
FCC is still editing the net neutrality repeal order - rbanffy
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/01/ajit-pais-fcc-is-still-editing-the-net-neutrality-repeal-order/
======
TYPE_FASTER
This is an interesting read:

[http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2017...](http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2017/db1214/DOC-348261A4.pdf)

Specifically, I think it makes much more sense from a technical and consumer
perspective for an internet connection to be classified as a Title II common
carrier than a Title I information service.

Technically, it's a network connection that can carry data. Information
services, classified as "making available information via telecommunications,"
sounds much more like a broadcast service than a bidirectional network
connection.

From a consumer perspective, and in my experience, we are always better off
with unfettered access to a connection, whether it be electricity, water, or
internet connectivity, rather than the programming on that connection, for
example cable television.

Also:

> I, for one, see great value in the prioritization of telemedicine and
> autonomous car technology over cat videos, benefits I anticipate the House
> Hearing will highlight.

Again, that's not really how the internet has traditionally worked, and I'm
not sure we really want content-based prioritization, outside of existing QoS
standards that aren't guaranteed across public internet connections. There's
no reason QoS definitions couldn't be reviewed to re-prioritize specific IoT
or autonomy protocols, but I don't see how the FCC should be making content
decisions for consumers of internet bandwidth.

~~~
Spooky23
This argument has been going on for 20-30 years.

See: Netheads vs Bellheads.
[https://www.wired.com/1996/10/atm-3/](https://www.wired.com/1996/10/atm-3/)

The cat video example was chosen very deliberately and isn’t a frivolous
statement. Telcos want to distinguish between telemedicine and cat videos for
a good reason — the requirements for delivering both are the same, but
insurance companies have money, and the telco will have a higher tariff for
“important” things like telemedicine.

Look at a company like Verizon. They are literally allowing billions of
dollars of valuable assets (the POTS network) rot and have shed millions of
customers with a high margin service. Some states (like NY) offered them
billions of dollars of matching funds for capital investments. Verizon told
them to fuck off.

Why? Verizon isn’t dumb. They know the politicians have no appetite for big
Federal government investments in infrastructure, and isn’t going to for
decades. They know that there’s more money to be made being toll takers, and
as the internet players consolidate, there is plenty of cream to skim. 5% of
Facebook or Google or Amazon is an unimaginable fortune, and they could
eventually get the hands in that till.

~~~
drvdevd
So do you think they have strategies or technologies already in place to
categorize traffic based on specific content types, eg DPI of some sort with
machine learning? Or do you believe it will just be a sort of gateway tariff,
eg hitting Google or Amazon? Do you think their next move will be to try and
fight encryption?

Also, and perhaps most importantly, if the controllers of the last mile are to
get their hands in this till, do you think they have the engineering prowess
to do all of this and put together a _robust_ infrastructure? Or will we end
up with Clown Car Internet in most areas of the US?

~~~
Spooky23
Yes, they do. Encryption doesn’t matter.

On wireless service, all traffic is proxied and they do assessments of the
apps based on a number of metrics. I saw one case that was based on number of
packets sent. That was five years ago —- they have the tech chops to do it.

Remember that with consolidation, it’s much easier. THe carriers could handle
most internet traffic with this type of scheme by making deals with AWS,
Azure, Google, FB, Netflix, etc.

------
monochromatic
Anybody know what the basis is for the threatened lawsuits?

