

Republican net neutrality bill would gut FCC’s authority over broadband - sinak
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/01/republican-net-neutrality-bill-would-gut-fccs-authority-over-broadband/

======
rubbingalcohol
So captured Congressmen and the cable lobby rebranded the much rumored Title X
after activist groups started referring to it as "Title Xfinity."

Sen John Thune, a primary sponsor of this bill, has taken over $50,000 in
political contributions between AT&T, Comcast, NCTA, Time Warner Cable, U.S.
Telecom, and PACs associated with these groups.

We're not talking about a well-reasoned GOP alternative to "Obama's plan to
regulate the Internet." This is a bill written by cable lobbyists to hamstring
the FCC while throwing a bone to the American public.

Title II gives the FCC the authority it needs to prevent modern day monopolies
from screwing up principles of net neutrality we've all enjoyed since day 1 of
the Internet. These GOP plans should be viewed with a massive dose of
skepticism, especially in light of the political contributions they've
accepted in recent elections.

~~~
nostromo
> captured Congressmen

The FCC actually seems more captured than congress. The head of the FCC is a
former lobbyist for ISPs and Telcos.

~~~
cbd1984
> The head of the FCC is a former lobbyist for ISPs and Telcos.

And what has he said recently about network neutrality?

[http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/01/08/us-usa-internet-
ne...](http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/01/08/us-usa-internet-neutrality-
idUSKBN0KG2DU20150108)

Maybe the usual ideas about "regulatory capture" aren't as accurate as they
seem.

~~~
cbd1984
[http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/01/08/us-usa-internet-
ne...](http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/01/08/us-usa-internet-neutrality-
idUSKBN0KG2DU20150108)

Downvoting this story doesn't make it untrue.

------
0x5f3759df-i
Some criticisms from the group Public Knowledge:

[https://www.publicknowledge.org/press-release/public-
knowled...](https://www.publicknowledge.org/press-release/public-knowledge-
expresses-strong-concerns-about-sen.-thunes-net-neutrality-discussion-draft)

This bill leaves plenty of holes for ISPs to abuse. Here is a few pieces of
that article:

\- Allows discrimination in violation of the principles of the Open Internet.

>For example, these principles would not have prevented AT&T from limiting
FaceTime to particular tiers of service – as it tried to do in 2012. It would
not address discriminatory use of data caps, such as Comcast has used to favor
its own streaming content over that of rivals. It would not address potential
issues arising at Internet interconnection, the gateway to the last mile. Even
worse, by eliminating any flexibility on rulemaking or enforcement, the bill
would prevent the FCC from addressing any new forms of discrimination and
threats to openness that arise.

\- Does not effectively block ‘fast lanes.’

>Even with the protection the draft does provide – addressing blocking, fast
lanes, and throttling – it opens a huge, undefined loophole of ‘specialized
services.’ As this draft reads, Comcast or AT&T or any other provider can
offer its over-the-top online streaming service as a ‘specialized service’ and
give itself prioritized service. Companies could essentially sell prioritized
service to specific applications or content simply by calling these fast lanes
‘specialized services.’

\- Consumers lose protections while special interests gain new ones.

>But while consumers lose, Hollywood wins. The draft contains a special carve
out so that broadband providers can act as Hollywood’s special enforcers

\- Enforceability.

>This draft would prevent the FCC from providing more clarity about what
behavior runs afoul of the stated Internet openness principles. By requiring
that the FCC only hear complaints, only the most well-heeled and well-lawyered
companies and individuals may be able to enforce their rights.

This bill is a wolf in sheep's clothing if I've ever seen one. Hopefully The
President sticks to his statements and vetos this if it gets pushed through.

------
kyrra
Reading other news sources[1]:

> Much of the language was lifted directly from the FCC's 2010 Open Internet
> Order, which was thrown out in court last year.

[1] [http://www.theverge.com/2015/1/16/7558715/net-neutrality-
new...](http://www.theverge.com/2015/1/16/7558715/net-neutrality-new-
republican-bill-limit-fcc)

------
nzealand
Would this have stopped Comcast from letting Netflix slow to a crawl? I dont
think so.

There are always loopholes, and it would take years for the courts to
determine if Comcast was breaking the law.

~~~
gojomo
Netflix's famous slowdown may have been the fault of Cogent, Netflix's direct
vendor, moreso than Comcast. See:

[http://blog.streamingmedia.com/2014/11/cogent-now-admits-
slo...](http://blog.streamingmedia.com/2014/11/cogent-now-admits-slowed-
netflixs-traffic-creating-fast-lane-slow-lane.html)

------
cmdlinerambo
I would like to see net neutrality force uploads and downloads on service
provided to consumers be equal. 50megabit service, allows 50megabit upload.

~~~
cdolan92
No, you actually dont. All ISPs operate on oversubscribing each available meg.
If they did what you are proposing, the only options would be 1 mb up/down
stream, 3 MB up/down speed, and 5 mb up/down speed.

Many ISPs have 100-10,000x over subscriptions per meg

~~~
zaroth
I think asymmetric links and oversubscribed link are apples and oranges.

~~~
cdolan92
how so?

------
seanp2k2
tel·e·com·mu·ni·ca·tion ˌteləkəˌmyo͞onəˈkāSH(ə)n/ noun communication over a
distance by cable, telegraph, telephone, or broadcasting. the branch of
technology concerned with telecommunication. plural noun: telecommunications
formal a message sent by telecommunication. plural noun: telecommunications

But sure, let's pretend that the FCC shouldn't have the right to regulate
ISPs, or that somehow ISPs aren't telecommunications companies</s>

------
spullara
It would be great to get things like this out of the hands of arbitrary-law-
makers (aka regulators).

~~~
qualcommmm
I agree with you. Government regulation of the internet is going down the
wrong hole. It's odd that opposing opinions can't be discussed on HN. They're
just downvoted into oblivion and a hivemind forms.

~~~
sethherr
It isn't government regulation of the internet. It's government regulation of
cable companies that provide the internet.

I don't want the government monitoring or restricting my internet. I _would_
like the government to prevent companies from doing that to me.

~~~
crazy1van
> It isn't government regulation of the internet. It's government regulation
> of cable companies that provide the internet.

I think this is a distinction without a difference.

It isn't a restriction of free speech. It's a restriction on what the
newspapers can print to deliver the speech.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
> It isn't a restriction of free speech. It's a restriction on what the
> newspapers can print to deliver the speech.

It's a restriction on bus drivers refusing passengers based on what newspaper
they're reading.

------
Normati
It sounds like the intention is actually much better than net neutrality - it
claims to be trying to encourage a more competitive market. Proper competition
would make net neutrality irrelevant, and would actually serve people better.
For example, speeds would go up as providers actually compete for customers
instead of having local monopolies.

~~~
pstuart
Do you really think the intention here is for more competition? Perhaps this
is more regulatory capture?

------
ck2
They are just getting warmed up for 2015

Imagine if they grab both sides of washington in 2016 and then the supreme
court nominations by the end of this decade.

Country will become a wasteland.

------
beedogs
Republicans: always just slightly worse than Democrats. Great choice last
November, America! You surely won't regret it for decades.

