
The real battle for net neutrality begins: The people v. FCC - CrankyBear
http://www.zdnet.com/article/the-real-battle-for-net-neutrality-begins-the-people-v-fcc/
======
martin1975
In choosing a corporate shill like Pai, I think Trump has no idea of the kind
of Trojan horse he unwittingly planted for his 2020 re-election. NN is, at
least in my view, an entirely non-partisan, cross cutting concern/issue that
concerns -everyone-, regardless of their views held on any particular point.

Yes, I am aware that increasing ISP competition will nullify the need for NN,
but that is -not- where we are now, are we? Leave the regulation in place, or
at least put some serious conditions and stimuli for new broadband investments
if you're going to repeal NN. The way they went about it now makes it look
like all they're trying to do is enrich the entrenched players.

This is sure to bite this administration in the ass far more than they
imagined.

~~~
noncoml
> I am aware that increasing ISP competition will nullify the need for NN

I see this argument being used a lot, but I think it is a logical fallacy.

Why do they assume that non-NN will increase ISP competition?

I have a choice of exactly one ISP in my area and I really don't see how the
repeal of NN will make other ISPs lay fiber to my place.

Can someone break down this argument for me? I cannot.

~~~
RussianCow
I think you have it backwards. The argument is that, _assuming_ we have a lot
of competition between ISPs (which is obviously a false assumption in the US),
there is no need for NN.

~~~
btschaegg
Well, that still does make a very bad argument, exactly because it is a false
assumption.

But aside from stating the obvious: I would actually be interested if there is
a country where a lack of competing ISPs is not the status quo. And if there
is, what the reason for that might be. If there is, I'd assume it would have
to do with that country treating network infrastructure the same as roads and
allowing small companies to access it.

~~~
martinmunk
Denmark have reasonable competition. Exactly for the reason you assumed. A
small ISP just rents the cabel.

------
shmerl
_> Congress isn't sitting idly by either. The bill, H.R.4585 - Save Net
Neutrality Act of 2017, has already been proposed, and more will come. After
the FCC announced its decision, Colorado Congressman Mike Coffman, a
Republican, immediately announced, "This conversation belongs in #Congress."_

Watch out for those in the Congress pushing a law that would actually cement
in place fake net neutrality, that doens't really prevent any monopolistic
abuse.

I suspect it was the plan of monopolists all along. They knew well, that
blantant actions of FCC won't fly, but they hoped their corrupt influence on
the Congress would allow them to pass a "law" that would let them run amok
with anti-competitive and user fleecing behavior.

Example of where it can be heading:
[https://web.archive.org/web/20171215060507/http://corporate....](https://web.archive.org/web/20171215060507/http://corporate.comcast.com/comcast-
voices/its-time-for-congress-to-act-and-permanently-preserve-the-open-
internet)

Read carefully what Comcast lobbyists are writing. They describe their own
plan pretty well.

Why would someone like Comcast who fought tooth and nail against FCC net
neutrality rules, suddenly be so interested in passing a law that "solidifies"
and "permanently preserves" it? Only because they hope that they'll manage to
solidify something that doesn't do anything, while "putting the discussion to
rest" (i.e. making fixing it much harder, than simply restoring previous FCC
rules again).

~~~
ikeboy
Comcast doesn't say that they want Congress to implement title ii regulation.
You're mixing up 2 different things.

~~~
shmerl
I explained above what they are saying. They want two things: prevent strong
net neutrality protections and prevent it practically permanently. For that
they are now pushing for a fake law about it. Their logic is, that repealing a
garbage law is usually much harder, than for FCC simply passing some new
regulation. Look at how long DMCA-1201 persists, despite it being an obvious
garbage.

~~~
ikeboy
You said "Why would someone like Comcast who fought tooth and nail against FCC
net neutrality rules, suddenly be so interested in passing a law that
"solidifies" and "permanently preserves" it?"

You seem to be ignoring the obvious response, which is that they're fine with
NN regulations as long as it doesn't come with the overhead of Title II.

~~~
shmerl
Point is, they are pretending they are pro-net neutrality, while in essence
they are completely against it. It's their usual smokescreen tactic, to fool
those who would fall for such weasel talk.

Saying they are fine with NN regulation, but only when it's actually not doing
anything to protect NN, is fallacy.

So let's be clear - they are simply lying through their teeth.

~~~
ikeboy
You keep on saying some version of this but aren't giving any reason to
actually believe this.

What would you expect to see differently in a world in which they wanted
Congress to pass clear NN rules?

~~~
shmerl
_> What would you expect to see differently in a world in which they wanted
Congress to pass clear NN rules?_

They should stop lying and admit they are simply against net neutrality to
begin with. But I don't expect them to, naturally, since they are professional
lairs.

Anyway, my point was that the public should be aware about this sneaky attack
on net neutrality, veiled as "support" for it.

~~~
ikeboy
You aren't answering the question. You've given zero reason to think they're
lying except asserting it over and over.

~~~
shmerl
I see no question here. What point are you trying to make? Are you defending
Comcast's attack on NN veiled as support for it (through pushing a law that
redefines NN as something that does nothing to actually protect NN), or you
are trying to explain that we should have expected it? If the later, it's the
same thing I'm saying.

~~~
ikeboy
You're asserting something without offering any evidence for it - I would like
you to explain why people should believe you.

~~~
shmerl
Comcast opposed NN before. What other evidence do you need? They never hid the
fact. They violated it multiple times, from BitTorrent throttling, to data
caps, zero rating and interconnection shenanigans, and they clearly benefit
from not letting strong NN protections be in place. So when they suddenly come
out in support of something they call NN, if you don't see foul play, then you
simply didn't pay any attention.

~~~
ikeboy
You mention 4 things, but only one is a NN violation and it was from a decade
ago.

~~~
shmerl
All of these are NN violations, or related to it.

The goal of Comcast in violating NN is not just abstract violation of it,
their goal is harming competition, and giving themselves an unfair advantage.
The core of the problem is that besides owning the physical network, they are
also media company. So their direct competitors are video services for
instance.

Comcast try to raise the price of those services for users (and thus pushing
them to use Comcast's own ones instead), by combining usage of data caps
(which have no technical need and are purely fleecing / anti-competitive tool)
in combination with zero rating, i.e. excluding their own services from data
caps. Users have to pay extra to avoid data caps. That basically taxes users
who prefer their competitors. Another method they use is interconnection
starvation. That simply degrades the quality of competing services, again
pushing users to use Comcast's ones.

NN is relevant here (in addition to regular anti-trust of course), because
Comcast are giving preferential treatment to their own traffic, while
punishing competitors with data caps and bad interconnection.

So, we established that Comcast clearly violate principles of NN, and can't be
interested in the least in codifying _proper_ NN law.

~~~
ikeboy
This is an extremely disingenuous argument.

First you point out that data caps have no technical need. Something else that
isn't required technically: charging for service. Would you say that the fact
they charge to use their services means they're anti competitive?

Zero rating was not included in the 2015 Order that was repealed - it was
always legal.

~~~
shmerl
What I find disingenuous, are attempts to whitewash abusive monopolistic
behavior like data caps or claims that zero rating is not violating net
neutrality.

------
AFNobody
[https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1051157755251](https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1051157755251)

C'mon now, how dumb do we think we are that these are legit comments?

> Name of Filer: Barack Obama

> Address: 1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Washington, DC 20500

> The unprecedented regulatory power the Obama Administration imposed on the
> internet is smothering innovation, damaging the American economy and
> obstructing job creation. I urge the Federal Communications Commission to
> end the bureaucratic regulatory overreach of the internet known as Title II
> and restore the bipartisan light-touch regulatory consensus that enabled the
> internet to flourish for more than 20 years. The plan currently under
> consideration at the FCC to repeal Obama's Title II power grab is a positive
> step forward and will help to promote a truly free and open internet for
> everyone.

[https://static1.squarespace.com/static/554441dae4b07d3f99017...](https://static1.squarespace.com/static/554441dae4b07d3f990170ea/t/5a32d72d9140b78109fd4dd4/1513281327086/SPL+TiPC+Preliminary+Report+12-14-17.pdf)

> 88% of survey respondents whose emails were used to submit pro-repeal
> comments likely had their identity appropriated to submit a comment,
> compared to just 4% of pro-net neutrality respondents.

------
pmoriarty
The courts are also packed with ideological appointees. I don't have much
faith that they'd consider the issue impartially or with the benefit of the
consumer in mind. You have to remember that they're the ones that let the DMCA
and endless copyright extensions stand, along with giving us other anti-
consumer/pro-corporate decisions like Citizens United.

It's a wonder that the US has any consumer protections at all, and those that
are there are steadily being dismantled under the "pro-business" mantra, or
whatever other fig leaf can be dug up.

