FCC votes for net neutrality and Title II

[AmareIsGod]

This is HUGE news. Wow. Let's hope this stays upheld.

http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/02 ... -title-ii/

FCC votes for net neutrality, a ban on paid fast lanes, and Title II

The Federal Communications Commission today voted to enforce net neutrality rules that prevent Internet providers—including cellular carriers—from blocking or throttling traffic or giving priority to Web services in exchange for payment.

The core net neutrality provisions are bans on blocking and throttling traffic, a ban on paid prioritization, and a requirement to disclose network management practices. Broadband providers will not be allowed to block or degrade access to legal content, applications, services, and non-harmful devices or favor some traffic over others in exchange for payment. There are exceptions for "reasonable network management" and certain data services that don't use the "public Internet." Those include heart monitoring services and the Voice over Internet Protocol services offered by home Internet providers.

There are additional Title II requirements that go beyond previous net neutrality rules. There are provisions to investigate consumer complaints, privacy rules, and protections for people with disabilities. Content providers and network operators who connect to ISPs' networks can complain to the FCC about "unjust and unreasonable" interconnection rates and practices. There are also rules guaranteeing ISPs access to poles and other infrastructure controlled by utilities, potentially making it easier to enter new markets. (Republican commissioner Ajit Pai argued that the new rules will actually make cable companies and new providers like Google Fiber pay higher fees for access to utility poles.)

[Mori Chu]

Agreed. I think it is a great thing and will help keep the internet the way it should be.

[Dan H]

http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=229877

Yay, super excited to pay more for less down the line.

Have they released the full text of the regulations? I know there was stuff in there that even the EFF was balking at.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/02/d ... duct-rules

[Indy]

http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=229877

Yay, super excited to pay more for less down the line.

Have they released the full text of the regulations? I know there was stuff in there that even the EFF was balking at.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/02/d ... duct-rules

You opposed Net Neutrality, Dan?

[Dan H]

Some of the aspects of it are good, like removing the restrictions on municipal broadband, but the way things spun out it's going to be great for big companies and compliance costs are going to be killer for small, innovative entrepreneurs.

Prime example:

http://hyperborean.liberty.me/2015/02/1 ... ve-the-us/

[AmareIsGod]

What about ISPs and, most importantly, wireless (which is now going to be defined as a regulated utility) capping your data and charging you for exceeding your allotted GB allowance? Or the "fast pass" track that, Verizon and Comcast being a huge proponent, ISPs and wireless providers wanted to implement to cause Netflix and others to pay a premium to use their network to deliver end users their subscribed to content (which in turn would trickle down to consumers with increased subscription rates to your favorite streaming services)?

There are so many issues with ISPs and Wireless providers today that feel they can do anything they want because they are full bore monopolies able to continually bully consumers into paying and doing what they want. ISPs and wireless providers have been charging consumers whatever they want for years without expanding their infrastructure in a timely manner to support growth. This will force their hand accordingly and we can start seeing more widespread, fast connectivity that justifies the continual, vague increases that we've all seen occur over the years.

On some sleep depravation. Will attack this with more clarity and vengeance a little later on

[Dan H]

Yeah, at least as of a couple of weeks ago there was nothing in the proposal regarding data caps. We'll see.

The reason why broadband companies have monopolies on certain markets is because of local governments allowing them to do so. Government screws up the market, so let's give government more power? Seems legit.

http://www.wired.com/2013/07/we-need-to ... mpetition/

Time will tell but I predict this will be a net loser for consumers.

[Ghost]

Yeah, at least as of a couple of weeks ago there was nothing in the proposal regarding data caps. We'll see.

The reason why broadband companies have monopolies on certain markets is because of local governments allowing them to do so. Government screws up the market, so let's give government more power? Seems legit.

http://www.wired.com/2013/07/we-need-to ... mpetition/

Time will tell but I predict this will be a net loser for consumers.

Unlike when Comcast strongarmed Netflix into a big payout for the honor of delivering their content, which is what their customers are already paying for, which was a huge win for consumers.

Dan...you've got to be kidding us.

[Dan H]

And if local municipalities weren't camping on utility right of ways, Google Fiber would be expanding more rapidly and Comcast wouldn't be able to pull stunts like that because people would have alternatives.

Nothing in anything I've seen on net neutrality is going to address the local monopoly issue.

Heck, even Mother Jones agrees with that.

Given current political realities, strong net neutrality rules are a good idea. But an even better idea would be to forget about net neutrality and open up local markets to real competition. I think we'd find out pretty quickly that broadband suppliers have plenty of money for infrastructure upgrades if the alternative is a steadily shrinking market share as competitors start eating their lunch.

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2 ... ompetition

[Mori Chu]

Without net neutrality laws, the internet companies are able to charge web businesses for "fast access" aka blackmailing them to get their traffic through. It's absolutely unacceptable to allow that. The current net neutrality law isn't perfect but it is mandatory. We can't have an internet where a few megacorporation gatekeepers are allowed to bully and control whose traffic gets through and whose doesn't. That would potentially destroy or cripple the entire tech economy.

[Indy]

And if local municipalities weren't camping on utility right of ways, Google Fiber would be expanding more rapidly and Comcast wouldn't be able to pull stunts like that because people would have alternatives.

Nothing in anything I've seen on net neutrality is going to address the local monopoly issue.

Heck, even Mother Jones agrees with that.

Given current political realities, strong net neutrality rules are a good idea. But an even better idea would be to forget about net neutrality and open up local markets to real competition. I think we'd find out pretty quickly that broadband suppliers have plenty of money for infrastructure upgrades if the alternative is a steadily shrinking market share as competitors start eating their lunch.

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2 ... ompetition

Can you explain how local municipalities passing laws to only do business with one company is helped by this? Are you advocating a national law precluding local municipalities from choosing their own ISPs?

[Dan H]

It would be regularization of trade, IMO. I think it would be entirely Constitutionally appropriate. There's no reason why one company should get a sweetheart deal to hang a wire from a municipal pole that a competitor does not. That's crony capitalism at best.

Without net neutrality laws, the internet companies are able to charge web businesses for "fast access" aka blackmailing them to get their traffic through. It's absolutely unacceptable to allow that. The current net neutrality law isn't perfect but it is mandatory. We can't have an internet where a few megacorporation gatekeepers are allowed to bully and control whose traffic gets through and whose doesn't. That would potentially destroy or cripple the entire tech economy.

And, as referenced in the Mother Jones article, increased competition in the marketplace would make that far less likely if not nonexistent.

Around here AT&T is pumping DSL through decades-old copper lines and Comcast is using coax so old that the insulation was freezing off last winter and causing slowdowns and outages. If a huge chunk of Comcast's customers were jumping ship to Google Fiber or Verizon FiOS, there'd be incentive to do a better job - both from the customer service standpoint and from the quality of service aspect. As it stands now, working from home and needing a speedy connection for VOIP and LogMeIn, I'm kind of boned. Comcast is my only bet - and none of the advertised aspects of net neutrality are going to fix that situation.

[Ghost]

You are conflating two separate issues. Monopolization of the market (bad) and the actual subject, net neutrality (good). Deregulation MIGHT have the effect of opening up the market to new competition, but that usually only happens in the most naive and ideal version of the conservative playbook. In reality, complete deregulation would likely mean that the biggest fish in the pond winds up being the only fish in the pond anyway...and they would be able to determine exactly how you use your internet connection, for example, forcing Logmein to fork over money the same way they extorted Netflix, on the grounds that it's a business service, not a consumer service (or whatever they want to say).

Net neutrality has NOTHING TO DO with monopolization, you are correct. It does not attempt to address that issue. It's a different issue. Net neutrality is about the consumer, who is paying for internet access already, getting access to the internet, without regard to how they use it. In your ideal world, each internet provider could conceivably create their own browser and mandate you use it, throw ads at you every 30 seconds, block the websites of their competitors, and in a million other ways.

Before you pull the "market will work itself out" card, just stop. No, it won't. Even in your utopia, there will be areas where there is only one option -- it's just not worth it to build up the infrastructure for the other providers for minimal gain. And in areas where there is competition, you can damn well bet they will do everything they can to fight that competition (because why wouldn't they? It would be foolish not to). Websites will be forced to become like cable TV stations, negotiating contracts with ISPs in order to reach their customers...customers who, by the way, are already paying for the ability to access those websites. Prices will go up, service will go down, and the consumer will end up paying out the ass for it.

And even after all this, it would not solve your complaint. Monopolization will STILL happen, because deregulation will not actually open the market up to small players, who would just get bought up anyway. I share your opposition to the monopolies (very progressive of you, by the way...Teddy Roosevelt would be proud). But again, that's not the issue here.

[Dan H]

Like I said, time will tell. I would wager than in 2-3 years the consumer isn't going to notice much of anything but a higher bill.

[Ghost]

Well, the consumer certainly won't notice ISP - specific browsers, data throttling, website blockages, or everything else NN actually protects against.

[Indy]

Like I said, time will tell. I would wager than in 2-3 years the consumer isn't going to notice much of anything but a higher bill.

Can you think of a product that has become cheaper over the last 3 years? Of course the rates are going to go up, just like they have over the past 3 years. Although my service has gone way up too.

[Ghost]

Like I said, time will tell. I would wager than in 2-3 years the consumer isn't going to notice much of anything but a higher bill.

Can you think of a product that has become cheaper over the last 3 years? Of course the rates are going to go up, just like they have over the past 3 years. Although my service has gone way up too.

I was going to comment on that as well, but I was on my phone and I have some serious issues typing coherently on there. Yeah, exactly...inflation happens.

That said, gasoline is cheaper now than three years ago. But it's a bit of a special case. And televisions, by size. But that's not your point. But I can't help myself.

[Dan H]

Like I said, time will tell. I would wager than in 2-3 years the consumer isn't going to notice much of anything but a higher bill.

Can you think of a product that has become cheaper over the last 3 years? Of course the rates are going to go up, just like they have over the past 3 years. Although my service has gone way up too.

Computers?

You guys aren't saying that there's . . . inflation . . . are you?

Thankfully I'm locked into my current rate for a 2-year plan. That's the thing about Comcast that drives me crazy - you CAN get reasonable prices out of them, you just have to haggle like a mofo. Their service department is terrible, but thankfully I'm using my own modem and I'm not using their cable box.

[Indy]

Actually, for the first time in a long time, January saw deflation happen in the US (although it was something like -0.1%).

Who would be arguing that there is no inflation?

And for TVs, Computers, if you bought a top-line TV 3 years ago, and a top-line TV now, it is certainly more expensive. Same with computers. The difference is the product improved.

Same with my Cox service. 3 years ago I was paying for the 40 Mbs service, now my costs are about $10 more a month, but I have the 100 Mbs service.

[Indy]

What is the benefit to using your own modem, Dan?