
FCC Adopts Net Neutrality Lite - shawnee_
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/12/its-here-fcc-adopts-net-neutrality-lite.ars
======
gojomo
Here's a troubling analysis from a net neutrality supporter (who also supports
this step):

[http://www.publicknowledge.org/blog/fcc-network-
neutrality-o...](http://www.publicknowledge.org/blog/fcc-network-neutrality-
order-possible-adequac)

 _On every single important and controversial question on what an “open
Internet” actually_ means _, — such as whether companies can create “fast
lanes” for “prioritized” content or what exactly wireless providers can and
cannot do — the actual language of the rules is silent, ambiguous, or even at
odds with the text of the implementing Order. The only way to find out what
protections consumers actually have will be through a series of adjudications
at the FCC._

That seems to me the worst possible outcome; regulations (if legitimate at
all) ought to offer clarity so companies _don't_ have to wait for test cases
to know what's allowed.

But vagueness is good for increasing the power and discretion of the FCC, and
shaking out contributions to the political parties that appoint FCC
commissioners. If it's all left up to FCC case-by-case discretion from here on
out, businesses need the FCC to think warmly of them.

------
mortenjorck
As seriously troubling as the explicit approval of non-neutral wireless
internet is, the good thing is that the ISPs' old standby line that "the
market will punish a provider that unfairly discriminates" actually applies
here. Unlike the ISP business, where, in many residential markets, there _is
no market,_ there are still several choices for mobile internet in most
markets.

If my AT&T DSL suddenly starts throttling Netflix, I don't have a whole lot of
options apart from moving. If my AT&T 3G starts throttling Netflix (let's
imagine for a moment that Netflix is watchable over 3G), I have a few options:
I can wait until my contract is over and switch then, I can pay an ETF and
switch now, and chances are, there are two or three other viable competitors
in my market once I'm off contract. And none of these can just silently start
throttling either, per the transparency requirement.

Of course, the dangers are still there: The market could decide together to
start throttling and dealing, some more carrier mergers could sweet-talk their
way past the SEC, and a highly un-neutral net could become yet another
stifling fact of life in the US wireless market.

~~~
dinedal
One could even argue that AT&T violated their end of the contract by
throttling NetFlix (they no longer provide you with the same service they did
the month before) and you should be able to get out ETF free (IANAL)

~~~
gte910h
I hope to find this stands up in court.

~~~
clistctrl
If this is in the carriers plans, I would be certain that their lawyers make
sure the definition of service is sufficiently vague.

~~~
gte910h
Courts don't rule on just what is written, but also _on what should be
writable_. You can't contract away many things.

------
Encosia
This sets the wrong anchor point. Most non-technical types will probably see
"compromise" and assume some level of fairness, when in reality it's a blow
_against_ today's status quo. Going forward, this will make achieving true
neutrality more of an uphill battle than ever.

~~~
quanticle
_Going forward, this will make achieving true neutrality more of an uphill
battle than ever._

How so? Most change and reform happens incrementally, rather than in a big-
bang revolution. Yes, this particular set of rules may not get us to the ideal
set of policies for the Internet, but it is an improvement on the current
condition. If the new rules are wanting, push for further change.

~~~
chopsueyar
How is it an improvement?

~~~
quanticle
For one, networks have to be at least transparently non-neutral. That is an
improvement over the current state of affairs, where networks can discriminate
against traffic without notifying the user in any way.

------
quanticle
I'm disappointed with the rules, but I have to admit that something is better
than nothing when it comes to regulation of Internet Service Providers. At
least the government is admitting that the Internet is different from both
phone and broadcast services. That's a start, at any rate.

~~~
j2d2j2d2
_something is better than nothing_

The legacy of Obama (so far)

~~~
quanticle
Well, as far as a legacy, its one that I would be proud of. All too many
politicians leave their constituents _worse_ off for having elected them. If a
politician or policymaker makes life better, but not as much better as they
promised, I still consider that a job well done.

~~~
chopsueyar
I consider it a lie and a coincidence.

~~~
quanticle
As opposed to making your life worse, which would be the lie without the
coincidence? What would you rather have?

~~~
n-ion
That's a false dichotomy. Personally, I'd rather live free or die.

------
jameskilton
The amount of FUD from both sides has left me pretty much impartial to the
entire debate now. On one side, with Net Neutrality regulations, at least
we'll have a way to stop the mega-monopolies from completely skinning us alive
and finally opening the way for there to finally be some sort of competition
in this space.

On the other side, with no Net Neutrality regulations at all, the mega-opolies
will continue to try to strangle the Internet teet, which will end up pissing
off enough of the right people that things will get _really_ nasty for a
while, opening up a way for competitors to get into the space again.

Either way, you can't stop the Internet. It's too big and diverse to be
anything that can be controlled by any one individual. That said, no matter
happens, we (the customers) are still screwed until we can finally say "No
[Comcast/Charter/etc], screw you! This company has a better product, good
bye."

------
idive
Two things: First, they haven't published the actual rules yet, so no one
really knows what devil is in the details. (My guess is the rules are
published on Christmas Eve...which tells you something about how they think
they'll go over.)

Second, the rules will be challenged in court and it's entirely possible they
will be overturned. This is because the FCC somewhat inexplicably backed down
on an earlier promise to reclassify the Internet as a telecommunications
service. As such, their legal authority for regulating it is a bit shaky.

------
cuppster
I see the fight now moving to the "managed services" space. As Netflix warned
earlier, this is where ISP start to really cash in and squash competition, and
there's nothing in these new rules that watchdog that.

------
iwwr
Can you really afford to have your political enemies getting a hold of power
and start to abuse the privileges you have created (in good faith)?

"No regulations, no censorship!" is a hard and fast rule that can be followed
easily.

The correct political solution is for the FCC to open up larger swaths of
spectrum for unlicensed use (call it WiFi on steroids). That way, if a
particular ISP decides to screw their customers, there would always be a
baseline wireless mesh internet that people could use.

~~~
quanticle
Unfortunately, it is not a rule that can be applied to every economic
situation. In particular, utilities, such as electricity, water, and telecoms
form natural monopolies. One a set of infrastructure is built, the company
controlling said infrastructure can put up massive barriers to entry, as they
control the physical devices that provide the good or service to the
consumers. Even your example of unregulated spectrum would require a
significant investment in repeaters and antennae. Once a company or consortium
built out that infrastructure, what prevents them from denying that
infrastructure to competitors, just as traditional ISPs are doing today?

~~~
ataggart
>telecoms form natural monopolies.

Perhaps, though the it's of little relevance given all the _government-
granted_ monopolies. It would be nice to see "net neutrality" legislation
advocates first look at what extant legislation interferes with competitive
forces before proposing further legislation.

