
The FCC voted to start the process of eliminating net neutrality rules - Santosh83
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/05/net-neutrality-goes-down-in-flames-as-fcc-votes-to-kill-title-ii-rules/
======
kem
Is this a surprise? Pai has made it abundantly clear he doesn't care what
consumers think. Maybe I'm being too cynical, but the idea he would respond to
their concerns always seemed naive to me.

~~~
shmerl
He might not care, but big amount of negative responses can help beat him in
court, when FCC will be sued for repealing Net Neutrality. If it will be
demonstrated that FCC acted against public interest, courts can simply prevent
this idiocy from happening. It also helps the Congress to understand that
people pay attention aren't buying the monopolistic koolaid.

So, please comment if you care.

~~~
pvnick
Be careful of wishing for judicial oligarchy, because when it happens you may
not enjoy what it looks like.

~~~
lostcolony
You prefer the Rule of Pai? I think I'd prefer the multiple court of appeals
process to determine whether the FCC discharged its duty, rather than an
uncontested decision by Pai that clearly goes against what the people want, in
defiance of the duty the FCC is charged with.

~~~
pvnick
I prefer the rule of nobody but the consumer. That's what markets are for.

~~~
orthecreedence
Jesus Christ, here we go again.

If you "free market" types figure out a way to get ten different companies
competing on _public fiber_ in 100 different cities across the US, then I'll
finally listen to this argument. Until then, realize that _there is no
market_. It's a monopoly.

Stop dismissing consumer protection with a wave of your magic market wand when
you really have no idea what you're talking about.

~~~
disgruntledphd2
Local loop unbundling seems to work pretty well in the EU (at least we appear
to get cheaper, better internet).

[http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:l...](http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:l24108j)

This doesn't really help in low-population areas though, as there's little
incentive for anyone to update the lines.

The result of the regulation is a mostly healthy market in consumer ISP
service, which is weird.

------
zerocrates
> But Chairman Ajit Pai is making no promises about reinstating the two-year-
> old net neutrality rules that forbid ISPs from blocking or throttling lawful
> Internet content, or prioritizing content in exchange for payment.

Well, that's good, because it would make no sense if he _was_ promising that.
The current net neutrality rules from 2015 only work in the context of Title
II classification; that's why they went together. The FCC already tried to do
net neutrality under some more tenuous authority it had back in 2010, and it
lost at the D.C. Circuit. This is why we got reclassification in the first
place.

~~~
zerocrates
The article does actually say basically this much further down, when
discussing Clyburn's dissent:

> Despite seeking public comment on whether to impose new net neutrality rules
> without the use of Title II, the Republican majority did not propose the use
> of any specific legal authority that could enforce such rules

------
jsat
My _hope_ is that the highly tech dependent area I live in (Seattle) will
force the market to keep an open internet. We have enough competition to
ensure that, I think. However, that won't be the case for millions of
Americans across the country. This is awful, but I think the outrage will
eventually remedy the problem if telecoms overstep. Though telecoms may try
more subtle means of manipulating traffic, which could be worse. Ugh.

~~~
greglindahl
I live in a big apartment building in downtown Palo Alto, and I have the
choice of cable company (fast) or phone company (slow). The % of Americans who
have more choices is quite tiny... you're extremely lucky if you have even 2
fast choices!

That said, it would be awesome if Seattle did have enough competition to have
a completely different market from elsewhere in the US: imagine the cable
company trying to explain why they have wildly different offerings in places
with and without competition.

~~~
existencebox
That is, literally, the current situation. I moved from Baltimore to Seattle.
I paid for Comcast for a time in both locations (in Baltimore it was the ONLY
option, in Seattle you usually have 1-1.5 other options)

At least the year I moved, I went from 69$ for ~55 down 5 up to 50$ for
something like 100 down 10 up. (Yes it was the "promotion rate" but I played
that game on both sides.) Over the years Comcast played the same "Ratchet up
the rates" game, and eventually I got a house specifically with the mindset to
'not have comcast' and moved to an area with I believe 3 broadband choices. I
now pay 50$ for I believe ~400 down (was originally 250 but they've been
sneakily upgrading their system, wave is fucking amazing). On top of that
service reliability is MUCH better, support is _fantastic_ and I have much
less concern that my ISP is doing something scummy.

Monoplistic local practices taking away any incentive for consumer friendly
offerings is not a hypothetical, it is the reality for large swaths of
america.

------
blackflame7000
Zero-Rating has always struck me as a blatant loophole in net neutrality. If
an ISP throttles bandwidth on resources that are not zero rated due to
overages, aren't they effectively skirting the core principle of net-
neutrality? Bigger companies can buy more media and thus zero-rate more
content than the little guys. This was the driving force between the
AT&T/Time-Warner merger.

~~~
otoburb
Zero rating is about billing (i.e. giving away for free certain content), not
bandwidth throttling. It used to be called 1-800-Data in the early days
because carriers likened the concept to toll free phone lines.

Conceptually, consumers aren't up in arms about toll free phone lines. I'm
surprised Pai hasn't brought that up yet.

Bandwidth throttling specific sites would be a more serious concern (à la
Netflix and Verizon). Bandwidth throttling certain types of content (e.g.
steaming video) seems to be the border that carriers are willing to push.

~~~
blackflame7000
I see what you're saying with the toll-free analogy but it seems fairly common
for ISPs to throttle speeds after a monthly cap has been reached. Since the
throttling wouldn't apply to zero-rated services(ie their own) isn't the end
effect an unfair degradation in competitors services?

~~~
otoburb
I understand why you are making the leap assuming zero-rated services would
somehow be exempt from throttling, but that is outside the scope of zero-
rating.

In cases of throttling (cap thresholds, adverse network conditions, etc),
_all_ content (zero-rated or otherwise) should be throttled. If zero-rated
services are exempt then that's a whole new kettle of fish.

The idea of selective, named, service throttling vs. blanket throttling based
on service type is surely bouncing around within network operator groups due
to the Title II FCC vote, but that could apply whether content is zero-rated
or not.

Selective throttling != zero-rating.

~~~
blackflame7000
Ahh ok I see the distinction, good info. However, I know for a fact that AT&T
does not count directv streaming as part of its data limits and therefore it
is never throttled. I did a little more research based on your explanation and
from what I can discern, it's technically against the law, but companies like
T Mobile and AT&T continue to push the limits until someone confronts them. It
still seems to be a very gray area.

------
rc_kas
R.I.P. Internet. It was great while it lasted. I did love you.

------
1maginary
Maybe someone could automate a way to compare tests made on e.g. Netflix'
speed test site[0] and speedtest[1]. If there's a huge discrepancy, then it'd
be fair to conclude that the ISP is throttling specific connections.

[0] [https://fast.com](https://fast.com)

[1] [https://speedtest.net](https://speedtest.net)

------
iamleppert
Do we really think that huge tech companies like Amazon, Apple, Netflix,
Microsoft, Google and Facebook, whom are not ISPs, but could be significantly
impacted by a less open Internet will let this happen?

These companies have collectively far more power than Comcast, Time Warner,
AT&T and Verizon, who really have been reduced to a bunch of "dumb pipes".

These companies have proven time and time again they are incapable of creating
either consumer services, content, applications, ecosystems, or hardware.

And as new wireless standards take hold that are far more powerful and easy to
deploy, their control will be greatly weakening. When you no longer need to
lay significant fiber or have a lot of last-mile infrastructure to consumers,
what value or leverage could they possibly have?

------
ape4
I would actually go to a live protest about this.

------
Pica_soO
The invisible hand can not fix this. Its currently busy repairing a chinese
ventilator i bought to fight the heat. Ran for five minutes, then the hand got
stuck in it, loosing several fingertips and burning itself on the e-motor.

Its a horrible sight, invisible blood, invisible bone pieces everywhere, and
this small thing in the cage i wont let out until it gets that damned thing
fixed.

Seems the market radialinzkis are desperately trying to create good points for
the socialism of tomorrow.

------
norea-armozel
I wonder how long before some left leaning NGOs build their own zero-rated
Basics-clone which then the GOP will collectively clutch pearls in horror.
It'll be amusing to see them try to make a law that's patently dumb that even
conservative judges will strike it down.

------
rocky1138
How does this affect the rest of the world?

------
doubt_me
Oh cool another discussion Hacker News can censor with flags.

------
Pharylon
When this kind of thing ​happens it's important to remember that both sides
are exactly the same.

------
joeblow9999
"The Internet was not broken in 2015" before the rules were imposed, Pai said
today before the vote. "We were not living in a digital dystopia. Nonetheless,
the FCC that year succumbed to partisan pressure from the White House and
changed course."

100% accurate

~~~
bwanab
Right. And 100% wrong. By 2015, it was clear that the telcos and cable
operators were determined to use their positions to extract more rent. So
while it might be true that up until 2015 the internet was not broken, there's
no guarantee that will continue now that they've been given the greenlight.

~~~
zerocrates
There's also the minor detail that there were _different_ net neutrality rules
in force from 2010 to 2014, before they were largely struck down in Verizon v.
FCC

------
natermer
Red herring.

Title II is how the FCC protected the AT&T monopoly.

Due to various regulatory goals (such as controlling telecommunications for
cold war purposes) FCC found it much easier to deal with and regulate one
corporate entity then a wide variety of different corporations.

Title II gives the FCC authority to regulate pricing in peering agreements and
because of this they were able to essentially price AT&T's competitors out of
the market and prevent new companies from being created.

There is no reason to believe that Title II common carrier rules would improve
competition or prevent companies like Comcast from continuing to own huge
government-protected regional monopolies.

More bad regulation is the wrong answer to the problem of bad regulation.

~~~
greglindahl
... the FCC said it would never use Title II to regulate Internet prices, and
they did not. Nor have I ever seen anyone say that Title II was going to solve
all of the problems caused by the un-competitive ISP market. So you're
vigorously beating a strawman.

~~~
natermer
Uhh...

The ENTIRE POINT of Title II is common carrier.

Common carrier means they get to regulate peering costs. They don't regulate
the costs ISP charge you personally. They regulate how peering agreements
between businesses work.

That's why they call it 'common carrier'. That's the whole point to
establishing common carrier in the first place. It gives FCC rights to step
into a dispute and regulate. What other disputes are going to happen other
then ones over pricing?

> Title II was going to solve all of the problems caused by the un-competitive
> ISP market.

It's not going to solve any of the problems and it never will.

------
ph0rd
The Problem: Regulatory agencies not directly beholden to anyone. The FCC,
EPA, OSHA, etc. act essentially unilaterally. This is a huge overreach.
Second, regional monopolies on telecom services granted by the state. Third,
the fact that people don't recognize the first two as a problem.

The solution: Break up regulatory agencies, do away with regional monopolies,
and deregulate telecoms. Let the market sort it out, because the market is
more beholden to consumer interests than the state ever will or can be.

Not the solution: more regulation on top of other regulations to prevent the
problems caused by regulation.

~~~
blackguardx
If you broke up the FCC, the wireless spectrum would get polluted and wireless
device performance would be spotty at best.

~~~
falcolas
Not to mention the loss of content restrictions - such as nudity or profanity
on primetime TV.

