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

If they aren't doing anything wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

If they aren't doing anything wrong, then they have nothing to worry about.

Only ISPs with something to hide should be worried.

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...

Re:If they aren't doing anything wrong

[fustakrakich]

The solution, then, is to bring the FCC in as an advocate for the American citizen...

The FCC is governed by congress and the president. So, how will that work if nobody votes in people that will make it happen?

Re:If they aren't doing anything wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Uhh people will get what they deserve.

Re:If they aren't doing anything wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Well we know already that the ISPs are inimical to the US citizen and are incapable of doing the right thing without the force of government making them do it, and we don't yet know if the FCC will do as you claim, or be any worse than the ISPs.

So rather than sticking with the abusive relationship of the ISPs, we're leaving them and trying someone who may not be as big a prick. We may not know how we'll be with them, but we know how badly off we were with the ISPs, and the only other option is to do without the internet altogether in the USA, which is not an option anyone is seriously going to even consider.

If the only choice is between getting definitely killed or getting possibly killed, we should not go with the devil we know.

Re:If they aren't doing anything wrong

[gl4ss]

well, what future business plans could they have?

it's a pretty simple business, sell the pipe. they want to divert the pipe to different site? fcc should say no. they want to make some site or other slower than another, on purpose? no.

Re:If they aren't doing anything wrong

[anegg]

Agreed. The folks who sell the pipe should co-mingle their transport business with their "content services business."

But we also need some attention to other kinds of interference with the pipe. In the physical world, "tapping" a physical circuit is a known no-no. That doesn't mean that it doesn't happen, but it either happens according to "the rules" or else it becomes a sticky wicket when it is uncovered. Interfering with a logical circuit should also be explicitly recognized as a known no-no. In other words, the practice of monitoring a logical circuit or (even worse) adding content to a logical circuit (such as tracking headers added to HTTP communications) by anyone other than the logical endpoints of the circuit should be just as much of a no-no as messing with a physical circuit. Firms providing transport should be on notice that its not ok to peek into or interfere with the transport, no matter that its digital data instead of voice communications.

Re:If they aren't doing anything wrong

[camg188]

People running large organizations generally try to increase their business by increasing their customer base. This rewards them by increasing their income and influence. It's the human nature of personality types that gravitate to running large organizations.
Now what if the large organization is a government entity? How do they expand their "business"? How do the people running them increase their income and influence? They do it by increasing the output of their "product". Unfortunately for citizens, the government's "product" is regulations and control.

TLDR: Due to human nature, unless some definite boundaries are set in law, any government entity will eventually try to expand its powers and influence.

Shouldn't there be some consequences for

[drydiggins]

Cableco f**kery?

Re:Shouldn't there be some consequences for

[diamondmagic]

Yeah, except that the FCC rules passed wouldn't have applied to a single case so far.

They vaguely itemize some "threats" that could possibly happen sometime in the near future, and they talk about them as if the existing court system couldn't handle these issues.

But it would have stopped Netflix/Cogent/Comcast, right? Wellll... no. That was caused by a badly negotiated peering agreement, not any action on the ISP's part. And yet the FCC rules: "We do not believe that it is appropriate or necessary to subject arrangements for Internet traffic exchange (which are
subsumed within broadband Internet access service) to the rules we adopt today." Oh. Huh. Well. And here we were thinking the FCC could do something useful for once.

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

[Jane Q. Public]

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

It is pretty much the SAME "regulatory regime" that was imposed on landline telephones before the cell phone revolution was granted exceptions. Did you have a big problem with landline telephone regulation, too? Your communications were carried reliably, not interfered with in any way, and you had privacy.

The intent of the regulation is clearly stated: to ensure (a) neutrality of communications media and (b) privacy.

Clearly the FCC could enforce the rules arbitrarily. But it always could. So what? None of this is new.

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

[king neckbeard]

So, what you are saying is that the market was stagnant for a century until Ma Bell was broken up. See, isn't it fun to draw vague generalities without an ounce of consideration for any greater context?

Re:Underlying problem

[Jane Q. Public]

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.

There is no possible way I could respond to this and be honest without being insulting at the same time.

So I won't. Please don't ask me to.

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.

Re:Underlying problem

[Gravis Zero]

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.

i call bullshit.

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.

guess what, they have very detailed rules on decency and guess what, it actually makes sense. what is required to be censored is based on context! what context? well, the rating of the show, time it's broadcast and if it's a public broadcast or not and some other things that are well documented. fun fact, if you don't know if what you are going to show will violate the rules, you can ask them!

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

the rules they have put forth are exceptionally simple. all they have to do is not limit the speed of the connection based on the connection endpoint. seriously, that's it! they can restrict your speed out the wazoo based on any criteria except the endpoint. want to slow down HTTP traffic? you can do that! however, you can't make it faster for XYZ because XYZ gave you money.

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

i'll take "bonkers" regulation over blatant abuse any day. then again, maybe you just haven't read all 300 pages, so you dont really know facts.

Re:Underlying problem

[sjames]

Not really, no. Your memory is oddly (I might say pointedly) selective.

You know we had internet before 1995, right? That many of the advances happened after a regulatory nuclear option was deployed to shake things up, right?You know, the one that the anti-regulatory people decried as interference.

That we went from a human being physically connecting pairs of wires together to place a call to automated routing of digital packets through virtual circuits.

Perhaps you missed that touch tone came out during that 'stagnant' period.

When the regulations were relaxed, we saw our internet connectivity options shrink and ossify. We went from dozens of choices in a given area to 1 or 2.

Cellular service started well before the regulatory change. The big driver to the vast improvements there was a matter of signal processing and denser and more powerful ICs. Had we had better regulation like in Europe, all of our phones would freely port from one network to the other just by switching sim cards. There would be no issue of phones being SIM locked or technologically stuck with one provider. We wouldn't have all the random over-billing and over-priced service we have now.

Re:Underlying problem

[sycodon]

Yes, that is a true statement. Are you going to refute it?

Maybe there was some cell phone we didn't know about in the 70's? And I don't mean Agent 86's phone shoe. Were you even around prior to the breakup?

Seriously, you had to lease your phone from the phone company up until the breakup. People WERE NOT ALLOWED to make and sell phones except for AT&T.

Re:Underlying problem

[sycodon]

And yet, up until the breakup, you had to lease a rotary phone from AT&T.

Re:Underlying problem

[tarball]

Now it's politics and nothing but.

Re:Underlying problem

[sjames]

You obviously missed a lot there. A lot of people get phones on contract because their bill won't go down even an iota if they bring their own phone with them. Naturally they figure if they're paying for a phone anyway, they might as well actually get a phone.

And note that many phones don't port very well because each network does things a bit differently.

It's also necessary to consider that it is only due to regulation that people can get their phone unlocked AFTER they have paid for it.

Re:Underlying problem

[DocHoncho]

Yet once the government was pretty much out of the picture, we got cell phones, internet, mobile email, even high-definition video on devices you can wear on your wrist.

Basically once the government was out of the picture, in less than two decades we went from incremental improvements in 19th century technology to tiny mobile devices that are more advanced than what was shown as science fiction not too many years ago.

Sorry, I don't want the stagnation that comes with government regulation.

What does any of that have to do with the FCC's regulation of telephone lines? If anything, you should be arguing this new regulation is a GOOD thing, since in an effort to escape from said regulation the entrenched monopolies will seek new technologies to get around it.

Re:Underlying problem

[DocHoncho]

So which part of the new FCC rules stipulates that you have to lease anything from anyone?

Re:Underlying problem

[DocHoncho]

Don't bother feeding the trolls. The new technologies arguable happened because of the regulations, not despite them. That doesn't mean, however, that just because the entrenched monopolies managed some innovations that they deserve to capitalize on them without reservation. So the telco's are doing the same thing in a new medium? Good for them, doesn't mean they deserve an automatic regulatory pass.

Re:Underlying problem

[DocHoncho]

It isn't really the contracts that keep American's from switching cellular companies, its more that instead of GSM being the standard radio technology, as it is in Europe, is that there are several competing radio technologies in the US which keeps consumers tied to a particular provider. In the States we have T-Mobile and ATT&T using GSM, and Sprint and Verizion using CDMA2000. The fact that you can't take your Verizon phone over to ATT&T is part and parcel why cellular services are as locked in and non-competitive than they are in other areas.

Re:Underlying problem

[SeaFox]

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

It's worth noting NYPD Blue was a drama show that aired late at night (usually before the 11 o'clock news iirc), and carried a TV-MA rating (so could be blocked with the V-Chip system). The Super Bowl is a yearly sports extravaganza that starts in the afternoon and expects to attract viewers of a variety of ages. Rating a major live sporting event, ahead of it's own broadcast, taking into account potential swearing by players or "wardrobe malfunctions" isn't really practical. They can only offer it for air and hope it goes well.

Re:Underlying problem

[GerryGilmore]

I suspect that you are confusing regulation of "content" vs regulation of "access". I know that it's part of Conservative PC to assume that any regs would be about content, but that is clearly not the case here.

Re:Underlying problem

[fustakrakich]

Had we had better regulation like in Europe, all of our phones would freely port from one network to the other just by switching sim cards.

And we certainly wouldn't be paying to receive a call.

Re:Underlying problem

[Mantrid42]

The hell? You're acting like decency standards in television broadcasting are totally random. There are greater restrictions for broadcast network television (the Big Four, among others), looser restrictions for cable (since you elect to get it), and a "safe harbor" from 10 PM to 6 AM where those restrictions are relaxed (like the brief nudity in NYPD Blue).

It's not like they randomly retroactively fine people.

Re:Underlying problem

[tlhIngan]

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.

The reason for this is simple - the FCC for this operates on a complaint basis. Now some rather conservative parents got their panties in a knot over "wardrobe malfunction" (no doubt helped by massive publicity about it) who see a boob and panic that their children will now turn into masturbating sex-crazed addicts from that brief exposure to nudity.

These days though, those groups are now concentrating on apps - it's why forced Apple to clear the App Store of porn apps (because the same group decided to methodically go and complain about each and every porn app).

Re:Underlying problem

[frank_adrian314159]

Probably the worst thing to happen as a result of the Ma Bell breakup was the death of Bell Labs.

Well, given the fact that Bell Labs was turning out stuff like C++ after the breakup, it would have probably been best to put it out of its misery at that point, rather than having it limp along for a few more years afterward like it did. All things have a time. The research lab is dead unless you can convince economists that efficiency is not the only virtue for economics to look at.

Re:Underlying problem

[fustakrakich]

In the US you can't tell it is a cell phone by the number. Thus the extra expense was paid by the receiver of the call.

Yes, that is a regulatory problem. They were supposed to give separate area codes to distinguish cells from land lines. The cell companies didn't want that because they feared it would reduce revenue. The whole concept is so absurd, but the *market* failed to resist.

Re:Underlying problem

[phantomfive]

The research lab is dead unless you can convince economists that efficiency is not the only virtue for economics to look at.

Economics is useless for you unless someone can convince you to stop attacking strawmen.

Re:Underlying problem

[Bengie]

CDMA is superior to GSM is nearly every way except cost.

Re:Underlying problem

[HiThere]

I've got a clue for you.

The idea that people can know what the laws are and the what the penalties are is a myth. Nobody, *NODOBY* knows all the laws that cover their behavior. Not only are there too many, the're all subject to judicial interpretation.

(You can often make a good guess whether some particular law applies, but that's a very different argument.)

Re:Underlying problem

[HiThere]

Yes, that's a better answer. But that's not within the FCC's powers. Various federal and state (mainly, IIUC, state) and local (city, county, etc.) laws and ordinances have given the phone and cable companies effective local monopolies. Those cannot be addressed by the FCC.

I, also, would prefer that the original problem be addressed, that hard lines not be owned by companies with the same owners as, or in any exclusive relationship with, the providers of the communication links. Except that local communities, cities, towns, etc. should be allowed to provide both provided that they did not restrict who was allowed access to their lines and "customers". But the FCC has (and/or should have) no power in this area.

Re:Underlying problem

[HiThere]

It's also true that the phone companies wanted to rent a DAA for such a high price that acoustic couplers were developed as a more reasonable answer. And a DAA was little more that a hardwired connection to the phone system.

There are very good reason to be dissatisfied with the service the pre-breakup phone company provided to those areas of the market it wasn't interested in serving. (I'll agree, though, that the hyperbolic arguments of incompetence are unjustified. If Ma Bell was interested in providing a service they did quite a good job of it.)

Re: Underlying problem

[HiThere]

Well, actually I wasn't happy with the decision to allow commercial traffic on the internet...and I'm still not. Resigned is a more accurate description. I did appreciate the decision to allow non-governmental/non-academic on the net, but that happend a bit before the decision to allow commercial use. And allowing commercial ISPs was a good decision. What wasn't a good idea was the decision to allow financial transactions over the internet. I'll agree that a network that allows financial transactions is reasonable, but the internet should not be that network. It was never designed to the kind of secure transmissions that that makes necessary, and this has lead to constant problems...and continual downgrading of the service.

That said, if financial transactions had not be permitted, the internet would be considerably smaller, and the secondary network that had financial transactions enabled would probably eventually swallow it. I'm sorry, buy this is still better, because the internet's basic design is wrong for secure transmission of tokens. That was not among the original design goals, and has had to be kludged onto it...and that was the wrong way to do things.

Re:Underlying problem

[Jane Q. Public]

So, what you are saying is that the market was stagnant for a century until Ma Bell was broken up. See, isn't it fun to draw vague generalities without an ounce of consideration for any greater context?

What the hell are you talking about? There was no "market". Ma Bell was a regulated monopoly (and after the breakup a regulated oligopoly).

Much like today: the ISP business is now a regulated oligopoly under Title II, just like Ma Bell was.

There still hasn't been any real "market". The internet backbone is tied up by a few big players, and that's all. That's not a "market", that's a de facto oligopoly. The ONLY new player to come along in broadband in a long time has been Google, and that's because Google had the monetary clout to elbow its way in. Almost nobody else does.

That's what oligopoly means. And that's why oligopolies have to be regulated.

Re:Underlying problem

[Jane Q. Public]

Title II is intended to perpetuate monopolies.

No. Title II is intended to regulate monopolies. Not the same thing.

A monopoly is not a competitive market. That's why we have antitrust laws. In the case of broadband, we already have a de facto oligopoly. It therefore has to be either broken up, so there can be actual competition, or regulated, to ensure some semblance of fairness to the consumer.

Those are the only 2 options in a free market system: either ensure there is a free market by breaking up the monopolies and oligopolies into smaller competitive companies, or regulating them because there isn't a free market. There is no third option.

Further, Ma Bell wasn't broken up for reasons having to do with Title II. Rather, it was broken up because it was leveraging its Title II monopoly in order to participate in the telephone hardware business, which it was explicitly enjoined from being a part of. Turns out Western Electric, which manufactured virtually every telephone in the United States, was a wholly-own subsidiary. Further, Bell imposed prohibitive restrictions on any 3rd-party phone that used its lines.

After violating the Federal court injunction for 20 years, the government gave up on it ever meeting its legal requirements, and broke it up. But to sum it all up and set the record straight: it wasn't broken up because of its telephone lines or telephone service. It was broken up because it wasn't supposed to be in the telephone manufacturing business.

Re:Underlying problem

[jmac_the_man]

I've got a clue for you.

The idea that people can know what the laws are and the what the penalties are is a myth. Nobody, *NODOBY* knows all the laws that cover their behavior. Not only are there too many, the're all subject to judicial interpretation.

(You can often make a good guess whether some particular law applies, but that's a very different argument.)

I don't know what I'm supposed to take from your comment.

If laws are too complex to follow, we should demand that the laws are changed to be made simpler and more easily followed.

You're right, that argument is WILDLY different from "The government should not be deciding whether something is illegal retroactively." That's what the FCC is doing here, giving itself the ability to make ex post facto rules if they don't like your traffic shaping practices.

Re:Underlying problem

[jmac_the_man]

Yes, that's a better answer. But that's not within the FCC's powers.

Imposing Title II isn't within the FCC's powers either.

Title II got implemented because of a huge special interest pressure campaign, because Obama is deified by a certain demographic (the press) and because Wheeler hates the cable companies.

If the pressure campaign had been directed towards state and municipal governments (or towards Congress directly, who could make this law at a national level), exclusive franchise agreements could be banned and then there would be actual monopolies. Republicans in Congress were ready to pass an anti-traffic shaping law (Net Neutrality without Title II) in February, but Democrats refused to go along with it.because they wanted Title II.

Title II was implemented because it helps a whole bunch of tech companies who back Obama and the Democrats (the guys who appointed Wheeler) cut costs. Not out of some kind of concern for fairness or whatever. They spun up the pressure campaign to get exactly the result they wanted. For you and me, that just means that the Comcast monopoly gets deeper entrenched.

Re:Underlying problem

[jmac_the_man]

Title II is intended to perpetuate monopolies.

No. Title II is intended to regulate monopolies. Not the same thing.

A monopoly is not a competitive market. That's why we have antitrust laws. In the case of broadband, we already have a de facto oligopoly. It therefore has to be either broken up, so there can be actual competition, or regulated, to ensure some semblance of fairness to the consumer.

Those are the only 2 options in a free market system: either ensure there is a free market by breaking up the monopolies and oligopolies into smaller competitive companies, or regulating them because there isn't a free market. There is no third option.

I don't think you know what an oligopoly is. Cable companies don't compete with each other because of exclusive municipal franchise agreements, which make it illegal for another company to run cable. Companies don't price fix with other companies because they're not competing with anyone. (In areas where they compete with fiber optics, they compete with the fiber company and you'll see lower prices.)

If you had two options for cable companies, and they both raised their rates at the same time while keeping service the same, that would be an oligopoly. What you have with cable companies are a bunch of small monopolies.

Generally speaking, a monopoly gets that way because the government grants them a monopoly. This is certainly the case with your cable company. The municipal franchise agreement is a law that enshrines you cable company in a monopoly status forever. Title II's price fixing* does that too. Both laws perpetuate monopolies. They also regulate the monopoly, sure, but they guarantee that the the company has monopoly status forever.

Banning exclusive municipal franchise agreements would remove the ability of local governments to grant monopolies. That would break up the monopolies, and that would be an actual pro-consumer move. Title II was undertaken because of a pressure campaign sponsored by guys who give a lot of money to one party, and that party answered the bell. But don't forget for a second that Title II hurts your cable company's monopoly status.

Re:Underlying problem

[HiThere]

Others have denied that the government is " deciding whether something is illegal retroactively.", and have pointed out reasons why the various different rulings are consistent with published rules. So I have trouble taking your assertion that is is as truth.

P.S.: I find most of the content rules silly, but then I see nothing wrong with nudity on city streets, so I'm clearly in a minority. Were I to allow content rules I would have them forbidding the glorification of violence, but I deem free speech even more important than that.

Re:Underlying problem

[HiThere]

Enacting Title II is within the FCCs historic powers. And it was suggested by a judge as the appropriate response to his invalidation of their prior attempt at rule making.

If you want to be asserting that it shouldn't be within the FCCs power, you may have a point, and I'd need to think about it for awhile.

Re:Underlying problem

[sjames]

You do know that the current state of affairs is just rolling regulatory changes back to what was in place when the internet exploded don't you?

It's being done to keep ISPs from rolling things back to the days of the walled garden step by step.

Re:Underlying problem

[Jane Q. Public]

I don't think you know what an oligopoly is. Cable companies don't compete with each other because of exclusive municipal franchise agreements, which make it illegal for another company to run cable. Companies don't price fix with other companies because they're not competing with anyone. (In areas where they compete with fiber optics, they compete with the fiber company and you'll see lower prices.)

And I don't think you know your ass from a hole in the ground.

Today's ISPs are an oligopoly because they have near-exclusive access to the internet backbone, not JUST because municipalities give them exclusive contracts.

In 80% of the United States, the municipalities might as well give them an exclusive contract because there's only one player anyway! They've got the U.S. divided up among themselves and they don't compete, even when given the option. Hell, they even bragged about that to the FCC.

Re:Underlying problem

[jmac_the_man]

You're just babbling now. "The ISPs have exclusive access to the backbone?" Who, other than ISPs, need access to it? That's like saying "people with cars have exclusive access to the highway." The problem is that in almost all geographic areas, one ISP has exclusive access to the customers in that area. Those are monopolies, but Title II doesn't fix that problem, it makes it worse. (As far as bragging to the FCC, you're wrong on that as well. Comcast says that they should be allowed to merge with Time Warner because there are no areas where Comcast and Time Warner compete for the same CUSTOMERS, not nowhere they compete for the same backbone.)

Re:Underlying problem

[jmac_the_man]

The examples you are talking about are examples of the content rules. The content rules are dumb and overused, but that's not what I'm talking about. The EFF, for one example, is worried about the CONDUCT rule (which is just taking effect now) being ex post facto.

Re:Underlying problem

[jmac_the_man]

While you're thinking, please consider my full position, which is "The United States government needs an organization whose job is EXCLUSIVELY to license over the air broadcasting. If it uses the RF spectrum, it can be subject to this agency's regulation. They should issue licences by type of broadcast (OTA TV, FM, AM etc.) and maybe some light touch content stuff. (The FCC as currently constituted is too heavy handed in this area.) Anything NOT broadcast over the air (such as wireline internet connections) should NOT be regulated by this agency."

Re:Underlying problem

[dl_sledding]

Agreed. In fact, even MORE regulation was passed with the Bell breakup. And service suffered in many ways. With Bell, you didn't have any repair charges: Bell owned every piece of wire in the home. Including the phone itself. When the phone (or any wire) was broken, Bell fixed it, quickly, without charging the customer. If the phone broke, or some standard changed (50Hz to 60Hz, for instance), Bell just fixed it. No cost, no question. Without Bell, now you are responsible for your wiring in your home and any device connnected to it. If you break something (or a mouse chews through a wire), you are responsible for getting it repaired, and you will be charged for it.

Ever heard of the Rural Call Completion problem? Would never have happened with Bell.

The FCC's rules post-Bell increased the costs of the consumer in multiple ways, and created reams more regulation.

Re:Underlying problem

[king neckbeard]

Perhaps you should read my post more clearly instead of freaking out about me using the word 'market' in a way that you think it inappropriate. I made no claim that it was a free market, and I'm not opposed to regulation. I was pointing out that his argument about progress could be flipped around for a pro-regulation argument very easily, and arguing that such a simplistic view is absolutely pointless.

Re:Underlying problem

[HiThere]

I'm not even sure of that, unless the broadcast crosses state lines at a power which might reasonably impact transmissions originating in another state.

OTOH, it is definitely useful to have a standards agency that specifies encoding standards for, e.g., FM. But specifying standards shouldn't necessarily equate to enforcing compliance. Perhaps that should be separate, and only be enforceable on those claiming to adhere to the standard and not doing so.

This, however, is an argument about "should" and not about "historicly applied powers". Regulating ISPs as common carriers is within the FCCs hostoricly applied powers, in as much as they are interstate companies and there's the precedent of AT&T. (Not that the feds have been showing themselves shy about extending their powers beyond all reason without such a legal cloak, but in this case I think that they're on relatively reasonable [for them] footing.)

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.

Re:Fuck ISPs

[peragrin]

Torrents should make the isps happy. A torrent duatrubtes bandwidth. Increasing the amount of data transmitted which helps their peering.

Why isps hate symatrical peeering agreements is beyond me.

Re:Fuck ISPs

[Greyfox]

We could put it back. It'd be easier to build a store and forward network now than it was back in the day. Hell, you can still put your hands on uucp.

Re:Fuck ISPs

[Bing Tsher E]

Binary attachments killed Usenet.

Re:Fuck ISPs

[sjames]

What, by actually using the service their marketing department promised?

Re:Fuck ISPs

[adolf]

Fail. Get off my lawn.

Re:Fuck ISPs

[adolf]

"We"? I guess.

The speed of my own VDSL connection was deemed inadequately-quick to spool Usenet traffic well over a decade ago. And the last time I commissioned an NNTP server, it didn't even come close to burdening a T1 (close to 20 years ago).

But, I know! We can distribute the load. Use fifty-thousand volunteer servers, all with different parts and PAR files to keep up the slack, scattered everywhere in the world. ...just like BitTorrent, but worse.

The beauty of Usenet was its simple one-to-many approach on a local level. The long-distance pipes had a predictable burden and the last-mile burden was limited to the end-user requests (with proper application of nntpcache, geographically-diverse NNTP servers, et cetera), where bandwidth is cheap.

It was a system that was designed to be very efficient, and it was very efficient. But in order to re-create it efficiently takes support from TWC, ATT, COX, etc., but they've already killed it and it is dead.

(Oh, sure: Today I can buy NNTP access from any number of centralized providers with months- or years-long retention. But that's not the way that Usenet was intended to work and doing so isn't nice to the network at all.)

What we need is proper multicast IP, which IPV6 seems be implicit about: Want a 4GB $file? Sign up to the multicast feed, wait for 4GB of file to stream your way, and done.

One-to-many. It's been built into the Internet since well before I was involved with it and yet nobody seems to understand it anymore. (It used to sadden me, and then I realized that I was sad for reasons that nobody else wanted to care about, so now I just don't care about network efficiency at all. The Me! Me! Me! mentality that I've adopted instead, just like everyone else, is much more gratifying, and actually works....as opposed to Usenet or Multicast-IP today.)

Re:Fuck ISPs

[DocHoncho]

They're leaned on by the copyright cartels to believe that all torrent activity is engaged in copyright infringement. Don't fool yourself into thinking that just because you're seeding Ubuntu ISO's that they believe torrents are anything but pirate activity.

Re:Fuck ISPs

[sjames]

They probably shouldn't have fought the new regulations then. That would have helped take them out of that legal loop.

Re:Fuck ISPs

[jmac_the_man]

Of note, this didn't happen. No traffic shaping ever undertaken by the ISPs is illegal under the Title II regulation.

In fact, there was a bill in Congress that just implemented Net Neutrality (but not the rest of Title II), but Congressional Democrats wouldn't support the bill because they would rather enact Title II and bring the Internet under the thumb of their party.

They're from the government and they're gonna help

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the government we're talking about. Why worry. What could possibly go wrong?

It's not as if this government would ever spy on the entire populace, nor execute citizens via drone without due process.

The millions of pages of rules the government writes are for our own good.

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:I worry about

[dontfearthereaper]

As do I. I work remote and regularly pull multi-gigabyte files across my VPN connection, multiple times per day. I would obliterate a data cap in only a few days (if not less) effectively forcing me and many of my colleagues to return to commuting to work daily, and potentially costing many of them their jobs. (some are many states away from one of our offices). So much for going green.....

This could be good

[Anonymous Coward]

If there is no public outcry then what the ISP's are doing is ok and the FCC will not get involved.

Do shit that pisses everbody off and I hope the FCC hands them their ass.

Re:Doesn't matter

[MaWeiTao]

I didn't realize Obama was a Republican. You do know that he attended private raisers held by Comcast executives, don't you? He's golfed with the CEO of Comcast. Oh yeah, and the current FCC chairman, nominated by Obama, has close ties to the telecom industry and has long been a lobbyist for companies like Comcast, AT&T and Verizon. In 2012 Comcast employes donated roughly 4x more to Democrats than Republicans.

But sure, keep believing all the bullshit you're fed; it will just make it that much easier for Democrats, and Republicans along with them, to screw you over.

Re:They're from the government and they're gonna h

[Anonymous Coward]

These are corporations we're talking about. Why worry? What could possibly go wrong?

It's not as if any corporations have ever spied on the populace, or used force against citizens without due process?

Truly, corporations exist solely to serve us, they never exploit anything at all.

Re:They're from the government and they're gonna h

[reboot246]

Call me crazy, but I'd much rather trust corporations than government. Corporations have to answer to shareholders, and to a lesser extent, their customers. Government answers to nobody. Plus, government has the force of arms on their side; corporations don't.

The worst situation is what we have now - corporations and government in bed with each other. Then we're really getting screwed.

Re:Doesn't matter

[sjames]

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

Re:If you aren't with us

[sycodon]

50-50 chance this is sarcasm. Some people actually think like this though.

So, hard to tell.

Uh huh...

[Anubis IV]

“It’s unclear what you’re supposed to do when you have a new innovation or a new service,” the telecom lobbyist said.

Mr. Lobbyist, there will be plenty of time to deal with far-fetched hypothetical situations later. We can cross that bridge if we ever get there.

Re:Uh huh...

[ArsonSmith]

Yea, it's kinda scary. Like a police office watching you doing something and you ask is this legal, and he says why don't you have a go at it and I'll decided afterwards if I should arrest you.

Re:They're from the government and they're gonna h

[whoever57]

Call me crazy, but I'd much rather trust corporations than government. Corporations have to answer to shareholders, and to a lesser extent, their customers

If there were real competition in residential Internet service, those corporations would have to answer to their customers. With the local duopolies, they only have to answer to their shareholders.

So, yes, you are crazy.

Re:They're from the government and they're gonna h

[DocHoncho]

In the current environemtn of governments denying their spying activities, do you really think they'd be this bald-faced about enacting new powers for themselves? If the government really wanted to take control of the internet, they'd just fucking do it, FCC and procedure be damned. As far as I can tell the FCC is doing the right thing in spite of the fact that the tendency of modern governmental institutions is to seek more and more control over everything.

If the new rules were meant to be a governmental take over of the internet, either they'd just say "We're running this now. Fuck you" or you'd never even know it happened in the first place.

Re:They're from the government and they're gonna h

[DogDude]

Corporations have to answer to shareholders, and to a lesser extent, their customers.

Yeah, all the shareholders want is more profit. That's worked out really well for the Net in the US.

Re:No there isn't.

[Z00L00K]

Just consider that offering the communication infrastructure and offering services on the infrastructure shall be two completely different business cases and therefore two different companies that are independent.

Re:They're from the government and they're gonna h

[ArsonSmith]

Bad Corporations: go to a different corporation
Bad Government: rot in the same cell

Re:They're from the government and they're gonna h

[BlueStrat]

Call me crazy, but I'd much rather trust corporations than government. Corporations have to answer to shareholders, and to a lesser extent, their customers

If there were real competition in residential Internet service, those corporations would have to answer to their customers. With the local duopolies, they only have to answer to their shareholders.

So, yes, you are crazy.

And guess who created and who maintains those monopolies with their own monopoly on the use of deadly force and/or imprisonment?

Better have that sanity-checker of yours recalibrated.

Strat

If you ISPs had been customer-friendly

[Anonymous Coward]

If you ISPs had been customer-friendly and not huge arrogant dicks, then the FCC wouldn't need to police you.

You may be "worried" about the FCC's policies being an unwarranted and terrible burden on you, but you've proven yourselves already to be as bad to your customers as you think the FCC may be to you, so you definitely cannot be trusted, and the FCC haven't been shown to be worse than you.

Don't like it?

You should have been better people when left to police yourselves.

It's your own fault that you're "worried", and your own fault if the worries turn out true.

Re:If you ISPs had been customer-friendly

[jmac_the_man]

If you ISPs had been customer-friendly and not huge arrogant dicks, then the FCC wouldn't need to police you.

It's not the FCC's job to police customer service.

Re:Doesn't matter

[jmac_the_man]

The fucking republican party is bought and paid for by Comcast

Do me a favor. Turn on MSNBC.

Comcast owns that.

Re:They're from the government and they're gonna h

[ArsonSmith]

So you're saying that putting someone in jail rightly or wrongly is worse then the millions of people that died or were murdered during a bad government, but hey it was overthrown and is all better now.

wow, just wow... your hatred of successes is palpable. Even the worst corporations in history pale in comparison to even just the bad governments. And even at that those "worst corporations" wouldn't have been able to exist if not for the support of those bad governments.

Re:No there isn't.

[bkcallahan]

Correction: You meant Bushphone, not Obamaphone. *Both* Bushes signed the most important legislation expanding the program.