
AT&T claims ‘strong’ net neutrality would ruin the Internet - opendais
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/06/18/att-claims-strong-net-neutrality-would-actually-ruin-the-internet-thats-a-big-leap/?tid=recommended_strip_1
======
rayiner
Cicconi is self-interested, but he's right on one thing: most proponents of
reclassification haven't thought through all the implications of that
proposal. Your typical net neutrality advocate has probably never heard of the
Universal Service Fund, and certainly couldn't articulate why, e.g. a long
distance call made on a Title-II internet using Skype or Google Voice should
be treated differently than a long distance call made over a traditional Title
II telephone network for the purposes of the USF fees.

The author argues that Title-II reclassification wouldn't expose content
companies to regulation, but how does he explain the fact that VOIP services
are required to contribute to USF? Isn't VOIP just content too?

Title II is a Depression-era regulatory regime, designed back when people
thought that things like government-regulated rates and prices were a good
idea. That's not the way forward, it's the way backward.

~~~
bradleyjg
> Title II is a Depression-era regulatory regime, designed back when people
> thought that things like government-regulated rates and prices were a good
> idea.

The principle of universal service at a "reasonable charge" (though not the
USF) dates from the same period and is also outdated.

Life is full of trade-offs and where to live is certainly no exception. Some
people have affordable houses on acres of land at affordable prices, pure
mountain air, and outdoor recreation at their fingertips. I live in a tiny
apartment, directly above a highway, and have to travel a few hours to go
camping. It is no more appropriate to ask those who live in areas where it is
less expensive to provide telecom services to subsidize those who live in
areas where it is expensive than for the federal government to impose a
property tax on properties over half an acre to subsidize green spaces in
cities.

~~~
Spooky23
That's a ridiculous position. Should we also deny people electricity because
they live outside a metropolitan era?

Declaring entire swaths of the population of a country like the United States
unworthy of access to things like telephones and access to the global network
is ridiculous enough. But it's particularly offensive given that it's cheaper
to run and operate these systems today than it ever has been before.

Universal service is about more than telephones in the wilderness. I live in a
state capital, about 500 yards from a major fiber optic termination point.
Pretty sure my employer has a 40GB line on the telephone pole that I can see
from my front porch. I have access to 20/1 cable service or 30/5 cable service
at a 70% cost premium. Because there are few poor people there, the
surrounding suburbs have FIOS and Cable, and the cable service is
significantly less expensive.

~~~
bradleyjg
No one's denying anyone anything. If it's so cheap to do so, plenty of
companies should be happy to do so at an affordable cost without needing a
subsidy.

There are many things that are cheaper in rural areas and more expensive in
cities, I don't see any rural dwellers lining up to pay extra for goods and
services that are cheaper in those areas in order to equalize prices in
cities.

~~~
Karunamon
Many things are better fully privatized, but i'd argue that infrastructure is
not one of them.

Sometimes unprofitable things need to be done.

------
crazy1van
Why isn't Twitter or Facebook or Gmail a common carrier? They only provide the
"means of communication". The "content of communication" is created by the
users. Many internet companies seem to want to have it both ways. If someone
tweets a bomb threat, Twitter will claim it is only the means for
communication. If an ISP throttles Twitter's bandwidth, it will claim the ISP
is the means and Twitter is the content. My point is just that the content vs
means comparison is a very gray area in the age of the internet.

~~~
macspoofing
You're being facetious because you're not that dense that you can't see a
difference between a web application and a fiber connection, even if you don't
support telecom reclassification.

>My point is just that the content vs means comparison is a very gray area in
the age of the internet.

Yes, there are gray areas everywhere, but sometimes it's not that complicated.
This one isn't complicated. In the set of complicated and ambiguous issues,
this one is very well defined.

~~~
crazy1van
> You're being facetious because you're not that dense that you can't see a
> difference between a web application and a fiber connection

Of course they are different in many ways. But they do have commonalities too.
Its clear that fiber provides a means of communication. But I think if you
asked the average person or lawmaker if Gmail provides a means of
communication, they would also say yes. Is that even an unreasonable
conclusion?

~~~
esbranson
Yes, when you consider that its not "common carriers" such as FedEx which is
being discussed, but "telecommunications common carriers", which inevitably
relies on the definition of telecommunications. Which Wikipedia makes pretty
clear is commonly understood to mean a physical medium based upon electrical
signals or electromagnetic waves.

------
logn
That's concerning that common carriers can still affect traffic speeds unless
it's 'unjust' or 'unreasonable'. I don't see how merely reclassifying ISPs
will help anything. I hope the democrats' legislation addresses this.

I think the outlook is bleak. We need Congress, the FCC, and likely the
Supreme Court to all make decisions that hurt telecoms (which is unlikely).

edit: I found the section of the law about 'unjust'/'unreasonable' for common
carriers:

    
    
      Sec. 202 providers of basic services must
    
        § 202(a) engage in no “unjust or unreasonable
        discrimination in charges, practices, classifications,
        regulations, facilities, or services,” and
        § 202(b) charge “just and reasonable” rates
    

[http://www.cybertelecom.org/notes/titleii.htm](http://www.cybertelecom.org/notes/titleii.htm)

~~~
esbranson
The FCC will decide what is reasonable, and the doctrine of _Chevron
deference_ means that the courts will defer to the reasoning of executive
agencies with specialization and expertise (i.e., the FCC) unless it is
evidently wrong, arbitrary, or unreasonable.

------
rasz_pl
AT&T claims ‘strong’ net neutrality would ruin AT&T profit margins.

------
asn0
AT&T has been making claims like this since long before the Internet. "Rise of
the Stupid Network" is a classic essay on AT&T's perspective of controlling
the network [http://www.isen.com/stupid.html](http://www.isen.com/stupid.html)

------
coldcode
If we actually had politicians that represented the people instead of whoever
paid them the most, we might be able to craft laws that made sense to today's
situation. But we don't.

------
baldfat
We just need a way to kill the localized monopolies. Everything else would
"auto-correct" it's self.

Image if we all said forget you Time/Warner and Verizon you treat us bad we
are going to Sonic.net? What a powerful tool that would be. It's called $$$

~~~
touristtam
May I suggest you have a look at the deregulation of the old state monopolies
in Europe? Net neutrality seems to have an impact outside the States, that
feels it is being overlooked while you guys are debating of your own national
ISP market.

------
macspoofing
Any vision that AT&T has for the Internet would ruin the Internet.

------
ChrisLolz
I just want the Internet to be open and free of crap like this it might be far
fetched but that's all I want.

------
Karunamon
Just about anything a massive corporate ISP has to say on this matter can be
safely ignored as self-serving pap.

------
tokenizerrr
I mean, it would probably ruin some of their profits.

------
neurobro
I don't want the FCC to have any authority over the Internet. I don't want the
FCC giving $25,000 fines to web sites that publish dirty words or wardrobe
malfunctions. If "fast lanes" ever really become a problem requiring
government intervention (which to my knowledge they haven't yet), it should be
in the form of direct Congressional action and very limited in scope.

~~~
ASneakyFox
Well right now no one can out compete netflix unless they form the same fast
lane deals. That's sort of a issue....

~~~
neurobro
Nobody can compete with Netflix because it's nigh impossible to match the
breadth of their content licensing, and it will take an enormous marketing
investment to displace their brand. (Even Amazon and Google have weaker brands
to the extent that they compete with Netflix.)

"Fast lane deals" would/will be an _expense_ for Netflix and give smaller
competitors a slight advantage in that respect (if they can get the content
and publicity, and improve the experience for users).

If ISPs degrade their services to the point that it's impossible to deliver
streaming video without paying fast-lane protection money, that's something
that could be resolved directly by lawmakers. E.g., prohibit marketing "up to
100 Mbit" if users can't even stream 2 Mbit video reliably. They could call
the service "1 Mbit plus Netflix" or similar. This wouldn't grant any new
authority to unelected FCC censors.

~~~
ASneakyFox
That's the whole reason Netflix buying fast lanes. Comcast throttled netflix
to the point of being unreliable. The whole issue started with malicious
throttling.

I'm not convinced title ii is the answer. But I am convinced that fast lanes
don't make for good internet. Its unfortunate that this isn't a competitive
industry because then consumers could just resolve the issue through their
purchasing decisions.

