ISPs Worry About FCC's 'Future Conduct' Policing

jfruh (300774) writes "In the wake of the FCC passing net neutrality rules, the federal agency now has the authority to keep an eye on ISPs 'future conduct,' to prevent them from even starting to implement traffic-shaping plans that would violate net neutrality. Naturally, this has a lot of ISPs feeling nervous." From the article: The net neutrality rules, beginning on page 106, outline a process for staff to give advisory opinions to broadband providers who want to run a proposed business model past the agency before rolling it out. But those advisory opinions won’t have the weight of an official commission decision. The FCC’s Enforcement Bureau will be able to reconsider, rescind or revoke those advisory opinions, and the commission itself will be able to overrule them, according to the order. “It’s unclear what you’re supposed to do when you have a new innovation or a new service,” the telecom lobbyist said. “There’s just a lot of ambiguity.” Even the Electronic Frontier Foundation, one of the most vocal proponents of strong net neutrality rules, urged the commission to jettison its future conduct standard.

Comments

Underlying problem

[JBMcB]

And here is the underlying problem with a good chunk of FCC regulation.

Basically, you can do anything you want until they decide it is against an arbitrary regulation. Then they can not only stop you from doing it, but fine you for having done it.

Think of the "decency" statues for broadcast TV. Sometimes you can swear (playing Saving Private Ryan) sometimes you can't (some random award show) Sometimes you can show nudity (NYPD Blue) sometimes you can't (Superbowl?) The FCC will let you know you violated the unspecified rules via a fine
well after the fact.

This is the regulatory regime being imposed on the business practices of ISPs.

I don't like the big ISPs screwing around with the internet just as most anyone else, but this type of regulation is bonkers.

Re:Underlying problem

[Dutch Gun]

Enforcing FCC regulations is not quite as arbitrary as you make it sound. My understanding is that the FCC has clearly stated in writing exactly how they intend to apply the Title II rules to ISPs. In order to change their enforcement, a vote is required by the FCC commissioners on new policies. I don't believe they can just change their enforcement policies on a whim.

To be honest, I wasn't entirely happy with the internet becoming government regulated either, but let's face it: the ISPs had free reign for quite some time, and they eventually couldn't seem to help themselves in pooping all over their customers, because (surprise) we have no real competition in the industry. I would have been much happier if we enacted legislation to ensure proper competition, but for whatever reason, that seemed like a dead end.

I guess at this point we have no choice but to wait and see how it plays out.

Re:Underlying problem

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not that I trust the FCC to not fuck up the internet, it that I see them as less likely to fuck it up than Verizon, Comcast and AT&T.

-TheReaperD

Re:Underlying problem

[phantomfive]

That's kind of ignorant. From 1870 to 1995 we went to cross-continental phone calls to phone calls over microwave to phone calls through satellites. Along the way, they invented transistors, information theory, improved materials science, and many other things. Of all the things you could complain about the phone company, and there were many, lack of technical progress is not one of them. Probably the worst thing to happen as a result of the Ma Bell breakup was the death of Bell Labs.

Fuck ISPs

[Anonymous Coward]

The ISPs brought this on themselves by fucking with traffic, they deserve no sympathy and they should be thankful the government doesn't break them, nationalize them or shut them down entirely.

Re:Fuck ISPs

[adolf]

It was the torrent protocol who fucked with the ISPs before the ISPs started fucking with the traffic and long ago before anyone started fucking anyone the quarterly financial report fucked with everyone.

It's not my fault that they killed Usenet.

I worry about

[afaiktoit]

my ISP changing the rules willy nilly too. I now have a data cap I didnt when I signed up.

Re:Doesn't matter

[sjames]

He's not the one frantically scrambling to roll back the regulatory change like the ISPs want.

Re:If they aren't doing anything wrong

[Sarten-X]

Well, yes...

The problem is that we don't know what the problems will be. Today, Network neutrality is the hot-button issue the FCC is finally forced to deal with, but tomorrow, who knows? Maybe we'll have to have regulations on compliance (or not) with encryption-busting wiretaps, DNS hijacking, advertisement injection, or something completely different.It's taken long enough for the FCC to move on this that we've already had a few cases of effective extortion by an ISP, and maybe those issues will be even more problematic.

The solution, then, is to bring the FCC in as an advocate for the American citizen, since that's pretty much the government's primary job. This establishes a process where the FCC can say "You're not breaking rules now, but you're getting really close" and give the ISPs a chance to avoid sinking investment capital into systems that will be outlawed as soon as people notice. Cooperating with regulators, especially by asking permission rather than forgiveness, is also a great way to reduce future penalties if the FCC's policies do turn against them.

If the ISPs' new business models don't piss off the FCC, then they don't have to worry about new regulation in the short term. Only ISPs with predatory business models to hide should be worried.

Not quite the same ring to it...