
As Republicans Concede, F.C.C. Is Expected to Enforce Net Neutrality - aaronbrethorst
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/25/technology/path-clears-for-net-neutrality-ahead-of-fcc-vote.html
======
guelo
It is Comcast, Verizon, et al.'s heavy-handed, deceptive, anti-customer
business practices that will decide this debate. Anti-government ideologues
always used to talk about how awful the DMV is but people love the DMV
compared to the telecom monopolies. They're universally despised. Despite all
their lobbying money there is luckily still some democracy remaining in our
government.

~~~
TallGuyShort
Instead of being anti-government, people should be pro-individual-freedom.
Corporations can inhibit individual-freedom as easily as government if
government doesn't actively support individual freedom.

------
higherpurpose
Still disappointed they didn't unbundle the last mile. It seems to me that's
where the biggest pain-point is right now, and doing that would've been far
more effective in getting ISPs to play nice in the market, since then they'd
have actual competition.

~~~
rayiner
Any large-scale unbundling proposal, which would necessarily target the cable
networks, would be fairly unprecedented. To date, unbundling has been applied
where the government had a stake in the networks to begin with. The POTS
network was constructed by AT&T, a government-sanctioned monopoly. In the
U.K., the phone network was built by BT when it was a public corporation. The
modern cable networks were built mostly after cable companies lost their local
monopolies in 1996.

------
gojomo
The FCC fines people for broadcast obscenity. It requires the 'v-chip'
censorship technology in televisions.

The FCC enforces telecom system wiretap rules (CALEA).

The FCC's decisions on mergers and spectrum auctions often amount to giant
handouts to politically-favored corporations.

Had the 'Clipper Chip' been a mandated encryption technology in the 90s, the
FCC would've enforced its use. The national internet blacklists of the UK and
Australia are maintained through their local equivalents of the FCC.

Title II regulation was designed for the plain-old-telephone-system
monopolies, where there was even less choice (one provider!) than the very
worst of current local broadband markets. The internet, without any FCC rules,
thrived and completely eclipsed that slow-moving regulated market.

But after this 'reclassification', new federal rules will limit what ISPs can
offer and charge, regardless of what paying customers prefer, under the 1930s
telephone/utility model.

Upstart services offering novel cross-subsidized speed/latency improvements
will require federal pre-approval or risk outright prohibition.

ISPs will have to keep a DC commission staffed by loyalists of the two
national parties happy, or else discretionary interpretations will go against
them.

This is not a victory for either the internet or the "little guy".

~~~
nemo
The FCC has made its share of mistakes, but that doesn't necessarily mean this
will be one.

"Title II regulation was designed for the plain-old-telephone-system
monopolies, where there was even less choice (one provider!) than the very
worst of current local broadband markets."

My mom has one ISP to choose from (and dismal service.) More than half the
population of the US have access to a single broadband provider.

"The internet, without any FCC rules, thrived and completely eclipsed that
slow-moving regulated market."

When behemoth broadband providers began openly plotting to predatorily damage
some of the things that had helped provide for the internet's success, it was
clear to most that some kind of regulations were needed.

"new federal rules will limit what ISPs can offer and charge, regardless of
what paying customers prefer."

I have yet to hear from a single paying customer that actually wanted what the
ISPs were plotting.

"Upstart services offering novel cross-subsidized speed/latency improvements
will require federal pre-approval or risk outright prohibition."

Yeah, they would need approval if they wanted to offer that particular
service, though I am not sure how to find that disappointing.

"This is not a victory for either the internet or the "little guy"."

Perhaps, why not see what actually happens before making broad speculative
declarations, though?

~~~
brandonmenc
> My mom has one ISP to choose from (and dismal service.)

Net Neutrality changes this how?

~~~
netheril96
Net neutrality does not change the monopoly of ISPs. Net neutrality is
necessitated by the monopoly. Where the market forces have failed, only
regulation can protect the consumers.

~~~
gojomo
If the problem is monopoly, why not use antitrust enforcement, rather than
dictating service/pricing details?

And why impose net neutrality regulations on all the markets where there are
multiple competitive providers? Why not let localities where there's an actual
problem fix it locally, rather than set new nationwide rules?

~~~
hga
" _If the problem is monopoly, why not use antitrust enforcement_ "

Because these are government created monopolies, as all enduring ones are.
State and Federal for the telcos, local for the cablecos.

And as has been noted elsewhere in this discussion, for some inexplicable
reason, as reported (strange, how only the FCC commissioners have access to
these 300+ (!) pages, and for less than 3 weeks), this new regime leaves these
government created last mile monopolies intact.

It's not an exaggeration nor necessarily hyperbole to call this Obamacare for
the Internet, when it enshrines the existing order of things, merely wrapping
it in even more regulation. And, somehow, I seriously doubt a reduction in
prices for us or companies like Netflix.

~~~
dragonwriter
> strange, how only the FCC commissioners have access to these 300+ (!) pages,
> and for less than 3 weeks

Its not strange, its how the regulatory process always works. Until its been
voted on, its not a formal regulation or regulatory proposal, and is not
published. If it is passed by the commission, its published. It can be passed
as a formal regulatory proposal for comment (like the NPRM from last year that
this is a follow-up to) or as a regulatory order (what is most likely in this
case, as they've issued a formal proposal for comment, gathered the comment,
and are now finalizing how to move forward given the comment received on the
proposal.)

------
raintrees
Warning in advance: The following musings are not positive, you may wish to
skip this comment.

The last references to the proposed text I read still had "lawful content" as
a phrase, one I consider to be a key phrase.

In order to allow lawful content, a definition of lawful (and therefore
unlawful) will be required, as well as inspection of content to allow
enforcement.

I am inquisitive, this leads me to questions:

What words will I be disallowed from using to keep a website online? What
speech will I need to silence?

Will this be similar to free speech zones? Will I be allowed to run a
webserver as long as I put up certain warnings/guarantees? Or carry a specific
type of rating in a revamped website rating system?

This inspection: Will my ISP be required to perform packet reconstruction to
analyze my content to decide whether it should be given a pass or not? Should
we be looking to products like Comodo's PrivDog as a model of how the
government should set this up? Assuming they address the invalid cert part,
maybe our government should take over all CAs, to make sure they can read all
encrypted communications to confirm they are lawful?

I am deeply disappointed that I feel like I can start quoting George Orwell to
make my points...

On a positive note, with all of this extra traffic and the subsequent
requirements, maybe the US will have to invest in faster network
infrastructure without having to rely on Google Fiber threatening the local
monopolies.

And since the FCC is involved, rather than this being a market-driven cost
approach, it will likely be more a tragedy of the commons-based cost approach
- My fellow tax payers and I will all foot the bill. At least we won't be as
likely to notice that it is much more expensive than it needed to be. And it
can be passed on to more than one generation.

Depending on who I listen to, there are rumoured to be quite a few people out
of work who could benefit from more job creation, maybe we will get a new
governmental organization, similar to the DHS, to oversee this.

There seem to be so many ways this does not end well.

~~~
wmf
This looks like an example of pretending there's no precedent and using that
as an opportunity to invent an arbitrary strawman that supports your
hobbyhorse (in this case extreme paranoia). Internet copyright laws (NET,
DMCA, etc.) don't work anything like what you've proposed and there's no
evidence that the FCC is trying to use net neutrality as a backdoor to reverse
that precedent.

~~~
gojomo
The FCC's traditional role as broadcast obscenity-and-violence censor provides
evidence that its powers will be used that way.

Part of the FCC's traditional regulation of phone networks also included
ensuring wiretap-capability.

FCC appointees, loyalists to the two national parties, will have new
discretionary powers over ISPs' businesses.

When the next scare about terror, or child-exploitation, or piracy, or
violent/subversive/harassing/offensive media comes along, and DC needs to "do
something", will ISPs thumb their noses at their new minders at the FCC, or
"go along to get along" as "team players"?

~~~
tzs
> The FCC's traditional role as broadcast obscenity-and-violence censor
> provides evidence that its powers will be used that way

Congress has _explicitly_ made broadcasting obscene material illegal. This is
completely irrelevant to Title II regulation of the internet.

~~~
warfangle
And, in fact, ISPs being classified as Title II common carriers would actively
prevent the FCC (and ISPs) from censoring the internet.

------
remarkEon
Anybody have a link to the actual text of the rules?

~~~
dragonwriter
> Anybody have a link to the actual text of the rules?

Members and staff at the FCC have copies of whatever current drafts are
circulating (which, by reports that there may be active discussions on at
least one key point, there may be more than one), no one else does except as
an unofficial leak (and any version that exists now may or may not be the
version that gets voted on.)

Otherwise, no. FCC orders are not released in preliminary form before they are
approved. This is consistent with regulatory agency decisions in general,
there is a formal process for release of orders, that involves approval.
Certain orders are released as proposals for comment before being finalized --
this is called a "Notice of Proposed Rulemaking" (NPRM). The FCC did, in fact,
issue an NPRM on its open internet rules, which (along with the public comment
on the NPRM) got plenty of notice here, in the mainstream media, etc.

After comment on an NPRM, the agency reviews the comments, conducts further
policy discussions, and can either abandon the effort, revise the policy and
issue it as an order or issue a new, revised NPRM. All of these -- except
abandoning the effort entirely -- require the agency to conduct a vote.

Regulatory agencies don't release draft orders prior to vote of the agency (as
distinct from NPRMs, which, while they aren't final orders, are final
_products_ of the agency, not pre-vote drafts) much the same way that courts
don't release draft opinions before the judges have voted on them.

~~~
remarkEon
I had a feeling. So just to be clear, this is not unique to the rule making
surrounding Net Neutrality - this is the general process for federal agency
rule making.

~~~
dragonwriter
Exactly, despite the fact that some people are trying to make this out as if
this were some kind of special, unusual process that is evidence of nefarious
intent.

~~~
protomyth
Traditionally the rules would appear in the Federal Register (
[https://www.federalregister.gov](https://www.federalregister.gov) ) with a
request for comment (check the proposed rules section).

~~~
dragonwriter
> Traditionally the rules would appear in the Federal Register (
> [https://www.federalregister.gov](https://www.federalregister.gov) ) with a
> request for comment (check the proposed rules section).

No, traditionally -- as a preliminary draft that has not been voted on by the
commission considering them -- they would not.

They would only appear in the Federal Register for comment if and when they
were adopted by the appropriate decisionmaker (which, in the case of the FCC
or similar multimember regulatory commission, is by a vote of the commission)
as a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (which is a proposal with a comment period)
or an Interim Final Rule with Comment Period (which is an adopted rule which
also includes a built in comment period.)

They would also appear in the Federal Register (but not with the intent of
soliciting comment) when adopted as a Final Rule, though that does not include
a comment period.

Preliminary drafts that have not been adopted by the appropriate decisionmaker
(such as proposals that have not yet been voted on by a commission such as the
FCC) do _not_ appear in the Federal Register.

The NPRM in the matter under consideration _was_ published in the Federal
Register last year [0]. Whatever drafts Wheeler or other commission members
have circulated based on the discussion, comments, etc., subsequent to that
NPRM are not formally proposed regulations, and would not be expected to be
published before being voted on.

[0]
[https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2014/07/01/2014-148...](https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2014/07/01/2014-14859/protecting-
and-promoting-the-open-internet)

~~~
protomyth
When I dealt with DOE, the actual rules proposed were put in the Federal
Register for comment, so that we could actually comment on the rules making. I
guess it works differently now or the FCC being an "independent board" does it
different.

~~~
dragonwriter
> When I dealt with DOE, the actual rules proposed were put in the Federal
> Register for comment, so that we could actually comment on the rules making.
> I guess it works differently now or the FCC being an "independent board"
> does it different.

The DOE is a single-decisionmaker hierarchy, and so there is no body that has
to vote on proposals before they are formal proposals, the appropriate
decisionmaker simply decides, and its a formal proposal.

But what is published in the FR for comment as "the actual rules proposed"
would generally be an NPRM -- a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking -- which, in
this matter, _was_ published last year (linked upthread.) The internal drafts
that are discussed after the comments are received but before either a second
NPRM or a Final Rule is finalized on are _not_ published in the Federal
Register. And that's what the draft(s) circulating in the FCC prior to the
upcoming vote are.

The difference between a department like DOE and a commission like the FCC is
that the _way_ that a formal proposal (NPRM) or rule -- the kind of thing that
would be published in the Federal Register -- is decided on by the FCC or
other commission is by a vote.

------
gz5
access competition, please, pretty please...

anything else isn't satisfactory and may have worse unintended consequences
(or intended consequences, depending where you sit)

------
f3llowtraveler
> As Republicans Concede...

Do they ever do anything else?

------
dustin1114
It seems to just be more federal regulation from DC. I'm as much of a fan of a
free and open internet as anyone, but why risk the FCC getting involved?

Also, can anyone honestly see rates being reduced because of this? Sure, all
of us would love to see more competition (I actually only have one choice
where I live, sadly), but the truth is, the companies that invest the capital
to build the infrastructure deserve to reap the profits. I'm not quite sure
what the solution would be to having more competition.

What worries me the most is the bureaucracy of it. Are we the people really
getting a say? The FCC is made up of unelected officials (appointed by the
Executive branch, Republican or Democrat) plastering on their views. Why not
let our elected representatives take care of this? You may say that they would
just block it, it would never move, etc. Perhaps it's not as much of an
emergency as we think, then? I guess this is just the same old federalism
versus statism argument. Good ol' American politics.

~~~
wwweston
> why risk the FCC getting involved?

In national communications policy?

> Also, can anyone honestly see rates being reduced because of this?

Prices are pretty much an orthogonal issue to net neutrality. If you don't
have a source/destination neutral network, it's possible you won't be able to
buy the services such a network supports at any price.

> The FCC is made up of unelected officials

I think it's reasonably clear that doesn't mean they're unaccountable.
Congress or the President can heavily influence policy if they screw it up.

But strangely, at the moment, they seem to be doing policy better than most
elected officials. :/

~~~
gojomo
"Last-mile" broadband need-not be a 'national' issue except to the extent
national politicians want to grandstand about it.

The options at every location are different... from city-to-city and even
block-to-block. Some local broadband markets are competitive; others aren't.
Creating options requires specific locally-adapted work – new wires, new
antennas, new hardware. Three regulators signing-into-law new regulations adds
no capacity, only new constraints on the people doing the real work.

One set of national service-shaping rules for all, because _some_ localities
have limited choices, is an overreach that doesn't match the problem.

