

Ask HN: Is Title II the Only Way to Achieve Net Neutrality? - jndsn402

Seems like Title II is a double-edged sword, granting the FCC power to stop internet fast lanes, but also potentially giving them power to impose all kinds of other controls. Thoughts?
======
gyardley
Of course Title II isn't the only option. There's tons of other things the
government could do, including writing completely new legislation - or, for
that matter, doing absolutely nothing at all.

I know many disagree, but I don't think Comcast messing with p2p downloads and
a few carriers throttling Netflix speeds justifies getting the federal
government involved, with all the oh-so-hilarious unintended consequences that
usually come with it.

The above goes double when you consider the executive branch's first instincts
here - instead of crafting something specific, let's just throw Title II at
it. Have you _read_ Title II? It's horrifying! But don't worry, they'll use
'forbearance' to just not apply the horrifying parts. We can trust them, after
all - who has more restraint and self-control than the federal government?

~~~
jerrac
My Google-Fu failed me earlier. Could you link me to Title II and maybe
something explaining it?

~~~
gyardley
Here's the Communications Act of 1934, which contains Title II:
[http://transition.fcc.gov/Reports/1934new.pdf](http://transition.fcc.gov/Reports/1934new.pdf)

Here's the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which modifies Title II:
[http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-104publ104/pdf/PLAW-104pub...](http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-104publ104/pdf/PLAW-104publ104.pdf)

Got to warn you, it's not light reading.

I haven't been able to find something that explains Title II in a relatively
neutral fashion. In short, proponents of classifying broadband as a Title II
utility say "the FCC can ignore and not enforce the onerous portions not
related to net neutrality", while opponents say "the FCC _can_ ignore and not
enforce the onerous portions not related to net neutrality, but there's no
guarantee that they will, and that's a lot of power to hand over to the
government for the indefinite future."

~~~
jerrac
Thanks. Now to find some brain power... :)

------
jerrac
Figure out how to break the monopoly on decent broadband that these companies
have. If I had a viable alternative, I'd have switched away from Comcast as
soon as they made NetFlix pay extra. There's an Ars Technica article about how
hard it is to start a new ISP. We could address some of the roadblocks to
starting an ISP. That'd help some.

Does the conflict of interest between streaming video and cable tv have any
legal effects? Maybe anti-trust laws?

Ultimately, power given to the government is seldom taken back. I prefer the
dangers of our current system to giving the government more power.

~~~
MalcolmDiggs
I agree wholeheartedly. IMHO all of these proposed legislative efforts are
band-aids. The real problem is that the market isn't even remotely competitive
or healthy.

I don't think I would mind a universe where there are lots of providers, some
of whom are net-neutral and some of whom aren't.

On the other hand, that kind of universe presents some troubling social issues
(only those who can afford a neutral internet will have access to it).

~~~
jerrac
Why would any site agree to pay for faster connections when there are
competitors that don't force them to pay? Just make a note on your site saying
that ISP A slows us down because we won't pay them their ransom. Then the user
would go find a better provider.

Basically, a decent market would make the whole issue go away.

> On the other hand, that kind of universe presents some troubling social
> issues (only those who can afford a neutral internet will have access to
> it).

Um, if you want the best service, you pay for it. That's reality. Internet
service is not unlimited. Anything that isn't unlimited is subject to supply
and demand. That's why costs vary. So, I don't think that scenario qualifies
as a social issue.

~~~
MalcolmDiggs
I think you make some interesting points. But a clarification re the last one:

The reason I think it's potentially a social issue is: In that situation you
have a small group of people effectively curating the internet (deciding which
sites are useable and which sites are not) for a large portion of the
population.

More to the point, you're potentially giving a private business' stakeholders
the right to decide which media outlets are accessible for certain people,
which news sites are useable, etc. Is it possible that this power will be used
in a completely benign fashion? Sure, it's possible. But I think it's also
worth considering the possibility that these decisions would end up amounting
to censorship of certain views.

Your argument about market-choice is a fair one, except that cost is a
limiting factor for large portions of the population. We're NOT talking about
even-handed limitation of supply in accordance with your ability to pay. We're
NOT talking about cost as the outcome of supply and demand; we're talking
about choice and access to unfiltered information as the outcome of whether or
not you can happen to be rich or poor. If that's not a social issue, I don't
know what is.

------
dragonwriter
Since the courts have basically explicitly said that anything that doesn't
fall well short of neutrality fails without the FCC making a common carrier
determination, yes, basically it is the only regulatory route to neutrality.
The other alternative would be explicit pro-neutrality legislation from
Congress that bypasses Title II, but that's realistically not happening with
this or the next Congress.

