Net Neutrality and the FCC

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

"The Internet is the most powerful and pervasive platform on the planet. It is simply too important to be left without rules and without a referee on the field. Think about it. The Internet has replaced the functions of the telephone and the post office. The Internet has redefined commerce, and as the outpouring from four million Americans has demonstrated, the Internet is the ultimate vehicle for free expression. The Internet is simply too important to allow broadband providers to be the ones making the rules.

This proposal has been described by one opponent as "a secret plan to regulate the Internet." Nonsense. This is no more a plan to regulate the Internet than the First Amendment is a plan to regulate free speech. They both stand for the same concepts: openness, expression, and an absence of gate keepers telling people what they can do, where they can go, and what they can think." -Tom Wheeler, Chairman of the FCC

I confess that when it comes to the minutae of internet workings I am a bit of a doofus.  I can manage my own computer well enough that I don't have to scramble around and call a tech every single time a glitch happens, but when it comes to technology as it pertains to the world, I am more vulnerable.

That said, I have listened to the arguments for both sides on this and I guess the best I can come up with is that the supporters are supporters of a general concept and buzzwords and detractors tend to be full of armageddon speak.  Not a lot that's very edifying all-around, frankly.

I did however take notice of the above quote from the regulatory body that made the move.  It doesn't speak to or address any abuses that the move to enact net neutrality was made in response to.  In fact, as much as I googled, I could find nothing that had happened that seemed to warrant such a move in respone.  The above quote only seems to confirm that this move was one based almost entirely on what might happen someday.  Maybe.  Can anyone who meanders from message board to message board either here on LJ or elsewhere say that their free speech has been squelched by telecom companies?  I'm not talking about forum moderation, but trying to impose a standard of what people can say, where they can go, and what they can think, as the quote above so eloquently put it?

So while I am not necessarily of the idea that there would never, ever be a situation in which some company decided to enact far-reaching, speech threatening action, I would feel much better if one could point to the actual beast being claimed we're fighting before a fight gets started or is deemed necessary.  We're all surfers on the internet by the fact that we're here at all talking to each other.  Has anyone experienced this kind of suppression in a material way?

In addition, the whole comment, if it truly sums up the FCC's rationale, smacks more of the kind of rhetoric one promises before completely undermining everything it claims it was trying to do.  It's vague and doesn't even reference the main issue people were citing as a possibility that got them to supposedly act in the first place.  I won't go so far as to join the chorus and cries of 'armageddon', but this to me is at the very least, troubling.

I see little difference between the idea of a pre-emptive war and pre-emptive legislation/regulation, and no purpose to support either, and for pretty much the same reason.  Fighting invisible monsters in real ways generates chaos, and has a greater chance to cause problems that might otherwise never have happened if the pot remained un-stirred so to speak.  And the unseen future is so very, very, invisible.

Thoughts from the gallery?

Comments

[policraticus.livejournal.com]

Pretense of knowledge, much?

Nah, I am sure it will all work out just fine. The FCC will put the very brightest people on the job and everything will go just swimmingly and all unintended consequences will be good and just and lead us to the sunny uplands of equality and justice promised to us by every good intention we can conjur.

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

The more freedom buzzwords I see in a proposal, the greater my instinct for scrutiny and skepticism becomes activated.

That goes for those on the right as well as the left.

[nicoleonfire.livejournal.com]

I am honestly not sure what to think about the whole thing, but I did find this interesting:

http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2012-06-21/comcast-invents-its-own-private-internet

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Vi Hart made a great eleven minute video explaining the nuances for Net Neutrality (http://youtu.be/NAxMyTwmu_M). I'm pretty positive about the way this went, but I'm a bit worried the big Internet pipe providers will do their best to undermine the new proposals. (You will see in a below link, they have been trying this in various ways for some time). Some towns have actually installed their own high speed internet, but guess what lobbyists intervened in states to get legislation passed to stop that?

A grandmother found out, Janice Bowling, she's a Republican state senator from Tullahoma, and is a firm believer in the free market. But a 1999 state law prevented municipalities from installing their own private networks.

She viewed a proposed network, which offers speeds about 80 times faster than AT&T and 10 times faster than Charter in Tullahoma according to advertised services, as a utility, like electricity, that all Tennesseans need.

“We don’t quarrel with the fact that AT&T has shareholders that it has to answer to,” Bowling said with a drawl while sitting in the spacious wood-paneled den of her log-cabin-style home. “That’s fine, and I believe in capitalism and the free market. But when they won’t come in, then Tennesseans have an obligation to do it themselves.”

As a bill progressed through Tennessee's legislature, Joelle Phillips, president of AT&T’s Tennessee operations threatened a lawsuit to block progress. So the town of Tullahoma (along with other cities and municipalities) has petitioned the FCC to voiding those state laws preventing municipalities installing their own high speed Internet. Source: (http://www.publicintegrity.org/2014/08/28/15404/how-big-telecom-smothers-city-run-broadband)How big telecom smothers city-run broadband.

Here is John Oliver's extremely humorous explanation of Net Neutrality. Some believe his coverage had a big impact on the FCC and raised public attention in a big way.

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

It doesn't concern you that the man Oliver associated with the dingo watching over the baby is the one who is responsible for the quote above?

I was suspicious before, and doubly so now. Nobody's read the text of this beast yet, it hasn't even been released as far as I know.

Glad to watch the vid though. The way it presents it posits something that I have yet seen get mentioned elsewhere; that being that the FCC previously had to allow the Comcast to do a two tiered system, implying that this is more or less a return to the way it was before that ruling.

In no other way however, has this ever been brought up in promoting it as a reversal of a previous ruling/return to the way things used to be. And to require the now-to-be-expected thousand plus page document to 'rectify' it? I find it more probable that this is going to end up being something sold to the public as what they wanted while being everything the very companies being vilified, also wanted.

Add to the fact that Google and others have been involved in altering the new regulations (also to-be-expected at this point) and I don't know where optimism should be found in any of this.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

It doesn't concern you that the man Oliver associated with the dingo watching over the baby is the one who is responsible for the quote above?

Not particularly, since he's done the surprising (as a former executive in the cable industry, it was an automatic shoe-in that he would rule in favor of the two tier system) and done the right thing.

that being that the FCC previously had to allow the Comcast to do a two tiered system, implying that this is more or less a return to the way it was before that ruling.

I'm not sure I am following you here. If you mean a return prior to the suggested two tier system, then yes. And I don't want to get lost in the weeds here, but the FCC voted on a rules change in May, 2014 after Verizon won a lawsuit against the FCC.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) endorsed a new two-tier system Thursday for Internet service providers, overturning the principle of "net neutrality."

For the first time, the rules would open the door for Internet providers like Comcast and Verizon to charge tech companies to send content to consumers more quickly, five FCC commissioners voted narrowly, 3 to 2, to release their proposed Internet rules to the public. The FCC is making the changes reluctantly after Verizon successfully sued over longtime federal regulations requiring broadband providers to treat all Internet traffic the same.

And to require the now-to-be-expected thousand plus page document to 'rectify' it?


I don't know how to address your concerns because they're so generally vague. And well, complicated rules change in telecommunications law is the stuff of lawyers. Complex things require complex laws. There are a lot public advocacy groups/lawyers/netizens who will be going over this with a fine tooth comb.

Add to the fact that Google and others have been involved in altering the new regulations

Involved how and at what level? How did Google alter the new regulations? I'm curious. What is it intrinsically evil about Google that merits automatic suspicion (as opposed to the Internet Broadband companies who wanted the two tier system). Google's opposition to the two tier system makes a lot of sense (and business cents) because they have their own commercial online video streaming services, along with YouTube. They would be impacted in a negative way clearly.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

The vagueness of the complaints says a lot about where it's coming from: Fear.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

The FCC yesterday also blocked Tennessee and North Carolina laws, that were preventing two localities from installing their own high speed Internet networks, also another big win.

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

I apologize for any non-specificity with the complaints as they haven't released the hundreds of pages of text to be able to pinpoint something more concrete.

I'm not the apocalyptic type. Don't think I worded the OP in any way that resembles that characteristic (fear mongering) and in fact think I made the point to both recognize that those apocalyptic types exist while distancing myself from them, as I do not share that excessively dire outlook. That doesn't preclude general skepticism and pessimism.

My intent was to communicate that when a spokesman steps in front of a microphone and starts rattling on in vague terms about freedoms and protecting them from threats that haven't even been made manifest, well, then I feel every bit as justified in my skepticism as if they had stood up and been talking about new military actions in the war on terror instead of net neutrality.

Just my observation.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

protecting them from threats that haven't even been made manifest

The netflix debacle? The fact telecoms have taken money they were supposed to use to expand infrastructure and just pocketed them? Bandwidth throttling over things like torrenting? This isn't a solution to an imaginary problem... All internet companies have been under pressure by the telecom giants.

I mean hell, SOPA? PIPA? This moves in the opposite direction from those drastic, rights-squelching pieces of legislation.

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

The threat as outlined by the quote in the OP that I referenced, the one used as justification was against these things:

"They both stand for the same concepts: openness, expression, and an absence of gate keepers telling people what they can do, where they can go, and what they can think."

In light of that..

The netflix debacle?

I agree that what happened to Netflix is pretty much indefensible. However that's a case of corporate extortion, and not really a threat to public free speech, freedom to think or express, unless this is the one time we're allowed to treat corporations as people with rights that can be violated.

Pocketing infrastructure funds would be a separate charge requiring another kind of legal redress, would it not?

I don't view Comcast in any virtuous way, far from it.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

My intent was to communicate that when a spokesman steps in front of a microphone and starts rattling on in vague terms about freedoms and protecting them from threats that haven't even been made manifest, well, then I feel every bit as justified in my skepticism as if they had stood up and been talking about new military actions in the war on terror instead of net neutrality.

And well, all things being equal, some of us are just as skeptical, if not more so, of big Internet providers making similar statements. "Trust us, a two tier system is really more fair for you!" I am not agnostic regarding any FCC regulation of the Internet, provided the consumer is the winner.

protecting them from threats that haven't even been made manifest,

Oh I dunno about that, since Netflix was apparently throttled by Comcast (John Oliver alluded to that with the graph showing precisely this at minute marker 4:12). A coincidence that at the very moment a deal was struck on what Netflix would pay Comcast, the alleged throttling ended? I'm very skeptical that it was a purely coincidence.

I apologize for any non-specificity with the complaints as they haven't released the hundreds of pages of text to be able to pinpoint something more concrete.

Well, the reasons the order hasn't been made public yet, the two Republican commissioners who oppose the new rule, are dragging their feet on the editing and commenting on them.

In fact, it could take weeks before the final rules are published, the official said. That’s because the two Republican commissioners, Ajit Pai and Mike O’Rielly—who oppose net neutrality of any sort—have refused to submit basic edits on the order. "As is typical for a final rule and order, the final document is not available until staff makes final edits, which must be cleared by each commissioner," FCC press secretary Kim Hart told Motherboard. "This process typically takes a few weeks." The new policy is expected to establish the strongest net neutrality framework in US history, and it’s already being hailed as a landmark victory by open internet advocates.

Source (http://motherboard.vice.com/read/fcc-confirms-net-neutrality-order-wont-be-released-today): "Thanks to GOP Commissioners, We Won't See the Full Net Neutrality Rules Today"

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

I have more than enough skepticism on hand to dish out to government and corporation alike :) Seriously though, read through the comments. I'm not defending Comcast et-al. In fact, I wouldn't be shocked to find out that the way the regulation as written, wasn't written with some corporate interest being solidified as a non-coincidental result in mind.

As mentioned above though, the threat posed by Comcast throttling Netflix (undisputed by me) isn't something that comes to mind when thinking of the grandiose flourishes of protecting freedom of speech/movement/thought, etc., unless Netflix, as the victim, is being afforded corporate person-hood for the purposes of the discussion.

I do look forward to hearing more about the text of the regs when it is finally released. The sooner the better.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

This is a great first step toward a truly free internet. Soon people will see that all their bullshit fearmongering was just that.

[mikeyxw.livejournal.com]

I suspect that by the time this has an impact, connecting your computer up to a cable will seem as quaint as dial-up. Sure, the cable companies are monopolies and, as there isn't a free market operating, some regulation is likely in order. That said, I don't expect the FCC is the route to keeping the internet free so much as technology advances that remake the market every decade.

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

Interesting. Do you have any links to what is up that might allow that to happen of its own accord?

I find that kind of stuff fascinating, even if I don't fully understand all of it. It's good to know about.

[mikeyxw.livejournal.com]

I expect that the carriers will be able to compete head to head pretty soon. Right now, they're a bit slower (4G is around 30 Mbs while cable can reach 100 Mbs) , more expensive, and less reliable. That said, bandwidth is quickly improving quickly on all fronts. My take is that in a few years it's going to be pretty attractive to pay just one bill to get your phone and data connection combined into one bill and delivered over the air... to wherever you are. We saw this happen with phones, I just don't see it stopping.

Maybe the cellular companies will start using the same practices, but then it is much easier to switch a carrier than a cable company.

[mikeyxw.livejournal.com]

BTW, since you asked for a link, here ya go (http://www.networkworld.com/article/2172952/wireless/5g-wireless--reality-looks-to-catch-up-with-hype.html).

The really interesting thing is that it gives you a taste of the scenarios that can be enabled by having the communication center around a mobile device. The cable service connected to your computer isn't going to be able to turn on your heater or air conditioner when you leave work... it'll really have no idea this happened. Your cell phone will. Because of this, I see the trend towards mobility continuing.

[dexeron.livejournal.com]

"In fact, as much as I googled, I could find nothing that had happened that seemed to warrant such a move in respone. The above quote only seems to confirm that this move was one based almost entirely on what might happen someday. Maybe. Can anyone who meanders from message board to message board either here on LJ or elsewhere say that their free speech has been squelched by telecom companies?"

There is an ongoing debate as to whether Comcast's throttling of Netflix traffic constituted a violation of Net Neutrality principles, and constituted an instance of what these policies are meant to prevent. I've heard counter-arguments stating that what happened between those two corporations was actually something else entirely, and really has nothing to do with Net Neutrality. My personal opinion is that it's both, and neither.

But no, there hasn't really been an instance that I can think of that's an obvious smoking-gun yet (to continue the "preemptive" analogy) but the naysayers are even more wrong in their dire predictions of what this could lead to.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

It's really amazing to see the shit that people are outright making up in response to this. Fear fear fear fear. It's such a typical response to progress. I can safely ignore all the slippery slope arguments.

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

I agree that the dire predictions are reactionary and not founded on anything accurate. Net neutrality isn't easily understood as a subject, and the gap in understanding that generates is often the source of apocalyptic prognostications when it comes into contact with the highly polarizing and motivating subject of 'politics'.

That said, skepticism in light of the more general aspects I was thinking of (lack of a real causal/triggering event, and the very flowery 'freedumz!' speech to announce what was done) is healthy. Governments and corporations both have earned a default position of skepticism.

Which is why it does seem strange to me that several of the comments around so far are defaulting towards optimism. Granted, that neither optimists or pessimists have read the actual text, not having been released yet, but again: between optimism, skepticism, or even pessimism, which of these have these institutions historically earned most?