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."
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.
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.
blocking/throttling/etc is purely anti-competitive
Wrong. Look at P2P and anything else that ISPs don't like.
Except that this won't result in blocking of throttling of the big 4 because they can pay to play.
It is the new little guys that have to worry.
Pretty much the reverse of the outcome you suggest.
Think of the 'big 4' as cars, and your ISP as the roads you drive them on. It's a lot easier to choose a different car than to have a second set of roads built in your area.
Google may seem unassailable in the West (and they do have a huge market advantage), but there is always the possibility of a niche search engine growing into a rival. It's far less likely a niche ISP will arise with the resources to install the required infrastructure except in isolated communities - and since a physical presence is require to compete, they're never going to crack the major markets where NN is protecting consumers against vertically integrated media-and-delivery empires.
How does that work for cable? Have a lot of choice of cable companies in your area?
You don't, because state and local governments "negotiated" cable to a regional monopoly, without any significant regulation on behavior. Which leaves us with bundles of the one channel you want, and the 50 channels that the provider is paid to carry (ie shopping networks).
Here what will happen. Your cable company is already your internet provider for most Americans. There is already no competition. The big four will pay the provider for better throughput. Think throttling other traffic to provide guaranteed performance for the big four to your device.
Here's the problem. You are paying the provider for access to the internet. As in, access to whatever the hell you want. And they take your money. And they'll take the money from big corporations to get access to you (at least, more performant access). This will throttle anything you want that doesn't pay. So what you pay for will be slower access to the things you choose, and faster access for the things that the provider chooses.
They get paid both ways, your choices get worse.
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.
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.
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