there would be less money for
corruption. Damn, now I've almost convinced myself it will never happen.

ps. that footnote seems _really_ unnecessary.

~~~
dragonwriter
> The FCC link certainly articulates a laudable set of principles, but it
> seems rather late in the game for platitudes. If FCC don't have an actual
> policy reaction to the ruling yet, when do they plan on having one?

Presumably, they are first reviewing with the details of the ruling with their
legal team and assessing the prospects of appeal (and appeal strategy, whether
to file with the US Supreme Court, or file for _en banc_ review by the full DC
Circuit.) Should they appeal, there won't be need of a "policy reaction" to
the present court decision, because the policy will be the policy already
adopted in the _Open Internet Order_.

------
equalarrow
"..the F.C.C. will intrude on the activities of network operators in ways that
will damage them economically with injury to them and to their ability to
offer more and improved service"

I don't get it, what could you do to damage them economically? All these big
network guys make money hand over fist for crappy service. No one I know loves
Comcast or Verizon or AT&T. No one.

We've come as a country that invented the Internet to somewhere way down on
the list of openness and speed. It's obvious why this is. We have some of the
(if not the) most expensive connectivity for lowest speed in the world.

I have to laugh at 'improved service' and I guess I would if the whole thing
were not just such a major let down.

