Slashdot Mirror
FCC's Own Chief Technology Officer Warned About Net Neutrality Repeal (politico.com)
Margaret Harding McGill, reporting for Politico: The Federal Communications Commission's own chief technology officer expressed concern Wednesday about Republican Chairman Ajit Pai's plan to repeal the net neutrality rules, saying it could lead to practices that are "not in the public interest." In an internal email to all of the FCC commissioner offices, CTO Eric Burger, who was appointed by Pai in October, said the No. 1 issue with the repeal is concern that internet service providers will block or throttle specific websites, according to FCC sources who viewed the message. "Unfortunately, I realize we do not address that at all," Burger said in the email. "If the ISP is transparent about blocking legal content, there is nothing the [Federal Trade Commission] can do about it unless the FTC determines it was done for anti-competitive reasons. Allowing such blocking is not in the public interest."
http://www.bbc.com/news/av/42341736/what-is-net-neutrality-and-how-could-it-affect-you
Just like Trickle Down Theory.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
I had never seen such single mindedness "my mind is made up don't confuse me with the facts" behaviour from US politicians.
I realize it's a popular opinion to assume Pai has been bought and sold but it continually surprises me no one in gov't has launched an investigation into his ties yet.
Sane people are simply not this zealous...
So rise up, all ye lost ones, as one, we'll claw the clouds.
Disney bought 21st Century Fox. All of it. That means the Foul Rodent Empire is increasingly in a monopolistic position in the movie, TV and sports content fields, plus they have a nice chunk of Hulu.
But thank God Netflix might not face a little discrimination from Comcast or Verizon if they don't work out an agreement for all of that data that floods their networks. That'll save Netflix from one day being just another acquisition target of Disney at a reduced price after Disney chokes off most of the desirable content and forces Netflix to produce its own or go broke.
That's a whole lot of nonsense son.
Take your piece of shit racist ass and beat it.
If you have to tell us then obviously you aren't American, didn't Putin teach you that in Russian troll school?
Support Right To Repair Legislation.
I think the new arrangement is that they are given a gun and then they kill themselves.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
So 100% of the stuff I read in online forums is against this, so I am going to try and argue the other side. I'm doing this because I find it weird that in a controversial topic there aren't even any shills around arguing the other side as there almost always are in an online debate topic. SO here goes:
The big 4 Amazon, Facebook, Netflix and Google are rapidly consolidating to control just about everything we see, hear or do on the Internet all over the entire world. Reversing net neutrality will allow for more competition with these services. Look at China, they have their own Facebook, Google, Amazon, Twitter, etc. In some ways, such as mobile payments their tech is even ahead of us and they block all the big 4. I am thinking that the ISPs blocking or throttling these services would create more small versions of these services that would be run by ISPs, etc. State and local governments could negotiate directly with Comcast or whatever to do stuff in the public interest locally with these services because of the give and take with regulated utilities. It would bring back more local control and work to reverse the decreasing relevance of local governments.
I like your Russian accent!
No. I complain about their bullshit too.
Stop strawmanning.
blocking/throttling/etc is purely anti-competitive
Wrong. Look at P2P and anything else that ISPs don't like.
Thanks for posting a different perspective.
Netflix did indeed do a great job of establishing group think in many forums. And yes, Netflix made this an issue when they didn't want to pay their hosting bill. That's how NN regulation started. They wanted direct connections from all the major ISPs without paying for hosting like every other site in the world does.
The other main counter-balancing is simple. Net neutrality rules were in effect for a year and half. Did things get massively better during that time? Did the world crumble from 1990-2015 when there wasn't any NN regulation?
since blocking/throttling/etc is purely anti-competitive
Be careful with that line of thought.
"Anti-competitive" has very specific legal meaning, usually requiring that the behavior benefit the actor in some way. However, exclusive-access deals are not often seen as anti-competitive, since any other company could have made a better bid for access.
As an example, let's say that an ISP launches their own video-streaming service, and it's the only one that gets full bandwidth, while Netflix and Hulu and throttled. That's an easy case for anti-competitive behavior.
However, rather than launching their own service, they can open up bidding to be the "exclusive streaming video provider" for their network, and allow Netflix and Hulu (and everyone else, including the tiny little startup with no budget) to bid for that exclusive contract. In the end, the ISP still makes millions of dollars for throttling video, and the consumers still have very little option to move to other ISPs. Even discounting municipal monopolies (which are themselves just exclusive contracts), every other ISP is free to enact the same cash-grab policies.
Do note that in that context, it's easy to argue that since the startup and the major players are competing for the same contract, it's actually pro-competition! It's not discriminating against small companies; it's providing them an opportunity to win a business partnership for a growth opportunity! Of course, the little startup has no real chance to match the bid of the established companies, but to those who like this plan, that's just an indication that the small streaming service should grow more first, perhaps by competing for exclusivity with a smaller ISP for which the big players won't pay as much.
This scenario is a direct parallel to how a brick-and-mortar business grows, by getting local contracts near the company's physical home, that probably won't be noticed by the industry's major players, and probably isn't worth sending a sales rep out for. On the Internet, though, everything is global. The big players can afford to bid on every single opportunity, so a small stream service will likely never find a open niche for growth.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
... and reversing net neutrality would mean that they can. Look for the following:
$50/month 25 mbps internet w/o Facebook, Amazon, Bing, Skype (because they were able to get Google and Apple to pay up)
$100/month 50 mbps internet w/o Facebook, Amazon, Bing, Skype
$150/month 50 mbps internet "unlimited"
The incumbents win in a non-net neutrality world, because they would pay Comcast, Verizon, etc to provide the following plans:
- $10/month 5 mbps plan with 50 mbps bandwidth to Amazon, Facebook, Netflix and Google only
- $100/month 25 mbps plan with 50 mbps bandwidth to Amazon, Facebook, Netflix and Google only
- $150/month 50 mbps plan
Do you think startup X is going to be able to win against those guys?
Maybe your buddies in China will buy it from you...oh wait, they're going "Green" too..
When? They are still today building new coal-fired power stations in China - that they manufacture and export solar cells doesn't make them "green", and BTW, the plants that make those "green" solar cells are themselves belching toxins into the environment, but yeah, they signed the Paris Climate Accord, and in the indeterminate future they promise to slow down their construction of cola-fired power plants, so yes, they are "going green", I guess.
Ken
Settlement-free peering (neither side pays) is used where there are roughly balanced flows on either side. When one side sends 100Mbps and the other side suddenly wants to send 10 Gbps, that's no longer a balanced flows and not covered under standard peering arrangements.
Netflix wanted connections upgraded because they wanted to send a lot more traffic than Comcast sent. That's not peering anymore.
Netflix could have been smart like Cloudflare and offered a service which would have them receiving a lot of traffic or partnered with a company who does. Cloudflare's DOS protection services cost them nothing in and bandwidth and actually reduce their total bandwidth costs because the traffic incoming to their security services balances the traffic outgoing from their CDN. That makes them eligible for peering with many ISPs.
Netflix could have done something similar, and still could today, but apparently they've decided manipulating public opinion is easier than adding a new service, or partnering with a company such as Backblaze which offers a service that accepts a lot of data.
"As designed"
Every single response uses the same talking points that don't address the main point of my argument which is:
ISPS ARE LOCALLY REGULATED BY GOVERNMENTS THE BIG 4 ARE NOT. THUS LOCAL GOVERNMENTS GET MORE CONTROL OF THE INTERNET BACK FROM THE BIG 4.
I can tell the group think is thick on a topic when I introduce a new argument and everybody thinks I am repeating some familiar argument and they copy pasta their previous reply to the familiar argument. If this was in person I could actually reply to you guys and we could move the debate forward. Instead I get the thundering herd of misunderstanding problem.
But if I say "I am an African-American woman". You must listen and believe. :)
BTW, I am an African-American woman.
Why don't we deregulate the road system too? Sell off all the public roads to the highest bidders, then allow the companies that own them to decide who gets to go where and at what speed. For example Mcdonalds can own your towns main thoroughfare and decide how much each person who goes down it pays. Then they can implement amazing totally logical policies like if you are going to Mcdonalds then you pay $0.01, but if you are going to Burger King you pay $10.00.
While we dont know fully what the fcc will do, they are looking to prevent states from forming their own rules. I dont think that them scapping the rules will give any local governments more power to regulate the ISP's. https://arstechnica.com/tech-p...
So let's get this straight, if the "enlightened" leaders of Google/Facebook/Apple/Generic Social Network want to suppress speech (only by OMG NAZIS of course!)* that's cool because OMG IT'S THEIR BUSINESS!
Yes, because Social Networks have a vested interest in keeping their users happy, so they are allowed to set rules about what is acceptable to put up on their Social Network, in order to maximize their business revenues. If they decide nudity, violence, and racism are not allowed, they are allowed to do so. They may even remove posts that violate the rules and terminate the accounts of posters who repeatedly violate the rules. They are not required to host your posts.
If Google wants to remove all search query results that link to those OMG NAZIS it's OK because IT'S GOOGLE'S BUSINESS!
Pretty much. If Google chooses not to index your site because it offends their users, that is a choice they are allowed to make. They are not required to index your site in their search engine. You are also free to criticize Google for making that decision, if your repugnant behaviour hasn't already gotten you banned from all other media.
If "enightened" DNS providers want to prevent those evil OMG NAZIS from having name resolution to their own website that they pay for themselves that's totally cool because IT'S THEIR BUSINESS! Same thing goes for hosting providers who would be paid by the OMG NAZIS!
If the DNS providers find you so repugnant that they choose not to do business with you, that is their choice. Especially, if you libel them by claiming they are also Nazis because they didn't terminate your contract. They are not required to do business with you.
WHAT IF THE ISP HEROICALLY STEPS UP TO CENSOR THEM BECAUSE HOLY SHIT IT'S OK IT'S THE ISP'S BUSINESS?!?!?!?
The ISP can choose not to do business with you, like the other examples. They are not required to offer you internet service.
Oh wait, that's bad when the ISP does it because OMG NET NEUTRALITY.
However, they should not be allowed to rifle through your packets looking for bad words, ideas, or destinations, because that is not their business. So while, they are perfectly free to refuse to do business with you, they are not allowed to take your money and then censor your communications for their own reasons.
So as we can see, censorship is perfectly cool. Except for when it suddenly isn't anymore.
Censorship is always bad, it's just that sometimes the alternatives are worse.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
If something is not a law, how then can it be "repealed?"
Perhaps all this effort should be focused on the fact that net neutrality "rules" were originally enacted by executive and administrative fiat, and not the legal process, and can therefore be changed on the whim of an administrator.
That said, "Net Neutrality," is not.
6th Street Radio @ddombrowsky
In short, you're saying that creating a new role of toll collector is "pro-competition". So, on all your roads around your house, we'll open up bidding for toll collectors, and those toll-collectors can block whatever services your particular neighborhood will receive. So, blue apron - not a chance. Lyft wins over Uber, no Uber for you. Walmart beat Amazon, no Amazon anything for you. USPS can no longer deliver to you - too bad about your mail.
Take it that way and you can see how anti-competitive this action is.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
ISPS ARE LOCALLY REGULATED BY GOVERNMENTS THE BIG 4 ARE NOT. THUS LOCAL GOVERNMENTS GET MORE CONTROL OF THE INTERNET BACK FROM THE BIG 4.
People are giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming you are not a moron. Nobody actually wants local government to have "more control of the internet". It's the internet, local governments are not supposed to matter. I don't want my local government deciding that I should be using Bing and requiring my local ISP to block access to Google. That's before we even start looking at how easy it would be for the cable companies to buy local elections and make sure that nobody on the local level dares say a word against them.
Nobody wants to be forced to use some two-bit local search engine, shopping, social media, or streaming site because of local politics. What we want is the internet, unrestricted and free to use as we please. It's a service we already have and that we are paying for. Nobody wants your tin pot dictators to take it away. So whether you're a politician or a CEO, what I want is for you to keep your god damn dirty hands off my Internet access. Understand?
If this was in person I could actually reply to you guys and we could move the debate forward. Instead I get the thundering herd of misunderstanding problem.
You really shouldn't complain when people think you're smarter than you are. You position is so obtusely stupid, they all think you're bad at communication rather than a blithering idiot.
Lastly, the fact that you hate Google, Amazon, Facebook and Netflix is not enough reason to screw up the Internet for everyone. Grow up, child.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Local ISPs are the big 4. Just not Google, Facebook, Amazon, Nteflix but rather Comcast, AT&T...
Sure the local government can regulate that local content needs to be favored but then these larger ISPs just won't set up. A smaller ISP may be willing to set up under these restrictions but where will they get their access from if the provider further up the chain makes them pay outrageous amounts to access all the content that the end user really wants access to?
Also, the whole argument against NN is that there shouldn't be government control on ISPs (neither federal, state or local).
He doesn't need to be investigated, because it's already out there. He is bought and sold, and has not claimed otherwise, because he knows anyone could immediately prove he's lying. So he doesn't bother lying about it.
Here's his financial disclosures. Go to page 2 of the 2016 financial disclosures and you'll see that his personal income is/was from Jenner & Block LLP. That's the company Pai joined to represent telecom companies.
His replacement (and previous boss) still has a page there, where it explains the job:
Got that? He worked at a company where his job was to influence the FCC for profit.
You don't need to hide your dirt when you're displaying it openly. Pai is beyond "corrupt," because he doesn't pretend otherwise. He is, for lack of a better term, an "honest politician" and if that sounds like praise to anyone, they ought to look up what that means.
He represents telecoms, not America. His purpose is to use the power of government to extract money and power from the public and channel it to certain companies. He is a wealth redistribution professional.
If you're a person and don't work at or own stock in a telecom company, then he is your adversary.
He isn't the problem, actually. It's ok to be a telecom lobbyist; somebody's gotta do it. The problem is that some anti-American fuckwit appointed him to the FCC where he woudl have actual power, instead of laughing in his face when he asked/paid for the job. That's like appointing Ted Kaczynski to postal inspector, or hiring John Wayne Gacy to be a clown at your kid's party knowing what he does. You know what their agenda is, because they're totally up-front with you about all the harm they intend.
He will personally profit from his vote to repeal NN, and he will lose money if he votes to retain NN. His own money is on the table and he's voting on it, and YOUR PRESIDENT THINKS THIS MAKES SENSE.
"You know, that might be the answer -- to act boastfully about something we ought to be ashamed of. That's a trick that never seems to fail." -- Colonel Korn
On the Internet, though, everything is global. The big players can afford to bid on every single opportunity, so a small stream service will likely never find a open niche for growth.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
the plants that make those "green" solar cells are themselves belching toxins into the environment
But they're doing it in China, which is like more than a few miles from here, so that makes it okay.
No, really, that's how some of these people think... the rest genuinely don't realize that solar cells pollute during the production phase and at the end of their useful life; hell, I'm sure many don't realize solar cells have a finite useful life, and some probably think they grow on fucking trees.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Since when is searching google considered "using a social network"? Wow, we're here. We've arrived at near total censorship and the government wasn't even needed. You people are problematic for freedom.
In short, you're saying that creating a new role of toll collector is "pro-competition". So, on all your roads around your house, we'll open up bidding for toll collectors, and those toll-collectors can block whatever services your particular neighborhood will receive. So, blue apron - not a chance. Lyft wins over Uber, no Uber for you. Walmart beat Amazon, no Amazon anything for you. USPS can no longer deliver to you - too bad about your mail.
Take it that way and you can see how anti-competitive this action is.
USPS is Govt. who also run the roads, so your analogy is flawed anyways, but even in the flawed analogy, you show the competition in your language.
The FCC is doing what we real Americans elected them to do, which is eliminate regulation and cut taxes.
Net Neutrality does not cost us anything. But without NN your broadband bill is going way up next year. If only you were able to vote in your own self interests instead of slavishly voting for what you're fed by talking heads and empty suits.
What Facebook allows on Facebook's site is Facebook's speech. You posting something on Facebook is merely you asking Facebook to display that speech on your behalf. If Facebook were forced to say anything you asked them to say, well, that's compelled speech; Facebook choosing not to say what you've asked is not censorship, it's Facebook exercising Facebook's right to not be compelled to speak.
What Google allows on Google's site is Google's speech. You posting something on your website and allowing Google to scrape it is merely you asking Google to display that speech on your behalf. If Google were forced to say anything you asked them to say, well, that's compelled speech; Google choosing not to say what you've asked is not censorship, it's Google exercising Google's right to not be compelled to speak.
Censorship is always bad, it's just that sometimes the alternatives are worse.
Indeed, and the alternative to private censorship is compelled speech, which is much worse.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
If you have to tell us then obviously you aren't American, ...
Does that work for other things too? For example, Trump constantly says he's, "like a smart person" - oh, wait, he said "like". Never mind.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Yes, it’s passing the buck to agency that will be mostly a paper tiger as your own quote points out.
Correct, that doesn't matter because the internet uses hot-potato routing. If E-BGP used cold potato, companies might take that into consideration. As it is, peering is always based on the bandwidth in each direction - whether some packet is in response to some other packet isn't considered.
In short, you're saying that creating a new role of toll collector is "pro-competition".
In short, I'm saying that is an argument that could be (and has been) made. When the FCC commissioners and telecom lobbyists say things like "removing neutrality promotes growth opportunities", this is the scenario they're picturing. At the risk of invoking the strawman fallacy, I present the argument here as a perspective on how throttling might not be seen as always anti-competitive.
So, on all your roads around your house, we'll open up bidding for toll collectors, and those toll-collectors can block whatever services your particular neighborhood will receive. So, blue apron - not a chance. Lyft wins over Uber, no Uber for you. Walmart beat Amazon, no Amazon anything for you. USPS can no longer deliver to you - too bad about your mail.
Yep, that's about right. As an interesting anecdote, I used to live in a gated community with a similar problem. UPS, FedEx, and USPS could come & go as they pleased, but a local courier service would have to wait at the gate until a resident called the gate office to say the delivery was expected. On the one hand, it seems reasonable (for a gated community, at least). I don't want just anybody with a Pizza Hut delivery sign to be able to drive into my community. On the other hand, my neighbors and I got a lot of cold pizzas.
Take it that way and you can see how anti-competitive this action is.
Absolutely. I think the big difference in perspective is that the big players can afford to play the longer games, while small startups have to get a string of constant and immediate wins to survive. As the AC above me pointed out, there is competition within the bidding process, and that's what the lobbyists and other friends-of-big-business emphasize. The big competitors compete to gain hundreds or thousands of customers at once.
Small companies, however, can't compete at the level where they can gain or lose whole markets. They have to compete for individual customers to develop enough working capital to pursue those opportunities. Without network neutrality, those doors are permanently and quickly closed, just as solidly as my community's extruded aluminum gates.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Like YouTube, Hulu, Netflix, SlingTV, Fox2Go, ESPN3, any other live stream of broadcasts...anything that would require more than a 32k modem can handle will either be blocked or you have to pay extra for getting it.
USPS is Govt. who also run the roads, so your analogy is flawed anyways, but even in the flawed analogy, you show the competition in your language.
The USPS is actually a federal gov sponsored semi-private entity. Roads are almost all owned by someone other than the federal gov. So it's not flawed in the way you think. And if you're reading that language as "competition", well, then the mere fact of breathing will be "competition" for you. It's certainly not competition based on services provided, but whomever can lock in a contract first with the toll collector.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
Absolutely. I think the big difference in perspective is that the big players can afford to play the longer games, while small startups have to get a string of constant and immediate wins to survive. As the AC above me pointed out, there is competition within the bidding process, and that's what the lobbyists and other friends-of-big-business emphasize. The big competitors compete to gain hundreds or thousands of customers at once.
Small companies, however, can't compete at the level where they can gain or lose whole markets. They have to compete for individual customers to develop enough working capital to pursue those opportunities.
I figured we shared a viewpoint, but I wasn't sure, hence the wording choices. Your points are valid, but this isn't market competition, it's a competition between toll collectors. The road analogy was chosen because it actually maps to internet connectivity very very well. Anyone can build a road (provided you get the gov approvals and buy/lease/cajole/steal your rights of way and arrange for all accompanying interconnects you might need such as power, sewer, access to other roads) and can bankroll the construction, just like anyone can purchase their own internet connection. Also, like most roads, most of the current last mile internet infrastructure was funded by taxpayers, creating a huge barrier to entry for any other competitors.
But, the "competition" you're talking about is more akin to the competition for an item in an auction than business transactions with their customers. What this ruling does is make the customer a product for the toll collector to sell, essentially both creating a new government sponsored business and having the government effectively picking winners via this new control, making everyone else losers. Sounds completely anti-free and anti-open market to me.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
That was the anti-competitive slant, but it was vague, hence my post. It's clarified below.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
Yes Trump appointed Pai the FCC head but his first FCC appointment came from Obama. Obama made a lot of shitty appointments too. That said: Trump could remove him but hasn't.