
“Restoring Internet Freedom” Notice of Proposed Rulemaking [pdf] - sinak
http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2017/db0427/DOC-344614A1.pdf
======
outsidetheparty
On page 15:

> Following the 2014 Notice and in the lead up to the Title II Order, Internet
> service providers stated that the increased regulatory burdens of Title II
> classification would lead to depressed investment.

To support this notion, they cite two reports that purport to show that
capital expenditure by ISPs went down as a result of common carrier
regulation.

The first [1] has data only from 2014 on, so has hardly any "before" data; and
shows wild enough variability in the "after" data that it seems unreasonable
to draw any conclusions from the average value over such a short time frame.

The second [2] is a convoluted enough statistical analysis that I'm not really
able to evaluate it -- though it does appear to show that telecom investment
in infrastructure appears to have grown at roughly the same rate as it had
since the 1980s (save for some wild up and down swings prior to 2010) -- just
not as fast as an invented "control group" of imaginary telecoms that never
heard they might be classified as common carriers (see figure 3.)

That's shady, right? It sure seems shady.

[1]
[https://haljsinger.wordpress.com/2017/03/01/2016-broadband-c...](https://haljsinger.wordpress.com/2017/03/01/2016-broadband-
capex-survey-tracking-investment-in-the-title-ii-era/)

[2] [http://www.phoenix-
center.org/perspectives/Perspective17-02F...](http://www.phoenix-
center.org/perspectives/Perspective17-02Final.pdf)

~~~
ComradeTaco
ISPs, like all corporations, always have the best interests of their customers
as heart. In the unlikely event that an ISP abuses their position another ISP
startup will immediately spring up and start a brand new network.

~~~
glitcher
Yes, exactly. And now I am simply flooded with so many choices in ISPs that I
hardly know which one to try next.

~~~
maskedinvader
this and parent comment is both sarcasm right ?

~~~
dboreham
This reminds me of the idea of the "irony flag" that I recall discussing with
my fellow-immigrants when I arrived in the US years ago, to make its presence
clear. But now, thanks to globalization, irony can be easily found in America,
along with Marmite and Sam Smith's.

~~~
ComradeTaco
I apologize for the sarcasm Dboreham, I usually try to make arguments in
better faith. The anti-consumerism is just so obscene that I feel like a bit
of absurdity is necessary.

~~~
intended
Ridicule and a good memmory are whats needed here. Because this is farce.

The ideal communication now would be spot on recall of previous bad behavior,
interleaved with humor/abusrdity.

The current FCC's communication expects a certain context, and meta cultural
structure. If those features are removed (corporate speak, governance speak),
and the response are couched in absurdity+accurate facts, then they dont have
much.

They're claim to authority is undermined and the legitimacy of the action is
removed.

This is about the way the facts are communicated, as it is about the facts
themselves.

------
jacquesm
As soon as you see 'Freedom' in some official publication you can bet your
last buck that you're _losing_ freedom.

~~~
archgoon
Or someone's about to be bombed.

~~~
beedogs
With the maniac currently in charge, that's also a possibility for Americans
right now.

------
jarcoal
They keep using terms like "Internet Freedom" or "Open Internet", but this
isn't so much about the internet as it's about ISPs. They are the gatekeepers
of the internet and Net Neutrality requires them to keep the gate open and
free of obstacles.

~~~
smacktoward
In fairness, it _does_ restore the freedom of ISPs to hold you upside down and
shake you until money stops falling out of your pockets. So there's that.

~~~
ddingus
That is, in fact, freedom.

~~~
ddingus
Meant as sarcasm. I do not favor these changes, just to be clear.

------
icey
I've been working on a tool to help people team up and discover important
facts from documents like this. It's still very early going, but I've uploaded
the document here: [https://docsift.com/docs/restoring-internet-freedom-
notice-o...](https://docsift.com/docs/restoring-internet-freedom-notice-of-
proposed-rulemaking-fcc/)

At the very least, it will provide an easy way to share links to specific
pages of the documents (of course, you can add notes and annotations to the
pages, and there's been some rudimentary fact extraction done already).

I just loaded the document a moment ago, so I haven't had a chance to scan
through and make sure all the details are correct, but wanted to share it so
folks can scan through it now.

Feedback is definitely welcome, and I'll hold off on doing non-critical
deploys today so it stays up while people read it. I've only been working on
it for a few weeks so there's still quite a lot to do :)

~~~
givinguflac
Pretty cool, you should make a dedicated post when you finish!

------
pdonis
Here is a draft of a comment I plan to submit to the FCC regarding this
notice:

The draft seeks comment on the analysis in Paragraph 27. This analysis
purports to show that broadband Internet service is an information service
because it provides users the "capability for generating, acquiring, storing,
transforming, processing, retrieving, utilizing, or making available
information via telecommunications." The argument given is that broadband
Internet service _allows_ users to do all these things. However, this is not
the same as _providing the capability_ to do these things. To see why,
consider that providing users Internet services over dialup phone lines also
allows users to do all these things; but the phone lines themselves are
telecommunications services, not information services. Why? Because providing
the user dialup Internet, by itself, does _not_ provide them the capability to
do all these things. That capability is provided by the endpoints: the users'
computers, and the computers hosting the Internet services that the users
connect to.

Exactly the same is true of broadband Internet services provided by ISPs: by
themselves, they do _not_ provide users the capability to do all these things.
They only provide connections between computers at the endpoints that provide
those capabilities. It is the services provided by the Internet hosts that
users connect to that are "information services". The broadband Internet
services that allow users to connect to those hosts are telecommunications
services, and should be regulated as such.

ISPs object to analyses like the one above because they claim that they also
provide the actual information services--in other words, they also provide
Internet hosts that function as email servers, web servers, etc. But it is
obvious that those services are _separate_ from the broadband connection
services provided by those same ISPs, because users can make use of the latter
without making use of the former at all. I am such a user: I use the broadband
Internet connection provided by my ISP, but I do not use any of the
information services they provide; I do not use their email, their web
hosting, etc. I use other Internet hosts provided by other companies for those
services. The fact that ISPs offer information services as well as
telecommunications services does not make their telecommunications services
into information services; an ISP's choice of business model cannot change the
nature of a particular service it provides. Broadband Internet connections are
obviously a telecommunications service, and should be regulated as such,
regardless of what other services ISPs would like to bundle with them. The FCC
should continue to regulate broadband Internet service as a telecommunications
service.

~~~
DigitalJack
Your comment does not address the second clause of the sentence you quote:
"...or making available information via telecommunications." Which is cited as
a reason to classify it as an Information service.

Your third paragraph, "ISPs object to..." claims that the telecommunications
portion is separable from the services provided (such as email, etc.), and yet
the document you are critiquing claims the opposite in paragraph 11.

I'm trying to find the reasoning as to why they claim inseparability. It's
worth reading a relevant supreme court opinion to get an understanding of the
opposing viewpoint [10].

I find that paragraph 67 of the universal service report (USR) to congress
from the fcc (Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, FCC 98-67 [20],
seems to be a counterpoint to yours. Specifically, the idea of an ISP apart
from the physical connection -- ISPs make use of telecommunications but are
not themselves the telecommunications service.

    
    
      "67. With regard to the lines leased by Internet 
      service providers to provide their own internal
      networks, the analysis is straightforward. We 
      explain below that the Internet service providers 
      leasing the lines do not provide 
      telecommunications to their subscribers, and thus
      do not directly contribute to universal service 
      mechanisms."
    

Paragraphs 80 and 81 of the USR states

    
    
      "The provision of Internet access service 
      involves data transport elements: an Internet 
      access provider must enable the movement of 
      information between customers' own computers 
      and the distant computers with which those 
      customers seek to interact. But the provision
      of Internet access service crucially involves
      information-processing elements as well; it 
      offers end users information-service capabilities
      inextricably intertwined with data transport. 
      As such, we conclude that it is appropriately
      classed as an "information service."
      
      In offering service to end users, however, they
      do more than resell those data transport 
      services. They conjoin the data transport with
      data processing, information provision, and other
      computer-mediated offerings, thereby creating an
      information service."
    

[10][https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/04-277P.ZO](https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/04-277P.ZO)
[20][https://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/fc...](https://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/fcc98067.pdf)

~~~
pseudalopex
I think the report mostly agrees with the grandparent; it's just that the
meaning of "ISP" has drifted over the past 20 years. Paragraph 63 lists
"America Online, AT&T WorldNet, Netcom, Earthlink, and the Microsoft Network"
as examples of ISPs. Paragraphs 66-68 assume that an ISP pays for service from
a telecommunications carrier.

Paragraphs 75-76 use email and web hosting as examples of the services
discussed in paragraphs 80-81, things the grandparent points out he doesn't
use. They may be intertwined with data transport, but data transport isn't
intertwined with them. Paragraph 75 does identify web access as an information
service, but the same logic could be used to classify telephone service as an
information service because you can use it to retrieve information from a PBX.
Paragraph 81 repeats the assumption that ISPs consume telecommunications
services.

In general, the report seems to assume that Congress expected information
services to coexist with telecommunications services, not to replace them.

------
pdelbarba
Is it normal for these proposals to read like a plagiarized high school
report?

They repeat "open internet" 43 times (disregarding the fact that the proposal
is for quite the opposite) and copy-paste whole sections around the document,
over and over again.

~~~
idbehold
By "open internet" they mean, "open to becoming monopolized" or "open to the
highest bidder".

~~~
LoonyBalloony
ISPs (at least around where I live) pretty much are already a monopoly. Can
you tell me how this is will be worse then our current situation?

~~~
thomastjeffery
That fact is the basis for the problem.

Net neutrality prevents ISPs from abusing their customers.

Without net neutrality, the free market must react by creating alternatives.

Since these ISPs are essentially monopolies, the free market cannot react.

~~~
LoonyBalloony
Thanks for the ELI5! :-)

------
drenvuk
The one question that I have is how do we stop this? Do I go somewhere to
vote? Do I send a letter? Do I go to petition.org or something? Can I only
donate to the EFF and that's it?

What do I need to do to have a concrete affect on the outcome of this instead
of just commenting here or in some other thread?

~~~
loteck
What you can do now to stop a political process that ended last November is:
nothing. It's in the past.

What you can do now to impact political processes in the near future (no
policy is immutable, after all) is to work in your community to build
consensus around policies you believe in, so that those policies are reflected
in future decisions.

I don't know when, but at some point we as a country of citizens got really
bad at understanding this, it seems like!

~~~
sanderjd
Exactly. The thing to do is to convince people you know that this is a bad
idea. I think there are lots of pro-small-business Republicans who see this as
a good reduction in regulation that will benefit the dynamic tech
entrepreneurship sector, and who would be surprised at its unpopularity within
the hotbed of exactly those entrepreneurial techies that is HN. Most
Republican voters are no friend to regulatory capture, they just haven't been
convinced that's what is going on in this administration.

~~~
jay-anderson
Advice I've heard is to appeal to your audience's principles (moral reframing
is the term I've heard it called: [https://www.fastcompany.com/3067593/how-to-
use-moral-reframi...](https://www.fastcompany.com/3067593/how-to-use-moral-
reframing-to-persuade-conservatives-to-support-immigration)). In this case
which principles that republicans/conservatives/etc. hold dear would provide
good arguments for opposing this proposal? I don't think I have a good answer
for that yet. Here are some ideas: \- Personal Freedom: This change will allow
ISPs to restrict or hobble sites you choose to go to. \- Free market: This is
allowing entrenched ISPs to restrict competition in what web sites we visit.
Only the big players will be able to afford access artificially restricting
the free market. \- Purity: From what I understand this change hinges on the
ability to define a broadband ISP as an information service rather than a
telecommunication service. I could see an argument here that ISPs are
attempting to use a loophole to skirt the law defining the service they
provide.

If anyone has ideas here I'd love to hear them.

------
ShannonAlther
From page 3, on the regulation of ISPs as utilities:

 _...the order has weakened Americans’ online privacy by stripping the Federal
Trade Commission — the nation’s premier consumer protection agency — of its
jurisdiction over ISPs’ privacy and data security practices._

That's pretty rich, coming from the government that just overturned an Obama-
era privacy ruling.

------
mundo

        $99/month Family Freedom package: 
         - 200GB "Streaming Gigs" for up to four authorized devices
         - 100GB "Gaming Gigs" (with Super-Ping technology!)
         - 25GB "Other"
         - Unlimited email, Facebook and Snapchat!
    

Little glimpse in to our future, ladies and gents.

~~~
colanderman
And that is when you configure an unused set-top box to stream new releases
24/7 to /dev/null.

~~~
nebabyte
\- drop in the bucket

\- they won't actually care

\- your taxpayer dollars will already have done (likely continue to be doing)
more than enough for them in the opposite direction

\- effectively amounts to neutralizing you the way signing a petition
neutralizes others

------
devindotcom
There's a giveaway in my opinion in the length the NPRM goes to in questioning
the necessity of the existing rules, and the small space afforded to providing
a legal basis for enforcing them should Title II authority be revoked as
proposed.

The idea seems to be: if the rules themselves (no throttling, no paid
prioritization etc) are not necessary (i.e. voluntary), neither is a legal
framework to support them.

So statements that net neutrality is not under fire here, only the current
legal basis for it, sound pretty hollow in my opinion. By failing to provide
an alternative authority to support the existing rules, they're sentencing
them to unenforceability and effective repeal. (edit: grammar)

------
glitcher
This seems to be a common theme in this administration to "restore freedoms"
to corporations with bald-faced lies that they restore freedoms to
individuals. The current rhetoric surrounding the recent order to review many
national monuments is steeped in very similar twisted logic - that somehow the
land needs to be "returned to the people". But wait, wasn't that national
monument set aside exactly for preserving a small chunk of pristine wilderness
for "the people"?

------
pasbesoin
I don't think I can put up with 4 more years of these bozos.

Since I'm a nice, law-abiding citizen, I can only suggest further unearthing
and bringing into the light of day all the sleaze in these people's
backgrounds and getting them disqualified and removed from office.

The 2008 financial crisis should have ended a lot of sleazy careers. Instead,
here we are.

There are good people on both the "liberal/progressive/whatever" side of the
arbitrary political fence, and on the "small-c-conservative/values/whatever"
side.

It's the sleaze. On whatever side.

Arrogant sleaze. Slime-y sleaze. Delusional sleaze. Psycho-/Socio-pathic
sleaze.

Time for the War on Sleaze.

Only, we don't want war. We want reasonably rational and emotionally mature
discussion and the ability to get along and get things done. And enough trust
in good intentions to invest in a variety of plans and figure out _and
measure_ what actually works.

And... it'd be nice to have an open network left to do this on. For a
reasonable price.

P.S. Sorry for my "outburst." Just, exhausted with this whack-a-mole against
moneyed self-interests that can afford to just keep trying again and again and
again until they get their way.

Because, they aren't about creating the most (absolute) value. Just capturing
the most (relative) value, for themselves.

~~~
quadrangle
> law-abiding citizen

Unfortunately, there really are enough laws that everyone is constantly
breaking some. Selective enforcement can be used to shut up critics…

~~~
pasbesoin
And part of my point is that I am not calling for anything that would invoke
several of them to rain down upon me.

I only ask that the sleaze be held to the same standard...

------
sinak
This is the link for submitting comments:
[https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/filings?proceedings_name=17-...](https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/filings?proceedings_name=17-108&sort=date_disseminated,DESC)

Just click "New Filing" or "New Express" depending on what kind of comment you
want to leave.

We just submitted comments here in case you need ideas:
[https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/DOC-56ec3d08ba000000-A.pdf](https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/DOC-56ec3d08ba000000-A.pdf)

------
JohnJamesRambo
"Restoring Internet Freedom" It reminds me of some Newspeak the government in
1984 would say. Just blatantly saying the opposite of what they are doing like
that will make it true.

War is Peace

Freedom is Slavery

Ignorance is Strength

~~~
objectivistbrit
No, you are the one who has redefined freedom. Freedom originally meant that
you could deal with whoever you wanted on whatever terms both parties could
agree on. It didn't mean the government regulating private businesses to
ensure some specific outcome.

I understand why HN wants net neutrality: the majority here think that ISPs
have undeserved control, and so the government needs to step in to ensure a
level playing field. Still, if someone advocated "search engine neutrality",
arguing that the govt should regulate Google's search results to ensure
everyone had a fair chance, there would be uproar. Similarly, if someone
argued for "platform neutrality", holding that every startup that offered some
kind of API had to register with the gov't to ensure their services were
equally available to all others, the insanity would be obvious.

~~~
lordCarbonFiber
The difference is a question of infrastructure. If your ISP trottles your
connection you have maybe one local competitor (doing the same thing) or live
without internet. Utilites are treated as public works; imagine if the power
company charged higher rates depending on what electronics were used.

There simply is no comparison to regulation at a platform level and I wish
people would stop using that straw-man every time they rush to defend the poor
telecoms and their "freedom".

~~~
metachor
Power companies _do_ charge different rates depending on what electronics are
used.

Energy utility rate structures are both complex and unique to the individual
company, but at a high level different classes of consumer pay different rate
plans, such as residential vs. commercial/industrial vs. agricultural, and
which is ultimately determined by the type of and quantity of certain
electronic devices installed on premise as is normal for that class.

With that said, as a residential consumer there is little chance that you
could ever legally or physically install one of the devices at your home that
would necessitate being charged a CI or agricultural rate.

And interestingly enough those rates are all regulated by very heavy weight
local/state and federal regulatory commissions.

~~~
outsidetheparty
That's tiered pricing based on quantity consumed, isn't it? Which is already
very much allowed for ISPs.

Net neutrality is a completely different thing. Without it, it'd be as if the
electric company could charge more if you used this 700 watt toaster than if
you used that 700 watt toaster.

------
Aaron1011
From Page 10:

> In contrast, Internet service providers do not appear to offer
> “telecommunications,” i.e., “the transmission, between or among points
> specified by the user, of information of the user’s choosing, without change
> in the form or content of the information as sent and received,” to their
> users. For one, broadband Internet users do not typically specify the
> “points” between and among which information is sent online. Instead,
> routing decisions are based on the architecture of the network, not on
> consumers’ instructions, and consumers are often unaware of where online
> content is stored. Domain names must be translated into IP addresses (and
> there is no one-to-one correspondence between the two). Even IP addresses
> may not specify where information is transmitted to or from because caching
> servers store and serve popular information to reduce network loads.

This is absurd. Under this logic, telephones "do not offer
'telecommunications'":

* Telephone users _never_ specify the 'specify the “points” between and among which information is sent'. When I call a particular phone number, I can't choose which cell towers are used, or what internal routing is used to connect my call.

* Users are often unaware of 'where [content] is stored'. When I place a call, I don't know if I'm calling a SIP phone, landline, cell phone, or something else entirely.

* If the existence of DNS means that the ISPs don't provide 'telecommunications', then the existence of phone directory services (e.g. Version 411) should mean that telephone companies also don't provide 'telecommunications'.

* IP addresses are _logical_ address, not physical addresses. Neither phone numbers nor IP dresses specify exactly where information will end up - a call could be handled by a phone company-provided voicemail service, or redirected to another phone entirely.

It gets worse. From the same page:

> For another, Internet service providers routinely change the form or content
> of the information sent over their networks—for example, by using firewalls
> to block harmful content or using protocol processing to interweave IPv4
> networks with IPv6 networks

Again, all of those items are analagous (no pun intended) to similar parts of
telephone networks. Phone companies can block calls by scammers (e.g.
[http://fortune.com/2017/03/24/how-t-mobile-plans-to-block-
ph...](http://fortune.com/2017/03/24/how-t-mobile-plans-to-block-phone-
scammers-and-crooks/)), and can change the encoding and encapsulation of the
call audio as many times as they want to.

~~~
pdonis
These are good points; do you mind if I add them to the draft comment I am
preparing (which I've posted--in two installments--in this discussion thread)?

~~~
Aaron1011
Go ahead! Glad to have been of help :)

------
Sephr
I feel like this belongs here:
[https://twitter.com/fightfortheftr/status/855144442898132992](https://twitter.com/fightfortheftr/status/855144442898132992)

It's a disgustingly disingenuous billboard near the FCC headquarters that is
being seen by many FCC employees on their commute to work.

~~~
outsidetheparty
"Tech-socialists", huh? Do we get t-shirts?

------
djyaz1200
To whom it may concern at the FCC, As the head of an ISP I must tell you that
I am entirely dissatisfied with the billions of dollars I make providing a
mediocre utility service with near zero competition to customers who pay for
that service. I see the billions of dollars being made by Facebook and Google
through innovation and user consent and I want to take that money with
political and regulatory force. I'll need you to first make it entirely legal
for me to capture and sell all data about my users. Not because they consent,
not because they want this but because I want a new cash cow to slaughter. I'm
going to use this information to become an alternative provider of targeted
ads to my customers. Next, I'll need you to allow me to throttle back the
speed by which customers can access my competitors services because mine
aren't as good. This isn't so much a toll road as a team of aggressive traffic
cops, pulling over any business making too much money on my big dumb pipe to
slow them down... fine them and then let them slowly attempt to carry on. I
need this all because I don't innovate, I don't like my customers or give a
shit what they want. I am simply used to using raw power and corrupt
regulatory force to act as a parasite extracting the maximum tariff from
productive businesses, people and entrepreneurs possible while keeping some of
my hosts alive... but killing the smaller ones. I am big business. I am angry
because I am losing. The actual free and open internet is allowing actual free
market capitalism and user choice in too many things. I used to fight this
kind of thing in back rooms quietly but this fight has escalated so now I must
come out in the open and ask the government publicly to please take from the
poor and give to me in new ways... because the poor keep innovating their way
out of the traps I set. Finally, I disrespectfully request that the rules I
propose be named the exact opposite of what they stand for, so it's clear this
isn't a discussion with reasonable people but a raw show of force. -Old Rich
Guy

------
theprop
The funny thing is that this will likely lead to a lot more significant losses
in online privacy. The ISPs will now extort money from Google/YouTube,
Netflix, Facebook, and Amazon...at least two of whom will need to track users
more in order to better target ads (since they're already at max-ad-display
thresholds) to increase ad yields. So to generate more revenues to feed ISP
extortion, it's likely to drive companies to track you further.

------
shmerl
Read as: _Restoring Internet [Providers '] Freedom [from oversight]_.

Hypocrites.

~~~
donatj
Restoring networking equipment owner's control of their own property?

~~~
shmerl
Property isn't a problem. Using it in a way that monopolizes the market is.

I.e. imagine you own a property which delivers water to the city. Saying that
you can do anything you want with it is clearly a problem.

------
wickedlogic
Time to build out those mesh networks, make sure you are in the loop when your
town wants to grant favor to one or the other of the carriers. Consider this
the step... that wont ratchet back anytime soon.

------
TheSageMage
Is the argument here that if "net neutrality" goes away, carriers will provide
service to "poor, rural area" because they are able to serve their content
better than the generally available content on the internet? Not arguing for
it, just trying to understand the argument for a less "equal" internet.

Also, I thought this was how it already worked, but it was just called home
cable? Don't most homes in the US got a decent hookup to their home for
"cable", that usually includes an internet package?

~~~
quadrangle
I think the argument is this: "The best possible service for customers always
necessarily comes from unregulated free-market competition. Therefore, we
should remove all regulations, even if they are removed one-by-one with
potential imbalances occurring in the regulatory ecosystem. Removal of any
regulation is at least closer to true free market. So, we'll start with
removing the regulations that my lobbyist friends identify as the ones they
most want removed. It's a step in the right direction. Since fewer regulations
equals more market freedom, whatever happens will necessarily be an
improvement overall compared with whatever would have happened with the
regulation in place."

In short: "free markets are the best because whatever result we get from
whatever we choose to call free markets is, by definition, the best result."

~~~
thomastjeffery
The argument is not an argument at all, but an appeal to ideology.

Ironically, the ideology that is appealed to is the best argument for net
neutrality.

~~~
dragonwriter
> The argument is not an argument at all, but an appeal to ideology.

All arguments for policy (or action more generally) are, at root, appeals to
ideology. You can't get "should do" results anywhere else.

------
finid
_to preserve the future of Internet Freedom, and to reverse the decline in
infrastructure investment, innovation, and options for consumers put into
motion by the FCC in 2015._

There has been a decline in innovation since 2015? How did they determine
that? I must be missing something...

 _Propose to reinstate the determination that mobile broadband Internet access
service is not a commercial mobile service..._

Really! _Commercial_ must have a special meaning here.

------
vdnkh
>We propose to return jurisdiction over Internet service providers’ privacy
practices to the FTC, with its decades of experience and expertise in this
area.157 We seek comment on this proposal.

Somehow I feel that their "decades of experience and expertise" is not the
kind appropriate for dealing with privacy on the modern internet.

------
RcouF1uZ4gsC
One thing is interesting is that Google Fiber rollout slowed down with the Net
Neutrality rules. Maybe they did not see it as quite as vital to their
business. Now with Net Neutrality gone, given they view an open Internet as
vital to their business, they actually may give more priority to Google Fiber.

------
coretx
This document is so incredibly professionally framed and laced with layers
upon layers of spindoktering that I can't help to conclude that the FCC is
intentionally violating the congressional statutes forming their mandate.
Perhaps the EFF or similar should drag them in front of a judge.

------
pdonis
Here is an updated comment (thanks everyone for feedback!). Please feel free
to pass this on to your elected representatives, or anyone else who you think
should see it.

Re: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking – WC Docket No. 17-108

The subject notice seeks comment on the analysis provided. The following
comments are hereby submitted.

Paragraph 27 purports to show that broadband Internet service is an
information service because it provides users the "capability for generating,
acquiring, storing, transforming, processing, retrieving, utilizing, or making
available information via telecommunications." The argument given is that
broadband Internet service _allows_ users to do all these things. However,
this is not the same as _providing the capability_ to do these things. To see
why, consider that providing users Internet services over dialup phone lines
also allows users to do all these things; but the phone lines themselves are
telecommunications services, not information services. Why? Because providing
the user dialup Internet, by itself, does _not_ provide them the capability to
do all these things. That capability is provided by the endpoints: the users'
computers, and the computers hosting the Internet services that the users
connect to.

Exactly the same is true of broadband Internet services provided by ISPs: by
themselves, they do _not_ provide users the capability to do all these things.
They only provide connections between computers at the endpoints that provide
those capabilities. It is the services provided by the Internet hosts that
users connect to that are "information services". The broadband Internet
services that allow users to connect to those hosts are telecommunications
services, and should be regulated as such.

ISPs object to analyses like the one above because they claim that they also
provide the actual information services--in other words, they also provide
Internet hosts that function as email servers, web servers, etc. But it is
obvious that those services are _separate_ from the broadband connection
services provided by those same ISPs, because users can make use of the latter
without making use of the former at all. I am such a user: I use the broadband
Internet connection provided by my ISP, but I do not use any of the
information services they provide; I do not use their email, their web
hosting, etc. I use other Internet hosts provided by other companies for those
services. The fact that ISPs offer information services as well as
telecommunications services does not make their telecommunications services
into information services; an ISP's choice of business model cannot change the
nature of a particular service it provides. Broadband Internet connections are
obviously a telecommunications service, and should be regulated as such,
regardless of what other services ISPs would like to bundle with them.

Paragraph 28 asks whether "offering Internet access is precisely what makes
the service capable of 'generating, acquiring, storing, transforming,
processing, retrieving, utilizing, or making available information' to
consumers?" The answer to this question, as noted above, is no, because all of
those capabilities are not provided by the mere fact of Internet access; they
are provided by the endpoint computers that implement those capabilities. The
question of how those computers are connected to each other, which is the
relevant question for the purpose of determining whether broadband Internet
service is a telecommunications service, is a separate question from the
question of what capabilities the endpoint computers provide.

Paragraph 28 also asks whether consumers could "access these online services
using traditional telecommunications services like telephone service or point-
to-point special access?" Obviously the answer to this question will depend on
what connectivity the providers of such telecommunications services choose to
provide. But that is a different question from the question of what the nature
of a particular service is. Again, the question of how computers are connected
to each other is separate from the question of what capabilities the endpoint
computers provide.

Paragraph 29 attempts to argue, in effect, that if most Internet users rely on
their ISPs for _any_ additional service beyond the bare fact of Internet
connectivity--for example, DNS--then broadband Internet service must be an
information service. Paragraph 29 also claims that the ISP, not the user,
"specifies the points between and among which information will be
transmitted", because, first, users only specify domain names, not IP
addresses, and second, users do not make the routing decisions that determine
the specific path information packets take through the network. Neither of
these considerations affects the proper classification of broadband Internet
service as a telecommunications service. Users might only specify domain
names, but the _service_ of translating domain names into IP addresses is
provided by an endpoint--a DNS server--not by the bare provision of an
Internet connection. (And even if the ISP typically provides this endpoint,
that is still a separate service from the service of providing an Internet
connection, and, as above, bundling the two together cannot change the nature
of the latter.) Once the DNS service has provided an IP address corresponding
to a domain name to the user's computer, the user's computer, not the network,
specifies that IP address as the target of information packets, so once again,
it is an endpoint, not the network itself, that determines where the
information goes. And routing information packets, in and of itself, is not an
information service, because it does not change the information being routed;
it just accomplishes the information transmission specified by the user, from
one endpoint to another. The intermediate routers that pass on information
packets are not endpoints: they are not specified by the user as the targets
of any information, and they do not provide any of the capabilities that make
an endpoint a provider of an information service.

The analysis of Paragraph 29 also fails to take into account that, if it were
valid, it would apply equally well to traditional phone service, which is
admitted to be a telecommunications service. Users specify phone numbers to
dial, but that does not require knowledge of the physical location of the
target phone (and the user will often not have such knowledge), nor does it
specify the route that will be taken by the information transmitted by the
call. Also, traditional phone service includes directory service (411) and
other "add-ons" that go beyond the basic provision of a connection. What makes
those "add-ons" telecommunications services rather than information services
is that they are for the purpose of facilitating the connection (or
facilitating the refusal of connections which are not desired), rather than
acting on the information exchanged between the users at the endpoints.

Paragraph 30 attempts to argue that network management activities such as
firewalling and IPV4 - IPV6 translation constitute changing the information
being transmitted. This analysis fails in two ways. First, refusing to
transmit information (e.g., a firewall blocking content deemed to be harmful)
is not the same as changing it. Refusing to provide a connection to a user is
not the same as changing the information transmitted by the user. Second, the
"information" which is changed by such activities as IPV4 - IPV6 translation
is not the information sent by the user; it is network management information
which is _added_ to the information packets specified by the user, outside the
user's control and indeed without the knowledge of most users (since most
users are not familiar with the technical details of IP networking). These
network management activities are no different from the activities routinely
performed by phone networks to route calls--indeed, today the same physical
infrastructure is often used to perform both functions, since the phone
service backbone and the Internet backbone are in many cases the same
networks. Similar remarks apply to services such as filtering by firewalls:
phone networks can block calls from certain numbers, for example. Again, the
key distinction which the analysis in Paragraph 30 fails to make is between
"add-on" services that are for the purpose of facilitating connections, and
services that are for the purpose of manipulating the information exchanged by
the users at the endpoints. Only the latter are information services; the
former are part of the telecommunications service that provides the
connection.

In the light of all of the above considerations, the FCC should continue to
regulate broadband Internet service as a telecommunications service.

~~~
pdonis
I have submitted this as a filing to the FCC. When it becomes visible on their
site I will post a link to the filing.

~~~
pdonis
Link here:

[https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10427019504580](https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10427019504580)

------
pdonis
Further comment after reading more of the notice:

The draft also seeks comment in Paragraph 28 on whether "offering Internet
access is precisely what makes the service capable of 'generating, acquiring,
storing, transforming, processing, retrieving, utilizing, or making available
information' to consumers?" The answer to this question, as noted above, is
no, because all of those capabilities are not provided by the mere fact of
Internet access; they are provided by the endpoint computers that implement
those capabilities. The question of how those computers are connected to each
other is a separate question from the question of what capabilities they
provide.

Paragraph 28 also asks whether consumers could "access these online services
using traditional telecommunications services like telephone service or point-
to-point special access?" Obviously the answer to this question will depend on
what connectivity the providers of such telecommunications services choose to
provide. But that is a different question from the question of what the nature
of a particular service is.

Paragraph 29 attempts to argue, in effect, that if most Internet users rely on
their ISPs for _any_ additional service beyond the bare fact of Internet
connectivity--for example, DNS--then broadband Internet service must be an
information service. Paragraph 29 also claims that ISPs, not users, "specifies
the points between and among which information will be transmitted", because,
first, users only specify domain names, not IP addresses, and second, users do
not make the routing decisions that determine the specific path information
packets take through the network. Neither of these considerations affects the
proper classification of broadband Internet service as a telecommunications
service. Users might only specify domain names, but the _service_ of
translating domain names into IP addresses is provided by an endpoint--a DNS
server--somewhere, not by the bare provision of an Internet connection. (And
even if the ISP typically provides this endpoint, that is still a separate
service from the service of providing an Internet connection, and, as above,
bundling the two together cannot change the nature of the latter.) Once the
DNS service has provided an IP address to the user's computer, corresponding
to a domain name, the user's computer, not the network, specifies that IP
address as the target of information packets, so once again, it is an
endpoint, not the network itself, that determines where the information goes.
And routing information packets, in and of itself, is not an information
service, because it does not change the information being routed; it just
realizes the information transmission specified by the user, from one endpoint
to another. The intermediate routers that pass on information packets are not
endpoints.

Paragraph 30 attempts to argue that network management activities such as
firewalling and IPV4 - IPV6 translation constitute changing the information.
This analysis fails in two ways. First, refusing to transmit information
(e.g., a firewall blocking content deemed to be harmful) is not changing it.
Refusing to provide a connection to a user is not the same as changing the
information transmitted by the user. Second, more generally, the "information"
which is changed by such activities as IPV4 - IPV6 translation is not the
information sent by the user; it is network management information which is
_added_ to the information packets specified by the user, outside the user's
control and indeed without the knowledge of most users (since most users are
not familiar with the technical details of IP networking). These network
management activities are no different from the activities routinely performed
by phone networks to route calls--indeed, today the same physical
infrastructure is often used to perform both functions, since the phone
service backbone and the Internet backbone are in many cases the same
networks.

~~~
pdonis
Updated comment here:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14215198](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14215198)

------
mirimir
That URL seems dead.

This one works:
[https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-344614A1.p...](https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-344614A1.pdf)

------
nikolasavic
PBS NewsHour: FCC chair Ajit Pai explains why he wants to scrap net neutrality
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Q5_oV4JB10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Q5_oV4JB10)

------
exabrial
Does being reclassified as "Title 1 - Information Services" put them under the
regulatory authority of the FTC instead of the FCC?

------
sesteel
Time for another march? We are having them weekly as of late. Organized anger
can be a powerful tool.

~~~
orthecreedence
"Paid protesters march for internet socialism. Sad!"

------
donatj
As someone who feels like this might be a good thing, can someone politely
explain the objections?

~~~
davesque
My (and many others') objections are that ISP's in the US have been known for
a while to be lagging behind the curve across the world in terms of quality of
service and pricing. On top of that, they actively lobby against competing
startup ISP's and pull dirty tricks to prevent anyone else from entering the
market. Now, they want to roll back laws preventing them from charging for
traffic based on content. This will make it more difficult to guarantee
consistent quality of service to consumers and may also prevent new technology
businesses from getting off the ground. It may even lead to a de facto form of
censorship if content that large players don't agree with can be throttled.
I've heard the argument that it's their business and they can do what they
want. The problem with this, however, is that they are providing a service
that is essential and not a luxury. Historically, organizations whose main
purpose is to benefit shareholders have not been very good at keeping the
public's interests in mind. That's why the government needs to regulate
services which are essential and why the ISP's have no argument here.

------
theprop
Why isn't this called "Protecting the Internet for Patriots"?

~~~
quadrangle
Because that would sound like foreign terrorists are the concern. For _this_
issue, the goal is to present the enemy as being government and anyone who
supports government regulation of any sort.

------
lbarrett
I posted a comment! Hooray for participation in government.

------
thomastjeffery
> Propose to return authority to the Federal Trade Commission to police the
> privacy practices of Internet service providers

This must have been the promise during S. J. Res 34.

------
bluejekyll
Anyone notice that they took the PDF down?

~~~
t3f
The OP linked to their daily feed which isn't quite an anchor. The actual
docket landing page is at [0] and pdf at [1]. Their "Fact Sheet" is also at
[2] and [3].

[0] - [https://www.fcc.gov/document/public-notice-filing-
comments-r...](https://www.fcc.gov/document/public-notice-filing-comments-
restoring-internet-freedom)

[1] -
[https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-344623A1.p...](https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-344623A1.pdf)

[2] -
[https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-344592A1.p...](https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-344592A1.pdf)

[3] -
[https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-344592A1.p...](https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-344592A1.pdf)

@mods could the OP URL get updated to the anchor url for folks searching
later?

-edit, formatting

------
devoply
Restoring corporate tyranny.

------
arcbyte
ISPs should be able to manage their networks without government incompetence.

As smart as everyone here is when it comes to building internet endpoints,
most of these comments betray an utter lack of understanding of what goes on
in the ISP level.

~~~
quadrangle
could you be specific about the "most of the comments"? Most of what I see
isn't even _relevant_ to the technical on-the-ground details about ISPs. Most
comments are just about the idea of whether ISPs that have monopoly/oligopoly
status will be permitted to violate net neutrality. What of "what goes on in
the ISP level" that is even insightful to bring up?

~~~
Can_Not
He's saying that if he wants to sell "Chicken Noodle Soup" with zero chicken
in it, that's his God given right and if we could only remove those pesky
regulations the free market will set us free.

------
astaroth360
And so the internet dies...

------
wnevets
Some of the first speech that censored will be by freedom loving ISPs will be
hate speech and pro-nazi related speech, a bit ironic

