I do however find the doom and gloom prognostications around Title II repeal to be incredibly hyperbolic and unhelpful. Fact is, Title II was only introduced in 2015. It's not like repeal in 2017 is going to end the Internet overnight.
There are three problems here:
1. The US has a harebrained notion of "competition" in creating regional monopolies.
2. It actually doesn't make much sense to build multiple last-mile networks. This is called an overbuild and is rather wasteful given the capex involved. It's also why strict rules are in place for utilities: it underscores the fact that utilities are monopolies and seeks to prevent overbuilds.
3. ISPs have been allowed to frame the debate on peering with outright falsehoods. Specifically, the likes of Comcast claim that it's "unfair" that the likes of Netflix can "push" data onto their network for free no less. Netflix of course isn't pushing anything. Comcast's customers are requesting it.
It's all just a thinly-veiled attempt to stifle VOD providers to prop up dying (yet profitable) cable TV businesses. The fact that politicians aren't able to or don't want to see through this is both unsurprising and disappointing.
Adopting net neutrality laws at a state level is an interesting idea that may force Federal regulatino. I mean what's worse that one set of Federal rules for a large company? 50 sets of state rules, that's what.
Even if just CA and NY adopt this, that's already a sizable amount of the population.
I think it's really just because it was successfully made into a mainstream political issue. So now you have to appeal to the mass audience, not just IT nerds; and we're just seeing the same tactics that is routinely used to whip up support (or opposition) to other stuff.
I'm actually weirdly uncomfortable about this. It's like being the guy who has cried wolf for many years, and now half of the village is there with you; but you see them pointing at rocks, logs etc, and insisting that these are all wolves, and we're all going to die now. It really made me question just how many people who happen to share my political positions, do so because they genuinely understand and agree with the policies, and not because it's just what you're supposed to do when you have a certain identity (liberal etc).
I just can't imagine that ISPs won't make a grab for revenues, otherwise why spend money to lobby against NN? They're probably just waiting for the current furor to die down and sneak it in without people noticing.
This hysteria is undoubtedly the reason you have things like bomb threats being called in on the FCC. Did the person who did that actually have any degree of understanding on the issue for which he probably was fantasizing about hurting or even killing people over? The safe guess there is probably not.
As soon as it comes to anything political, we're all suddenly experts predicting gloom, doom or salvation over every single policy issue. Logic says every person is probably wrong on average half of the time, yet every person believes they are correct in their political team playing 100% of the time. That can't be healthy.
Its worth thinking about how well reasoned and deeply researched justifications of positions make headway in a democracy. Expert opinion is expensive to acquire and not accessible to the majority. In a hierarchy of coalitions information is potential compressed at every level. If it gets compressed enough it might just end up as a left versus right or up versus down issue, with the justification for this reasoning only accessible by traversing up and down the hierarchy. I am not sure that this is a bad thing, butI can appreciate your concern about causes of an individuals motivation, especially in light of the potential for a propaganda apparatus to insert itself into my aforedescribed idealization.
And before that no ISP would even consider tiered pricing because there were no services worth tiering. Alexadra Petri has a really good analogy over at the WaPo:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/compost/wp/2017/12/14/n...
I remember a time when you couldn't text to other carrier, while Europe had it since the 90s.
I remember how your carrier would not let you use facetime/skype etc....
Anyway, you are paying for access to internet and you should have it.
This is akin to letting a private entity building a private highway on a public ground, and the owner of the highway can say: Only Audis and BMWs are allowed here...
So when you say "it was only introduced in 2015", what you really mean is "it was a heavily disputed situation for 20 years in with multiple court cases being won and lost by ISPs".
So yeah, this is the first time the regulatory framework is basically _gone_ even if it wasn't "Title II".
1996 Telecommunication Act: It was a legal gray area, particularly given dial up / dsl over telephone lines.
2002: FCC exempts NCTA by declaring it an information service, not telecommunications.
2005: NCTA wins at the Supreme Court
Open Internet Principles: 2005-2010 (i.e. Threatening to regulate)
Open Internet Order: 2010-2015 (Regulating, legally overturned)
Regulatory framework repealed today: 2015-2017
Some action against Comcast throttling/blocking BitTorrent (in 2007-2009) ultimately resulted in action by the FCC in 2010, made rather toothless in 2014 with the provisions against blocking and throttling struck down.
So between 2010-2014 and 2015-2017 we have ~6 years of regulation, with the ISPs fighting it all the way (surprise surprise).
Just to clarify: I'm in agreement that we need net neutrality. I've just been around the block enough times to know that the FCC's latest action just isn't the end of the world.
It was treated as such prior to that, implicitly (without the force of law). Policy was established to enforce it, formally. It wasn't just "introduced", it was tacitly accepted until there were known bad actors, because there was an expectation that acting in opposition would birth policy (it did). Pretending that traffic was treated equally before and after, is just another piece of mischaracterization. A piece that is used to distract from, and minimize, the problems with removing the policy.
Yes, obviously. Just like roads. Which is why local governments should design and operate all residential internet networks.
Or: Yes, obviously. A house really only needs one electrified wire, which is why we should turn over internet service to the power company.
Or: Yes, obviously. We don't want an internet that's wasteful in any part of its operations, which is why it should be run entirely by the federal government. In fact, it's about communications, so let's combine it with the USPS.
Or: Yes, obviously. Given its vital role in society and its origins as a DARPA project, it should be entirely built and operated by the US Army.
On the other hand, maybe what we need is a proper market in internet connectivity, with multiple providers using different technologies and approaches to meet consumer needs, and a strong regulator that keeps large companies from driving the small ones under.
As somebody who lives in one of the few competitive ISP markets in the US and pays $50/month for my gigabit home fiber connection, I think I prefer the latter.
This completely side-skirts the rule that disallows states from making their own NN legislature.
Wasn't the original phone system vastly over built and that is the reason that things like DSL were possible without having to run new wiring in many homes?
Phone lines had a filter on them to only pass through voice range frequencies. It's why you could hear the sounds made by a modem (or a fax for that matter). These were simply working around the filter.
xDSL was a result of removing that filter. Or, rather, moving it into the customer premises so instead of 2-3kHz, the copper line could support frequencies into the MHz range.
ADSL has a speed limit that follows an inverse square law to the distance the line travels to the exchange. Under ~1km ADSL2+ can get 20+ Mbps. At about 6km ADSL/ADSL2/ADSL2+ all cap out at about ~1.5Mbps and much beyond that it doesn't work at all.
4-5km is a typical average distance for a phone line, putting the max speed in the 5-8Mbps range. Pretty good for the early 2000s. Not so great now.
There are various workarounds for this, most notably reducing the copper distance. In Australia, the NBN (in part) uses FttN (fiber to the node) so Exchange -> fiber -> Node -> copper -> Customer. Limit the copper distance to 1.5km and put VDSL2 on it and you can get closer to 100Mbps.
If anything, I've seen a significant rise in censorship since NN was passed.
The hyperbole today is just off the charts sad.
Please back up your statements by pointing to sources that support your interpretation of laws and events so that others can verify them.
1996 Telecommunication Act: It was a legal gray area, particularly given dial up / dsl over telephone lines.
2002: FCC exempts NCTA by declaring it an information service, not telecommunications.
2005: NCTA wins at the Supreme Court
Open Internet Principles: 2005-2010 (i.e. Threatening to regulate)
Open Internet Order: 2010-2015 (Regulating, legally overturned)
Regulatory framework repealed today: 2015-2017
------------------
"If anything, I've seen a significant rise in censorship since NN was passed."
Censorship by whom? A bunch of websites that are completely separate entities from ISPs that are monopolies for all intents and purposes?
The solution is to break the monopolistic stranglehold on last-mile internet service.
If it were possible to have competition in the last-mile ISP space, then consumers could vote with their wallets and choose those ISPs who supported Net Neutrality.
An alternate partial solution would be to force companies breaking net neutrality to report it on their customer's bill.
You bring up a great point though, even if 100 of the biggest cities have municipal internet infrastructure, there are still lots of areas that wouldn't be covered and could benefit from basic NN regulation.
I don't necessarily think the issues are orthogonal, but I do think basic "don't be a dick" ISP regulations should be in place.
They're not. If NN is a user sought feature, true competition will bring it.
E.g. a few years ago cell phone plans sucked in the US. TMobile started some real competition. The other big ones had to follow. Unlimited data plans, demanded ages ago, have been recently introduced.
Many rural areas have only one grocery store.
This week I'm upgrading my connection to gigabit up/down over DOCSIS 3.1. While my own wifi supports near gigabit speeds, it will be a while before whole neighborhoods can enjoy the same over cellular service.
Good luck using 500GB of cellular in a month.
The Commerce Clause has been ruled to apply to something you grow in your own backyard and consume yourself because of a theoretical impact on the national market: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn So it's very easy to see how regulating state internet regulations also falls into the purview of the federal government from there.
I never paid much attention to what they got up to before the feds stepped in but I kind of doubt it was a last mile problem, once the packet got that far why mess with it?
But, knowing California, they'll do one of those "...and any packet destined for a customer in California."
The modern 'conservative' stance towards the affairs of the day.
I just see it as opportunity to hone my subtle trolling skills.
(tl;dr: fcc-will-also-order-states-to-scrap-plans-for-their-own-net-neutrality-laws/ )
It's going to be interesting to see this idea tested again.
[1] https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-releases-order-preempting-t... [2] https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/02/fcc-o... [3] http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/16a0189p-06.pdf
I reserve to right to have completely misunderstood the legalese that I was hearing :)
>The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
If the Federal government chooses not to regulate it, then the states should be allowed to do so.
Edit: Here the FCC is choosing to not regulate Telecoms as "Common Carriers", so would not the states then be allowed to do so, barring other federal agencies that may be able to regulate "Common Carriers" (ala the FTC)? Honest question.
I tend to agree that the FCC probably won't be able to ban states from enacting their own form of net neutrality, but I've seen the courts side with business interests with weak arguments more times than I'd like.
Courts are wary of letting the federal government regulate how states organize themselves.
Where is libertarianism?
Largely still arguing about what it means to be a libertarian.
cf) The entire history of the term "states' rights".
If it's true for handguns, it's true for the Internet. I say Californians might have a shot at this (as would any other state)
The repeal is working exactly the way Pai said it would. It is encouraging new ISP entrants. Startup ISPs are the answer. NN supporters still don't realize they've been on the wrong side the entire time.
Yes, competition would absolutely be better for everyone. There is not a single NN supporter out there who would not love more competition. But we still have to live in the real world. And in the real world, there flat out is no competition. And in many places, particularly rural and inner-city areas, there likely is not enough of a customer base to support multiple ISPs. And, as I said, we do not have competition now. Repealing Net Neutrality is this environment is nothing more than an anti-consumer move. It absolutely is required now, to protect consumer interests. If we were in an environment where market forces could work, then you would have an argument that NN is not needed. But, once again, to stress the point, we do not live in that environment. Getting rid of NN before that environment comes is utter foolishness, and does nothing but serve to turn the internet into Cable TV.
https://www.recode.net/2017/12/14/16777356/full-transcript-a...
Small internet services were being shut out due to the Title II regulations.
https://www.recode.net/2017/12/14/16777356/full-transcript-a...
"The main complaint consumers have about the Internet is not and has never been that their Internet service provider is blocking access to content. It’s that they don’t have access at all or enough competition. These regulations have taken us in the opposite direction from these consumer preferences. Under Title II, investment in high-speed networks has declined by billions of dollars. Notably, this is the first time that such investment has declined outside of a recession in the Internet era."
"The impact has been particularly serious for smaller Internet service providers. They don’t have the time, money, or lawyers to navigate a thicket of complex rules."
"the Wireless Internet Service Providers Association, which represents small fixed wireless companies that typically operate in rural America, surveyed its members and found that over 80% “incurred additional expense in complying with the Title II rules, had delayed or reduced network expansion, had delayed or reduced services and had allocated budget to comply with the rules.” Other small companies, too, have told the FCC that these regulations have forced them to cancel, delay, or curtail fiber network upgrades. And nearly two dozen small providers submitted a letter saying the FCC’s heavy-handed rules “affect our ability to find financing.”"
"a coalition of 19 municipal Internet service providers—that is, city-owned nonprofits—have told the FCC that they “often delay or hold off from rolling out a new feature or service because [they] cannot afford to deal with a potential complaint and enforcement action.”"
The problem is a portion of the US has no good network infrastructure. Another significant portion of the US has only 1 provider servicing them with decent internet connectivity.
A new market entrant will need years to dig and install adequate coverage for even urban US locations. Meanwhile, the US consumer will suffer shit service and outright market manipulation.
If it's true that the majority wanted to keep net neutrality, then how come the majority was ignored? Maybe I'm missing something but this seems like a good example that our voice in the US doesn't matter beyond local things like whether or not your town will allocate money towards a new public swimming pool.
Go vote on whether or not you get a nice new swimming pool. The monopolists are the only ones that have a voice in grown-up topics. That's what I'm gathering from this. Accurate or alarmist nonsense?
Because the majority (at least, as weighted for electoral influence in both political branches of government) has prioritized other things in voting for representatives. Legislation, whether direct votes or through representatives, involves not only opinions on particular questions, but opinions on the relative priority of questions, which effects how questions are aggregated and how those aggregated questions are answered.
The majority wants net neutrality, sure, but continuously says (by voting) that they care about it much less than they care about other things, and that they are willing to sacrifice NN tomget those other things.
In generaly, the things that the majority want don't get enacted under the US system e.g. the tax bill with very low approval, so net neutrality falls into the general bucket of stuff that the majority want but that the Republicans don't want to them have.
Because the FCC isn't accountable to the public, majority or not. If a majority protest was directed at a congress person, you can be sure they would listen – we're the ones who vote them in/out. And that's exactly what we're going to do to get NN enacted as law.
[1] Yes, I know Pai was appointed by Obama, on Mitch McConnell's advice. That's how these things work: 5 members, split between the two parties, with the incumbent administration's party getting the extra seat.
I cannot believe that I live in the middle of the infamous Silicon Valley and only have a single choice when it comes to fast broadband, and that one goes down every other month for 3-8 hours.
I took the time today to inquire (again) with Wave/Astound, Sonic, AT&T about FTTH.
AT&T gave me the worst rep humanly possible. I spent 20mins on the phone with her for her to still utterly misunderstand my question, as she was apparently unable to understand or speak english. I already knew Gigapower was not available, I just want SOMEONE to tell me when they plan to offer service at my house, less than a mile from the Redwood City / Spring St CO. No luck.
Sonic did the usual "maybe if you sign up for DSL and you talk all of your friends and neighbors into signing up, we'll vaguely consider bringing FTTH in 2050".
Wave actually had me enter my info and said someone would check my neighborhood (!?) and get back to me within a couple of days.
I'd love to pay, whatever, $1000 to get someone to bring some FTTH here and subsequently make it available to neighbors, improve their local service offerings, etc.
We'll see.
If net neutrality really IS good/bad, you'll notice it when you cross state borders and go online.
Which is probably why the courts have been rejecting the FCC's attempts at enforcing net neutrality for the past 12 years.
http://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=2282&Year=2017
http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2017-18/Pdf/Bills/Hou...
If you've seen my previous posts, you'll know I'm anti Title II, because I think it's a terrible way to achieve the goal. I think state laws, relative to local context, are absolutely the way to go.
