Federal Regulator Expected To Hand Huge Win To Net Neutrality

[ksen]

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/20...ulator-expected-hand-huge-win-net-neutrality/

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is expected to regulate the internet as a public utility, according to sources familiar with an agency proposal to be released this week.

The highly anticipated proposal to be released Thursday is expected to reclassify the internet under Title II of the Communications Act as a telecommunications service rather than an information service, lobbyists, FCC insiders and industry experts told the New York Times.

I hope so. It'd be nice to get a good change for once.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

But this is totally against freedom. The freedom of a corporation to control the content of the webs.

 

[barbos]

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/20...ulator-expected-hand-huge-win-net-neutrality/

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is expected to regulate the internet as a public utility, according to sources familiar with an agency proposal to be released this week.

The highly anticipated proposal to be released Thursday is expected to reclassify the internet under Title II of the Communications Act as a telecommunications service rather than an information service, lobbyists, FCC insiders and industry experts told the New York Times.

I hope so. It'd be nice to get a good change for once.

I guess Google had more money than ISPs.

 

[TV and credit cards]

So, we're safe for two more years or does this have a more lasting affect?

 

[Nice Squirrel]

I'm sure Comcast won't give up. It is too lucrative a prospect of charging for content and delivery.

 

[Jarhyn]

So, we're safe for two more years or does this have a more lasting affect?

It essentially means that for the foreseeable future, barring a veto-proof act of congress, ISPs will be like telephone companies and power companies in they get no say in how you use their service. That they are not selling a mouthpiece, they are selling a delivery.

 

[Trausti]

So, we're safe for two more years or does this have a more lasting affect?

It's good until/unless the FCC changes it, Congress intervenes, or it's challenged. It would certainly be up for challenge, as the FCC has no more regulatory authority than that delegated by Congress. An argument may (probably will) be made that the FCC overstepped its tightly channeled powers by reclassifying the internet as a public utility. But given that net neutrality is generally favored by those on the right and left, I imagine that Congress would affirm what the FCC does.

 

[Jarhyn]

So, we're safe for two more years or does this have a more lasting affect?

It's good until/unless the FCC changes it, Congress intervenes, or it's challenged. It would certainly be up for challenge, as the FCC has no more regulatory authority than that delegated by Congress. An argument may (probably will) be made that the FCC overstepped its tightly channeled powers by reclassifying the internet as a public utility. But given that net neutrality is generally favored by those on the right and left, I imagine that Congress would affirm what the FCC does.

I doubt there is any ability to challenge use of title 2. The Internet is a network of Inter-connected communications systems. Delivery to any region of that network is by definition 'telecommunications', and any prior classification would itself be the example of being outside the bounds of their powers. It is not classifying the Internet as a utility, it is classifying the business of delivering data between end points as 'telecommunications'.

ISPs want to sell the lie that they are not selling a delivery, but instead that they are selling you all the individual content that you request on their line, not just selling the delivery of content that they do not themselves own. It's pretty clear they are full of shit when they sell it by volume and rate.

 

[Trausti]

It's good until/unless the FCC changes it, Congress intervenes, or it's challenged. It would certainly be up for challenge, as the FCC has no more regulatory authority than that delegated by Congress. An argument may (probably will) be made that the FCC overstepped its tightly channeled powers by reclassifying the internet as a public utility. But given that net neutrality is generally favored by those on the right and left, I imagine that Congress would affirm what the FCC does.

I doubt there is any ability to challenge use of title 2. The Internet is a network of Inter-connected communications systems. Delivery to any region of that network is by definition 'telecommunications', and any prior classification would itself be the example of being outside the bounds of their powers. It is not classifying the Internet as a utility, it is classifying the business of delivering data between end points as 'telecommunications'.

ISPs want to sell the lie that they are not selling a delivery, but instead that they are selling you all the individual content that you request on their line, not just selling the delivery of content that they do not themselves own. It's pretty clear they are full of shit when they sell it by volume and rate.

Well, the ISPs certainly have the ability to challenge it by filing a complaint in District Court. You've just offered up an argument they might use; an attorney billing $1000/hr might think up a few more. That doesn't mean they'll win, of course.

 

[Axulus]

If this causes internet companies to go back to a model of fixed fee per month plus variable fee per GB of bandwidth used, potentially increasing internet bills, is it still a win for consumers?

Does anyone really think that the ability of broadband companies to pass some of the distribution costs to content providers won't instead be passed on to the customers in a net-neutrality situation? Is that definitely going to be a win for the consumers, or maybe more of a win for the content providers who now face lower costs (paid for instead by you and me more directly)?

 

[Jarhyn]

I doubt there is any ability to challenge use of title 2. The Internet is a network of Inter-connected communications systems. Delivery to any region of that network is by definition 'telecommunications', and any prior classification would itself be the example of being outside the bounds of their powers. It is not classifying the Internet as a utility, it is classifying the business of delivering data between end points as 'telecommunications'.

ISPs want to sell the lie that they are not selling a delivery, but instead that they are selling you all the individual content that you request on their line, not just selling the delivery of content that they do not themselves own. It's pretty clear they are full of shit when they sell it by volume and rate.

Well, the ISPs certainly have the ability to challenge it by filing a complaint in District Court. You've just offered up an argument they might use; an attorney billing $1000/hr might think up a few more. That doesn't mean they'll win, of course.

i'm saying they have no honest legs to stand on. The best hope they have is folding a lie or fallacy up in enough rhetoric that a judge would miss it, shopping for a judge that is themselves motivated to come to an objectively wrong conclusion, or some variant of those two things. They clearly have the authority to regulate telecommunications companies, as they do that already. The only question is, 'are broadband ISPs engaging in Telecommunications?', and if not, 'do they have any right to sell the work of others as content?', though it is clear that they are engaging in telecommunications, and all the discoveries and clear principles governing telecommunications still apply, perhaps moreso than they ever did with telephone service

 

[Nice Squirrel]

If this causes internet companies to go back to a model of fixed fee per month plus variable fee per GB of bandwidth used, potentially increasing internet bills, is it still a win for consumers?

Funny how in areas with competition this isn't a problem. Comcast still charges 3x what DSL and fiber optic do because they "bundle" with cable subscribers who don't know they can get service cheaper.

Does anyone really think that the ability of broadband companies to pass some of the distribution costs to content providers won't instead be passed on to the customers instead in a net-neutrality situation? Is that definitely going to be a win for the consumers, or maybe more of a win for the content providers who now face lower costs (paid for instead by you and me)?

So what you are saying is that (despite the evidence that it will increase prices) is that sites like Talk Freethought should pay to have content available to Comcast subscribers?

 

[Trausti]

Well, the ISPs certainly have the ability to challenge it by filing a complaint in District Court. You've just offered up an argument they might use; an attorney billing $1000/hr might think up a few more. That doesn't mean they'll win, of course.

i'm saying they have no honest legs to stand on. The best hope they have is folding a lie or fallacy up in enough rhetoric that a judge would miss it, shopping for a judge that is themselves motivated to come to an objectively wrong conclusion, or some variant of those two things. They clearly have the authority to regulate telecommunications companies, as they do that already. The only question is, 'are broadband ISPs engaging in Telecommunications?', and if not, 'do they have any right to sell the work of others as content?', though it is clear that they are engaging in telecommunications, and all the discoveries and clear principles governing telecommunications still apply, perhaps moreso than they ever did with telephone service

This is not an area I've educated myself on; though I appreciate the nuances of administrative law. It appears that the FCC has already lost a challenge to its assumed power to impose net neutrality: http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/3AF8B4D938CDEEA685257C6000532062/$file/11-1355-1474943.pdf

What we are discussing here is apparently a new effort by the FCC to conjure authority from the Congressional power delegation it has already received. Congress has not delegated any new authority that I'm aware of. The ISPs just might win after all.

 

[ksen]

I'm pretty sure the judge told the FCC they couldn't impose those regulations because they didn't classify ISPs as Title II utilities. So, looks like the FCC will now classify ISPs as Title II utilities in order for net neutrality regulations to pass judicial muster.

 

[Axulus]

So what you are saying is that (despite the evidence that it will increase prices) is that sites like Talk Freethought should pay to have content available to Comcast subscribers?

What evidence are you referring to? If they can't get revenue from content providers, they'll get it from the customers instead. Also, do you seriously think they would charge FRDB for access to their network? Such a site places essentially no burden on their network. It is the sites like Netflix and Youtube that place the heaviest burdens on their network, where bandwidth and latency actually matter most. What we would most likely be talking about is Youtube and Netflix paying Comcast extra to have priority access on the network to deliver the best quality/performance. Other traffic would get lower priority (such as FRDB, which really doesn't need high bandwidth low latency to perform adaquately). The fears that little text and image based websites would have to pay for access seems to be entering into the realm of hysterics.

 

[Jarhyn]

i'm saying they have no honest legs to stand on. The best hope they have is folding a lie or fallacy up in enough rhetoric that a judge would miss it, shopping for a judge that is themselves motivated to come to an objectively wrong conclusion, or some variant of those two things. They clearly have the authority to regulate telecommunications companies, as they do that already. The only question is, 'are broadband ISPs engaging in Telecommunications?', and if not, 'do they have any right to sell the work of others as content?', though it is clear that they are engaging in telecommunications, and all the discoveries and clear principles governing telecommunications still apply, perhaps moreso than they ever did with telephone service

This is not an area I've educated myself on; though I appreciate the nuances of administrative law. It appears that the FCC has already lost a challenge to its assumed power to impose net neutrality: http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/3AF8B4D938CDEEA685257C6000532062/$file/11-1355-1474943.pdf

What we are discussing here is apparently a new effort by the FCC to conjure authority from the Congressional power delegation it has already received. Congress has not delegated any new authority that I'm aware of. The ISPs just might win after all.

The previous neutrality rule failed because they didn't have the authority to govern a 'content provider' as requiring neutrality. It would fly in the face of the first amendment.

Cable companies (ok, let's be honest, THE cable company) is built around the idea of selling a platform with specific content. That's business A. Now they are also selling delivery of data between networks. But the thing is, that's a different business. That's business B. Because they are both done on the same wire, they want to claim that business B should be allowed to be operated under the same set of regulations as business A. But one (A) is a sale of a platform and the other (B) is people spending money on data delivery. They aren't buying 'the Internet', they are buying delivery of data between arbitrary endpoints. They are not buying the Internet. They are buying access to it. That's telecommunications. The rub in the previous case was that under the authorizations the FCC had, broadband was being treated as cable television, a non-arbitrary endpoint communication. Of course the best thing would be to recognize the conflicts of interest between a non-arbitrary endpoint business model and an arbitrary endpoint business model, and call the FTC and have them break up the company into two companies with equal access to the original infrastructure, one serving only business A and one serving only business B, one regulated as a cable company and the other as a telecom.

 

[Trausti]

This is not an area I've educated myself on; though I appreciate the nuances of administrative law. It appears that the FCC has already lost a challenge to its assumed power to impose net neutrality: http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/3AF8B4D938CDEEA685257C6000532062/$file/11-1355-1474943.pdf

What we are discussing here is apparently a new effort by the FCC to conjure authority from the Congressional power delegation it has already received. Congress has not delegated any new authority that I'm aware of. The ISPs just might win after all.

The previous neutrality rule failed because they didn't have the authority to govern a 'content provider' as requiring neutrality. It would fly in the face of the first amendment.

Cable companies (ok, let's be honest, THE cable company) is built around the idea of selling a platform with specific content. That's business A. Now they are also selling delivery of data between networks. But the thing is, that's a different business. That's business B. Because they are both done on the same wire, they want to claim that business B should be allowed to be operated under the same set of regulations as business A. But one (A) is a sale of a platform and the other (B) is people spending money on data delivery. They aren't buying 'the Internet', they are buying delivery of data between arbitrary endpoints. They are not buying the Internet. They are buying access to it. That's telecommunications. The rub in the previous case was that under the authorizations the FCC had, broadband was being treated as cable television, a non-arbitrary endpoint communication. Of course the best thing would be to recognize the conflicts of interest between a non-arbitrary endpoint business model and an arbitrary endpoint business model, and call the FTC and have them break up the company into two companies with equal access to the original infrastructure, one serving only business A and one serving only business B, one regulated as a cable company and the other as a telecom.

Hey, you may end up right. Just saying that whatever rules the FCC promulgates on net neutrality, they will likely be challenged and there's a foreseeable chance a court will roll them back.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

So what you are saying is that (despite the evidence that it will increase prices) is that sites like Talk Freethought should pay to have content available to Comcast subscribers?

What evidence are you referring to? If they can't get revenue from content providers, they'll get it from the customers instead.

Which they currently do. This is not going to change, what they want is to make money from both the content providers and customers.

Also, do you seriously think they would charge FRDB for access to their network? Such a site places essentially no burden on their network.

Why does the RIAA attempt to charge every restaurant more than $6K per year even if they don't have live music?

You can bet your shining stars Comcast will charge everyone it can, and block all who don't.

It is the sites like Netflix and Youtube that place the heaviest burdens on their network, where bandwidth and latency actually matter most. What we would most likely be talking about is Youtube and Netflix paying Comcast extra to have priority access on the network to deliver the best quality/performance. Other traffic would get lower priority (such as FRDB, which really doesn't need high bandwidth low latency to perform adaquately). The fears that little text and image based websites would have to pay for access seems to be entering into the realm of hysterics.

But somehow I pay for bandwith to a competitor of Comcast and see no slowdown even though usage gets very high and even during snowstorms when it is a sure bet that the entire neighborhood is streaming content. I'm not sure why these companies seem to handle the data just fine and Comcast doesn't. Comcast simply wants to control content and bundle packages like it does to its cable customers. This means nearly unlimited profits.

 

[jonatha]

Does anyone really think that the ability of broadband companies to pass some of the distribution costs to extort additional profit from content providers won't instead be passed on to squeezed out of the customers in a net-neutrality situation?

FTFY.

If Comcast et al start getting treated as regulated utilities, it's entirely possible their rates will have to be approved by the state regulatory commission (if they aren't already).

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If this causes internet companies to go back to a model of fixed fee per month plus variable fee per GB of bandwidth used, potentially increasing internet bills, is it still a win for consumers?

Does anyone really think that the ability of broadband companies to pass some of the distribution costs to content providers won't instead be passed on to the customers in a net-neutrality situation? Is that definitely going to be a win for the consumers, or maybe more of a win for the content providers who now face lower costs (paid for instead by you and me more directly)?

Why would it? Net neutrality is about keeping them from abusing their near-monopoly position, it's not about making them pay more.