Net neutrality: now what?

[eschereal]

Here is a link to the full FCC draft (pdf).

Of note, on page 109,
190. We conclude that regulation of broadband Internet access service should be governed principally by a uniform set of federal regulations, rather than by a patchwork of separate state and local requirements.… (191.) We therefore preempt any state or local measures that would effectively impose rules or requirements that we have repealed or decided to refrain from imposing in this order or that would impose more stringent requirements for any aspect of broadband service that we address in this order.…
Which is to say that your state or city cannot pass laws that require local ISPs to behave differently than the FCC rules set forth. An ISP that wants to operate in Valentine Nebraska (population 2700) must operate under the same (minimal) rule set as one that wants to provide service in Boston. This may be reasonable or it may not. The service needs and requirements of different regions may call for different rules.

Preemption, to me, sounds like tilting the field in favor of the larger entities. But, you know, competition is much better when the little guy has to fight the tide to survive.

Then, on page 112, we find,
192. Although we preempt state and local laws that interfere with the federal deregulatory policy restored in this order, we do not disturb or displace the states’ traditional role in generally policing such matters as fraud, taxation, and general commercial dealings, so long as the administration of such general state laws does not interfere with federal regulatory objectives. Indeed, the continued applicability of these general state laws is one of the considerations that persuade us that ISP conduct regulation is unnecessary here. Nor do we deprive the states of any functions expressly reserved to them under the Act, such as responsibility for designating eligible telecommunications carriers under section 214(e); exclusive jurisdiction over poles, ducts, conduits, and rights-of-way when a state certifies that it has adopted effective rules and regulations over those matters under section 224(c) …

This relates directly to an issue from the Obama-era order. On specific case was Chattanooga TN, where the county wanted to establish municipal broadband to serve areas that the commercial provider had no interest in, but Tennessee state law prohibited it. This section would effectively restore the weight of the state law, eliminating the public competition (which was competing for space that the commercial provider was ignoring).

Because public competition against private companies (that often have no other competitors) is unfair when public services do not have to make a profit. Again, this sounds a lot like tilting the field in favor of larger companies. Which might, in theory, be a net positive. Or it might, in theory, be some kind of graft-like thing.

[Slash1972]

@Itself

Besides, if revoking net neutrality is all about fostering competition, why are Comcast, Verizon, etc. so doggedly in favor of it?

Because Comcast, Verizon, etc will be so busy and happy making all that extra money from content providers, they won’t mind new ISPs springing up to take some of that money! They WANT to help other ISPs get fiber to everyone’s house in the spirit of competition and net neutrality is the only thing stopping this sharing of consumer and provider money!

[Max_Torque]

@HMS_Irruncible

If it’s reversed and you decide you don’t like it, you don’t just get to ask for backsies. It’s a years-long political process.

I feel I should add: Ajit Pai has stated that he not only wishes to undo net neutrality, he believes that the agency shouldn’t even have the authority to classify ISPs as Title II entities. So, when repeal comes, it will also come with FCC rules stating, “we have no power over this,” meaning that there are no backsies. The authority would be handed over to another agency that doesn’t care, in which case good luck getting them to set things right, or a reversal would have to be done by Congress, and we all know how well that’s going these days.

[Chronos]

Quoth Ravenman:

I would say a downside of the current scheme is that everyone pays the same per level of service, regardless of usage. I can see the argument that the family that streams Sesame Street four times a week and mostly does email otherwise should pay less than the nerd who is constantly downloading movies and playing Killbot 4000 online games for 48 hours in a row every weekend.

Those are different levels of service, not just different usages. There’s no reason that the ISP couldn’t create a cheaper, high-latency plan for the Sesame Street family and a more expensive, low-latency plan for the gamer: That wouldn’t violate Net Neutrality rules at all. Or, more realistically, they could create a cheaper, low-bandwidth plan for the gamer, and a more expensive, high-bandwidth plan for the Sesame Street family (streaming a few hours a week of video uses much more bandwidth than even 48 hours straight of gaming). Or they could create multiple plans that vary in both bandwidth and latency, with the cheapest plans being high latency and low bandwidth and the more expensive plans being low latency and high bandwidth, with plans with one or the other being in between. But what they can’t do is charge different amounts for different uses of the same bandwidth and latency.

[Fubaya]

@eschereal

Here is a link to the full FCC draft (pdf)

Love how they’re getting rid of the ban on blocking and throttling content in favor of transparency and promises of FCC consumer protection. Trust us, were the government.

[eschereal]

Pai says that complaints will be handled by the federal trade commission.

[treis]

@Max_Torque

I feel I should add: Ajit Pai has stated that he not only wishes to undo net neutrality, he believes that the agency shouldn’t even have the authority to classify ISPs as Title II entities. So, when repeal comes, it will also come with FCC rules stating, “we have no power over this,” meaning that there are no backsies. The authority would be handed over to another agency that doesn’t care, in which case good luck getting them to set things right, or a reversal would have to be done by Congress, and we all know how well that’s going these days.

The answer to congressional dysfunction is not for the executive branch to start making their own laws. Congress tried for years to pass a net neutrality like law and failed. The FCC came up with their own regulatory framework for ISPs by classifying them under Title II and then saying a bunch the Title II law won’t be enforced against ISPs.

@Chronos

Those are different levels of service, not just different usages. There’s no reason that the ISP couldn’t create a cheaper, high-latency plan for the Sesame Street family and a more expensive, low-latency plan for the gamer: That wouldn’t violate Net Neutrality rules at all. Or, more realistically, they could create a cheaper, low-bandwidth plan for the gamer, and a more expensive, high-bandwidth plan for the Sesame Street family (streaming a few hours a week of video uses much more bandwidth than even 48 hours straight of gaming). Or they could create multiple plans that vary in both bandwidth and latency, with the cheapest plans being high latency and low bandwidth and the more expensive plans being low latency and high bandwidth, with plans with one or the other being in between. But what they can’t do is charge different amounts for different uses of the same bandwidth and latency.

A consumer that plays games and streams video doesn’t need all of their packets to be low latency. Just the 0.1%, or whatever the number may be, that is the game data.

[Fubaya]

@eschereal

Pai says that complaints will be handled by the federal trade commission.

Seems to me that only applies if they fail to disclose it. As long as they admit it, they can throttle all they want.

[Fubaya]

Comcast may be backing off its promise not to offer fast lanes.

Comcast hints at plan for paid fast lanes after net neutrality repeal

[eschereal]

@Fubaya

Seems to me that only applies if they fail to disclose it. As long as they admit it, they can throttle all they want.

I am not so sure. If an ISP decides to block a site because they are not up on their vig (or whatever “reason”), it seems possible that the FTC could determine that the blocking or throttling is unwarranted and order the provider to raise the gate. We might see endless, lengthy actions being taken on such matters, whether or not the blocking is disclosed. Assuming the ISP fails to properly bribe the FTC.

[galen_ubal]

@eschereal

I am not so sure. If an ISP decides to block a site because they are not up on their vig (or whatever “reason”), it seems possible that the FTC could determine that the blocking or throttling is unwarranted and order the provider to raise the gate. We might see endless, lengthy actions being taken on such matters, whether or not the blocking is disclosed. Assuming the ISP fails to properly bribe the FTC.

Endless, lengthy actions - which, as things are now, are rarely necessary.

Again, I ask: exactly what problem us repealing net neutrality supposed to solve? How exactly does this improve matters?

[Saint_Cad]

@k9bfriender

Not all that fancy, but there are a couple of websites that you can put in your zip code, and it’ll tell you what is available.

https://www.highspeedinternet.com/

https://broadbandnow.com/

6 in mine. 3 I don’t count because it is satellite/wireless with 15 Mbps or less. Of the other 3, 2 are cable (one of which has 11% coverage) but I have Directv. The last is CenturyLink which I have for phone service (that I’ve used twice in 3 years - both times a fax).

ALL have 2.5 or fewer stars on a 5 star rating.

[Chronos]

Quoth treis:

A consumer that plays games and streams video doesn’t need all of their packets to be low latency. Just the 0.1%, or whatever the number may be, that is the game data.

OK, then, an ISP could also offer a plan where you pay for X minutes of low latency a month, and you can push a button to turn on the low-latency period. There are all sorts of things ISPs could do to address these “problems” (if they’re even problems at all) within the framework of net neutrality.

But of course, these issues aren’t actually the reason they want to get rid of net neutrality, so they haven’t actually expended any effort at all at addressing them. What they want is to be able to use their monopoly or near-monopoly on internet access to secure their monopolies in other areas, too, by crushing competition.

[HMS_Irruncible]

@treis

The answer to congressional dysfunction is not for the executive branch to start making their own laws. Congress tried for years to pass a net neutrality like law and failed. The FCC came up with their own regulatory framework for ISPs by classifying them under Title II and then saying a bunch the Title II law won’t be enforced against ISPs.

The FCC is acting within their authority, pursuant to the Communications Act of 1934. It is literally their job, by law. What makes you believe that failed legislation has more force or relevance than actual law?

[treis]

@Chronos

OK, then, an ISP could also offer a plan where you pay for X minutes of low latency a month, and you can push a button to turn on the low-latency period. There are all sorts of things ISPs could do to address these “problems” (if they’re even problems at all) within the framework of net neutrality.

Or they could just charge a monthly fee to prioritize certain traffic instead of creating a poor technical solution with a horrible user experience.

[treis]

@HMS_Irruncible

The FCC is acting within their authority, pursuant to the Communications Act of 1934. It is literally their job, by law. What makes you believe that failed legislation has more force or relevance than actual law?

Because the FCC didn’t apply all of title II to ISPs. They created an entirely new regulatory scheme by picking and choosing only the things they felt important from title II instead of applying the entire law. Major regulatory changes should be made by changes to law, not by the administration coming up with new and creative interpretations to existing law.

[RickG]

@treis

Or they could just charge a monthly fee to prioritize certain traffic instead of creating a poor technical solution with a horrible user experience.

The problem is that my cable provider, Comcast, is the only choice for truly high bandwidth at my home. CenturyLink provides DSL, but it’s about 1/4 the speed, and everything else is fixed wireless or satellite with appallingly low bandwidth and high latency. Comcast owns major content providers, and thus competes, not with other ISPs, but with other content providers.

It’s like Ford owning a toll road. They’d have an incentive to charge higher tolls for Chevys or Hondas to ride on the road than F-150s. There are private toll-road operators, but they can’t discriminate on price between vehicle brands (or the color of the skin of the passengers), only on vehicle size/axle count.

Broadband is so necessary for transacting business (whether private or public) that it should be considered a utility like electricity or phone service. If you want more ISP competition without Net Neutrality, require Comcast to open its copper/fiber to other ISPs, just like the Baby Bells were required to do a couple of decades ago. That fostered competition–prices dropped when we could choose between long-distance carriers, for example.

Net neutrality forces ISPs to treat data packets the same, no matter who provides them. It solves the problem of monopoly power being used to favor their own content over others. Getting rid of it solves no problem other than the ideological one of “regulation is always bad”.

[galen_ubal]

@treis

Because the FCC didn’t apply all of title II to ISPs. They created an entirely new regulatory scheme by picking and choosing only the things they felt important from title II instead of applying the entire law. Major regulatory changes should be made by changes to law, not by the administration coming up with new and creative interpretations to existing law.

It works. What is the reason to change it? What aspects of the Title II laws have they left off? And, for the fifth or sixth time, what problem will abandoning net neutrality solve, and/or how will abandoning net neutrality serve the public better?

[HMS_Irruncible]

@treis

Because the FCC didn’t apply all of title II to ISPs. They created an entirely new regulatory scheme by picking and choosing only the things they felt important from title II instead of applying the entire law. Major regulatory changes should be made by changes to law, not by the administration coming up with new and creative interpretations to existing law.

Well, that’s not what the law says, and for the past 6 years the Republican-controlled congress hasn’t seen fit to constrain the FCC’s scope to exercise its authority. So it’s nice that you think that, but unless you can come up with legal support for it, it’s your opinion.

[Fubaya]

@eschereal

I am not so sure. If an ISP decides to block a site because they are not up on their vig (or whatever “reason”), it seems possible that the FTC could determine that the blocking or throttling is unwarranted and order the provider to raise the gate. We might see endless, lengthy actions being taken on such matters, whether or not the blocking is disclosed. Assuming the ISP fails to properly bribe the FTC.

The FTC’s only authority is to punish deceptive acts or practices and enforce antitrust laws. If it’s not deceptive, the FTC has no authority. The plan is for ISPs to put in their contract some small print about not throttling then allowing the FTC to police them to make sure they’re not breaking that contract. But there is nothing stopping the ISP from leaving out that fine print and throttling the hell out of you.

This is like the FAA handing over their job to the the FBI and saying “Don’t worry about it, the FBI will punish the airlines if they do something illegal.”