
Proposed “Internet Freedom Act” permanently guts net neutrality authority - curt15
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/05/gops-internet-freedom-act-permanently-guts-net-neutrality-authority
======
epistasis
This is why politics is important, even in tech.

We need some grownups to represent us.

If you spend ~$50/month on home internet access, and $50/month on cell phone
access, that's $1200/year for internet connectivity.

How much do you spend on hardware per year? Do you buy a >$1200 laptop per
year? How much money does Google make off of your info?

The ISPs are rolling in cash. They have terrible customer service. They
typically have no competition in their markets and they refuse to innovate.

Yet, we give ISPs soooo much money. If there was proper competition, would we
be spending such ridiculously high fees on the internet access we get?

~~~
mikhailt
Wasn't there a bill back in 80s/90s to pay the ISPs to modernize the grid with
100mbps across the entire country?

Politics isn't the sole problem, lobbying in the company interests instead of
the customers is the other problem.

There has to be strict federal laws to outlaw lobbying and any type of
incentives for all federal employees including the politicians. No gifting, no
promises for the future (job), and so on. If such an occasion has occurred,
both sides must be punished and the company must be stripped of its ability to
do business in the country. The politician must be banned from holding the
office and any company that they were involved with for life.

How about we start with removing all free healthcare from the congress, they
pay the same as the rest of us and they must go through the healthcare system
just like us. If they have a problem, fracking fix it.

~~~
arca_vorago
What lots of people don't know is many ISPs across the country took that money
and shoved it in exec pockets and then raised rates and never invested in
infrastructure. An exec of one in my area for example was caught embezzling
millions of that grant money.

~~~
deelowe
Like most things, what really happened is complicated. Here's a good hn thread
on the matter.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7709556](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7709556)

If you have more interest in understanding the issue, there's plenty of good
assessments. Everything from the explosion of wireless, to hdtv, to local
municipalities, to mergers, and technological limitations are to blame.

~~~
anigbrowl
I really wish that we as a society would spend less time sitting around
figuring out who to blame for shit and actually invest in the things we claim
to care about. I am sick to the back teeth of bullshit free market ideologies
that have an extremely poor track record in reality.

That does _not_ mean I am opposed to or deny the value of markets.

~~~
rayiner
The issue in the U.S. is (and has historically been) that neither side wants
to invest in telecom infrastructure--both want private companies to foot the
bill. When you start from that premise, all your options are limited by the
overriding need to ensure adequate incentives to invest.

As a matter of personal ideology, I'd say: let's build a nationwide public
system with a federal/state partnership, and import regulators from
Scandinavia to run it. But that's not one of the choices.

~~~
anigbrowl
You know perfectly well that several states have passed laws forbidding
municipal entities to construct their own broadband networks. The left has
made some tentative moves towards articulating a goal of investing in national
broadband infrastructure (citing the example of the Tennessee Valley Authority
as a working example of public utility investment) but has understandably been
scared off by the right's strident equivalence of any kind of public
investment with communism.

I don't want to oversimplify the issue and don't disagree that everyone in
politics would prefer if better broadband infrastructure just happened and all
they had to do was show up and cut a few ribbons without investing any
political capital. But I think you're being a tad disingenuous here. You are
too smart and well-informed to buy this argument if I were to make it to you.

~~~
rayiner
I disagree with those laws ideologically, but they're a footnote. The vast
majority of people do not live in one of those states. My county (in Maryland)
is building a fiber network and wiring up towns in the rural part of the
county that's not served by FiOS:
[http://archive.aacounty.org/News/Archive2013/News%20and%20Up...](http://archive.aacounty.org/News/Archive2013/News%20and%20Updates/anne-
arundel-to-be-the-only-county-in-maryland-to-offer-high-speed-broadband-to-
majority-of-residents-including-those-in-rural-areas).

At the same time, I inserted the caveat of importing regulators from
Scandinavia for a reason. Public infrastructure in the U.S. (outside of
NYC/Chicago) mostly sucks and is poorly run. I say this because I've walked
the walk: I used to commute on Metro North every day from Westchester to
Manhattan, then on SEPTA from Wilmington to Philadelphia, then on Amtrak from
Baltimore to DC, then (briefly) on the D.C. Metro. Metro North was fantastic,
but the others are worse than Comcast.

The basic problem is that I don't have the choice to vote for Stockholm's
fiber system run by Swedes. My only choice is between Verizon (which is
actually pretty damn good in Maryland), or the same folks who run the D.C.
Metro.

------
matt4077
It is bewildering how different these Senators' concepts of reality must be
from mine to consider this a good idea. I wouldn't even consider it
debatable... There's a reason, after all, that ISPs around the world have
largely shied back from such practices in the past.

Part of the problem may be that those most hurt don't even exist, yet.
Depending on how blatantly ISPs would exploit their position as gatekeeper of
the last mile, it could doom any startup. Oh, your two-person team wants to
run a ride-sharing service? Start by negotiating access fees with every ISP,
in every market...

I guess the best hope is that former startups act somewhat altruistically:
Apple, Google, Facebook, or Netflix may have the clout (cloud?) to stop this.
Maybe thousands of calls and emails help, but it appears that Republicans
consider this their rumspringe, and are probably emboldened by polls showing
the ideological divide is so deep, policy is no longer relevant for public
opinion.

~~~
mikeash
These are mostly the same people who think that climate change is a hoax and
that creationism is a valid alternative to evolution. Reality is not their
strong suit.

Their ideology says that government regulation is bad and free markets are
good, with essentially no wiggle room for nuance. This implies that ISPs are
being hobbled by government regulations, and that freeing them to do as they
please will benefit us all.

It doesn't matter whether or not it's true, it's what they believe, and
they're approaching it from a perspective that's impervious to facts.

------
maxxxxx
Whenever the words "Freedom" or "Choice" appear in the names of laws I can
already guess that the laws will do the exact opposite.

------
fosco
Take Action, stop just posting ones and zero's to hackernews

[https://act.eff.org/action/tell-congress-don-t-surrender-
the...](https://act.eff.org/action/tell-congress-don-t-surrender-the-internet)

------
tehabe
The word "freedom" is really overused, and nobody seems to have an idea what
it actually means. This will get ISP more freedom to charge their customers
higher rates for the same service they enjoy today.

I'm still a little bit jealous about what the city of Stockholm did. They
started to built a dark fiber network, which ISPs can use to get to their
customers. The result is, more competition and lower prices. Essentially net
neutrality on layer 1.

------
socrates1998
Why aren't google, facebook, amazon and apple fighting against this?

They are some of the biggest companies in the world and they just seem to be
rolling over at this. What gives?

~~~
jonomw
While the existence of net neutrality-breaking ISPs could have caused any of
these companies to fail in their infancy, their current position in the market
allows them to largely benefit from this environment.

They may have added costs, but to them, that may be worth it if it
artificially filters out possible future competition.

------
declan
Current headline: "GOP’s “Internet Freedom Act” permanently guts net
neutrality authority"

More accurate headline: "GOP’s “Internet Freedom Act” preserves 2015-era FCC
Internet regulation status quo"

Another headline: "GOP’s “Internet Freedom Act” temporarily prevents FCC from
enacting 3-2 partisan Internet regulations, unless a future Congress changes
things"

Yet another headline: "GOP’s “Internet Freedom Act” shifts authority for
Internet regulation from unelected bureaucrats, who may not even have the
power to regulate here, to elected officials in Congress, who do"

Keep in mind that "Net neutrality" has become a partisan issue. The current
2015 rules were passed by a 3-2 party line vote when the Democrats controlled
the FCC. (They're currently being litigated, with U.S. Supreme Court review
likely.)

Now that the Republicans control the FCC, the 2015 rules are probably going to
be _repealed_ by a 3-2 party line vote. Even if Congress does nothing.

Whatever you think of the reasoning behind "Net neutrality" regulations, it
makes little sense for hundreds of pages of regulations to be enacted when the
Ds win and repealed when the Rs win. It means regulations applying to a multi-
billion dollar industry bounce back and forth every 4 or 8 years. It makes
more sense for Congress to come up with a lasting solution that isn't subject
to regulatory bounce-back, and this is what the bill being described in the
article seems to do.

~~~
amccollum
From your post:

 _It makes more sense for Congress to come up with a lasting solution that isn
't subject to regulatory bounce-back, and this is what the bill being
described in the article seems to do._

From the article:

 _But from what we know about Lee 's bill so far, it appears the proposal
wouldn't impose any type of net neutrality rules to replace the current ones._

Wherein lies the so-called "lasting solution"?

~~~
declan
Any lasting solution would be negotiated by Congress.

~~~
amccollum
If they were going to do that, why wouldn't they just put it in the same bill?
It would be extremely naive to assume that they are going to do anything on
top of repealing the current NN protections.

------
alphabettsy
So ISPs get freedom and the users get screwed? The "Net Neutrality is like a
Obamacare for the internet" is one of the most disingenuous claims I've heard
from Cruz in awhile, Trump was right with his "lyin Ted Cruz" line.

------
slaymaker1907
The GOP really are the best a double speak.

------
mikehollinger
It's hard for me to empathize (in the literal sense of the word) with someone
who dislikes net neutrality.

What're the reasons / justifications for why the current laws and rules are
wrong or insufficient?

~~~
derekp7
From what I understand, there is the concern that potential new technologies
wouldn't be allowed under a strict interpretation of net neutrality. For a
hypothetical example: go back in time when voice over IP first came on the
scene. At that time there wasn't enough excess bandwidth to guarantee voice
packets would arrive on time. Now you could prioritize voice traffic, but
you'd have to either charge a fee, or find a way to positively identify voice
data (otherwise everyone would turn on the voice QOS flag in all their apps
even if they didn't need it). This would then not be net neutral.

Of course, today there is enough excessive bandwidth that voice traffic
doesn't need to be prioritized. But what about an application where an expert
doctor is controlling a robotic surgical instrument from cross country? Would
a special service class for those packets be allowed under net neutrality
laws?

But the real reason, is that as soon as there is additional bandwidth
available, technology finds a way to consume all of it and then some. So the
ISPs want to be able to de-prioritize some heavy bandwidth users (such as
bittorrent), and/or give higher priority to traffic with paying users like
Netflix (for a toll fee, of course), or their own video services.

~~~
pseudalopex
ISPs charging _their own customers_ for prioritization is completely
compatible with net neutrality. Detecting and prioritizing voice would be open
to interpretation but would probably be considered reasonable network
management. Letting people mark whatever they want as latency-sensitive but
charging more for it? Totally fine.

~~~
derekp7
Of course, it is a fine line between an ISP allowing someone (who is not a
customer) to pay them for higher priority, vs the ISP purposely maintaining a
low quality route to certain other web sites to "encourage" them to pay up
(this is what Comcast did with Netflix a while ago -- Netflix traffic came
through a smaller pipe into Comcast, until Netflix paid up).

~~~
pseudalopex
It was more complicated than that. Level 3 took advantage of its peering
agreement with Comcast to undercut Akamai for Netflix's business. Comcast
argued that the agreement was meant for transit, not to subsidize Level 3's
CDN operations. All three companies had valid points, and all three had
ulterior motives.

------
dang
Net neutrality is an important topic, but some politicians sponsoring a bill
generally doesn't count as a substantive story. The vast majority of such
bills go nowhere.

~~~
forgotmysn
You raise an important point, and if this event took place in isolation, I
might even agree with your sentiment. However, this, in combination with FCC
Chairman Pai's recent actions demonstrate an organized, concerted effort to
deregulate Internet Service Provision. And with the GOP in control of both
houses and the Executive branch, combined with their desperate need for
political wins, makes me concerned that they will aim for the low-hanging, and
highly profitable, fruit.

~~~
dang
FCC/Pai is getting thoroughly treated elsewhere, and the rest is political
sausage-making.

~~~
forgotmysn
true, but its looking like the GOP is getting ready to have a bbq

------
unityByFreedom
Call your reps, and ask your friends to do the same.

The Voices app will let you call your reps directly,

[https://tryvoices.com](https://tryvoices.com)

------
shmerl
How much are they paid for this crookedness?

~~~
arca_vorago
5k I believe is the congressional donation limit, but only by one person or
org. Generally when digging through public finance statements from congress
(that's the sort of crazy I am), I often see the 5k limit hit by multiple
entities in the same industry around the same timeframe, so that 5k limit ends
up being 50-100k, not including all the other ways to _pay_ for a legislator.

That's not even adressing the issue that ISPs have so much data they could
probably run their own blackmail ops and similar dirty tricks if donations
weren't enough.

------
pvnick
Good.

The less federal regulation over ISPs the better.

~~~
jressey
Barriers to entry in the ISP game are too high for competition. Google can't
even hack it.

What is your perspective as a free-market advocate in this scenario?

~~~
pvnick
Wait patiently for the inevitable correction.

E.g. innovation like this and other things we can't even imagine yet:
[https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/nov/17/elon-
musk...](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/nov/17/elon-musk-
satellites-internet-spacex)

~~~
anigbrowl
Let's ban all regulation. You can't imagine what wonderful things I could
achieve if I could just help myself to your capital. I know that sounds like a
bad deal for you but market forces will prove me right in the end, just wait
and see.

~~~
unityByFreedom
You stop too short. Ban all government. Then those who are already invested in
the strongest companies win.

Rule by populism -- forget meritocracy or any notion of innovation.

Trump and his ilk don't have enough. They need more.

------
snickerbockers
Then don't do business with terrible companies that invade your privacy.

~~~
alphabettsy
Enough with this crap, many places have one provider to choose from. This is
especially true in cities where many live in apartments or condos, and also in
rural areas where the cost of build-out is very high.

------
_archon_
Why do we call proposed Acts by the name their creators gave them, instead of
choosing a more appropriate (and accurate) name?

    
    
      "Internet freedom Act" - Empowering Telecom Companies Act
    
      "SOPA" - Criminalize Ordinary Internet Behavior Act
    
      "Patriot Act" - Remove Guaranteed Rights In Favor Of Empowering Central Authority Act
    
      "Affordable Care Act" - Essentially Romneycare
    

etc. Why should these names not have colloquially adjudicated corrections
applied to them the way anything else does?

------
bkeroack
As a counterpoint to some of the outrage/hysteria over the new net neutrality
policy, check out this interview with the new FCC chairman Ajit Pai:
[https://thefederalist.com/2017/04/26/fcc-chairman-ajit-
pai-s...](https://thefederalist.com/2017/04/26/fcc-chairman-ajit-pai-speaks-
net-neutrality-privacy-rickrolling/)

He makes some really good points and generally comes across as well-informed
and well-intentioned. In this climate of crazy media hype it's good to keep an
open mind and listen to the actual people working on policy.

~~~
djsumdog
I don't know if he's just misinformed or if he's being intentionally
deceptive.

He talks about the "light touch" framework of the Bill Clinton era, which saw
telecos profit immensely and never feed any money back into their system. I've
know Comcast line who, back in the early 2000s, would tell me they'd take
parts to their shop where people would resolder and reconstruct equipment that
no one in the world manufactured anymore instead of just upgrading the lines.

Comcast sued the Electric Power Board in TN a few years later to keep them
from offering Fibre to the home; a service that provided amazing speed at
about the exact same cost.

He brings up AOL CDs versus Gigabit fibre, not talking about all the companies
that are keeping that from happening.

There is still a bunch of dark fibre that hasn't been used. Telecos are still
charging insane amounts for mobile bandwidth that's nowhere near saturated.

None of this stuff even touches network neutrality, which is simply saying
"You pay for x quality of service and you get x quality of service, to
everyone. We don't add a faster pipe just for Google. We don't throttle
Netflix and give priority to YouTube. We won't throttle VoIP so you buy our
VoIP service instead. Equal access, to the best of ability and equipment."

Even if he says Title II isn't the right framework, why gut it until it's
replaced. If you say "we'll get rid of it and replace it," more likely than
not they'll just git rid of it and telecos will do the same bullshit they've
always done and run with it.

I think he's in the pocket of big teleco and is weaselling around giving them
more power.

~~~
bkeroack
> He talks about the "light touch" framework of the Bill Clinton era, which
> saw telecos profit immensely and never feed any money back into their
> system.

Even in the 1990s it was obvious that the copper network was obsolete and any
additional money put into it would be a wasted investment.

> Comcast sued the Electric Power Board in TN a few years later to keep them
> from offering Fibre to the home

Chairman Pai specifically speaks about FCC initiatives to increase competition
including opening up access to utility poles. It's a difficult issue because
many utility poles/corridors are locally or municipally owned and the FCC has
no jurisdiction there.

> Even if he says Title II isn't the right framework, why gut it until it's
> replaced.

The point is that it doesn't need to be replaced. It's a heavy-handed and
unnecessary imposition of federal regulation on a market that needs to be as
free and open as possible due to the speed of innovation in the tech space.

~~~
zerocrates
What's this great innovation in the wireline broadband space being stifled by
overeager regulators? Presumably there's some concrete example of what our
friends the competitive ISPs want to do and are unable to because of the
regulations. Or even, what they _used_ to be able to do: Title II
reclassification is obviously very recent and the prior "Open Internet" or net
neutrality orders weren't long before that. I suspect that the "innovation"
they're looking to provide won't be of the kind most people are interested in
fostering.

I'm generally amenable to the argument that robust competition is the best
solution and that we should be aiming to reduce those barriers but...
unbundling was very unpopular with the ISPs and didn't really work and is
dead, and as you said the big last-mile problems are local.

Knowing that the FCC isn't actually successfully creating the robust
competitive local broadband markets they say they'd prefer, doesn't it make
sense for them to do what they _are_ able to do and keep the existing (already
"light touch") regulations?

