Dear FCC: Thanks for Listening to Team Internet

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/02/fcc-votes-net-neutrality-big-win

by DiabloD3 • 11 years ago

165 77 11 years ago

jasonjei2• 11 years ago

Even better, the rules will apply to wireless and wired broadband in the same way, so you don’t have to worry that your phone switching from Wi-Fi to a 4G network will suddenly cause apps not to work or websites to become inaccessible. Lots of people use mobile devices as their primary way of accessing the Internet, so applying net neutrality rules to both equally will help make sure there is “one Internet” for all.

Does this mean Apple cannot enforce "must use over wifi restrictions"? As it stands now, I can't use LTE to download large apps, media, or stream on the iPhone or iPad. Would the FCC have any authority to force Apple to change these restrictions?

cloudwalking• 11 years ago

I hope so.

tragic2• 11 years ago

Presumably it would apply only to your LTE carrier, not built-in device limitations. That is a very weird thing for Apple to build in to a phone/tablet though...

Already__Taken• 11 years ago

That to me sounds like a decision apple made to protect all users from some massive LTE bill. Most people are already very paranoid their phone is going to rack up some huge bill without them noticing.

gojomo• 11 years ago

There is less competition in smartphone OSes (2 dominant providers) than in most localities' high-speed internet (2 wired and 3+ wireless providers). So the same market-power rationales used for FCC regulation of ISPs could be used to justify strong federal regulation of the Apple & Google platforms.

mikeash3• 11 years ago

There's a major difference in that I can easily use a non-dominant smartphone OS if I want to, but if some ISP doesn't cover my area, I can't use them no matter how much I might want to.

You're not necessarily wrong, but it's not quite the same.

rhino369• 11 years ago

App and data neutrality should be next. Apple shouldn't be able to monetize the phone they already sold me by extorting 30% of all apps I buy.

Google shouldn't be able to horde all the data. Make google a dumb pagerank index!

biftek• 11 years ago

Is this something Apple actually controls or is it tied in with the carriers? I seem to recall my old grandfathered unlimited plan on Verizon letting me download anything when ever.

jasonjei2• 11 years ago

It seems to be a software limitation. On an iPhone, if you try to download a movie from the iTunes app, you'll be prompted to switch to wifi--the download won't proceed. It isn't tied to carrier, I think, but at the iOS level.

tashoecraft• 11 years ago

It's so careless users don't burn through their data plan in 3 minutes by downloading a multi gb app and movie. It's a safety net because the high majority of users do not have unlimited data plans. At least this is how I always interpreted this rule.

I don't think that is what that rule does. It is mainly to protect the user who downloads an app to still be able to use it if they are on wifi and 4G, even if the app maker didn't pay to have "special access" to the 4G network that month.

ethana• 11 years ago

"But now we face the really hard part: making sure the FCC doesn’t abuse its authority."

I just feel that the EFF didn't do a thorough check this time around.

Also, the decision was made at 10AM and they still haven't release the 200+ pages ruling document. It's most likely that this will head back to federal court and the process will get more complicated and lengthy before the dust settle.

couchand• 11 years ago

Wow, you're all over the place with this comment. EFF didn't do a through check? What did they miss?

The "decision" made at 10AM was to adopt the rules that have been under public comment for months. If you haven't seen them yet, it's your own fault.

Yes this will go to court. Do you expect any better from America?

jamoes• 11 years ago

The "decision" made at 10AM was to adopt the rules that have been under public comment for months. If you haven't seen them yet, it's your own fault.

From what I've read, the 322 page document wasn't released as of 3 days ago [1]. I'm not sure about the claim that it still hasn't been released, but regardless - the rules weren't really available for public review before the vote.

[1] http://dailycaller.com/2015/02/23/republican-fcc-commissione...

qwerty85344324• 11 years ago

Doesn't Team Internet include Cisco, Intel, Broadcom, Qualcomm, and IBM, and other tech companies who came out against the NN regulations that were passed yesterday? Or does Team Internet just include Tumblr and Etsy?

venomsnake• 11 years ago

All those are hardware companies if you notice.

bhauer6• 11 years ago

Hardware companies are involved in making the Internet work.

badsock4• 11 years ago

Well yeah, those were the companies that were lined up to build the infrastructure for the multi-tiered Internet. How could you expect them to take any other position?

bhauer6• 11 years ago

While I feel it's clear that you are on the opposite side of this discussion from myself, I nevertheless would like to pose the following to you.

Proponents of this FCC Title II reclassification have argued that this action will not curtail investment in network infrastructure and that Internet bandwidth will continue to improve unimpeded. After all, if they do not argue that, they would concede one of the points presently being dismissed as FUD hawked by the anti-Title II people such as myself: that reclassification will reduce innovation and ultimately hurt end consumers in the long run.

So an underpinning assumption of pro-Title II is that investment in networks will continue unabated and network bandwidth will continue to increase in spite of Title II regulation. Why, then, are the hardware companies that stand to profit from this unimpeded continued investment concerned? Is it because the regulation will require them or their customers to disable support for IPv6 Quality of Service flags on packets? That seems like a fairly trivial configuration change. It seems more plausible that they fear their customers (ISPs and backbone providers) will see less incentive to upgrade to the next generation of network gear to continuously improve the aggregate performance of their network. After all, the hard part of network R&D is steadily increasing bandwidth/performance at prices the ISPs and backbone providers can afford. Implementing IPv6 QoS bits isn't going to show up as a significant line item in the R&D budget or Intel, IBM, Cisco, and Qualcomm.

So yes, these companies were lined up to build the bogeyman "multi-tiered" Internet, assuming such a thing was ever going to come to pass (aside: we'll never really know if such a thing might have ultimately been a boon for consumers, because we took away the opportunity for the market to experiment with that preemptively). But more importantly, these companies were and have been lined up to continuously build the always-evolving "next" generation of Internet network hardware, full stop. And for some reason they are worried that their profits are now in jeopardy.

I for one find that a bit alarming. I want network companies to get rich selling my ISP ultra high-performance network gear because that ultimately improves my bandwidth. I don't want to still be at 30 Mbps five or ten years from now. I don't want asynchronous connection speeds to persist through my lifetime. I want more hardware and network innovation, not less.

All that said, I don't suspect much of anything to happen in the next few years because network R&D isn't a fast-moving process in any event. But in five or ten years, we should be able to assess whether the pace of innovation has been curtailed. I worry that in 2020 I'll look back with a tinge of regret.

rayiner7• 11 years ago

No. On HN, "internet company" only refers to websites.

300bps• 11 years ago

As a fiscally conservative technology person who got my first modem in 1985, I could simultaneously not be happier with how things turned out with the FCC and horrified how fellow conservatives seem to interpret it.

It is disheartening how much FUD is being spread by conservatives on the anti-NN side.

madman86• 11 years ago

FUD seems to be their selling point for just about every policy...

rayiner7• 11 years ago

Why do you dismiss the anti-NN concerns as FUD? Conservatives are worried about what impact NN will have on infrastructure investment, and the fact that reclassification gets us one step closer to rate setting, etc, and other powers under Title II. Both concerns are more "real," more rooted in actual observable practice, than the specter raised by the pro-NN people of a tiered, pay-for-pay internet.

The incentive concern is real. What incentive will telecom companies have to build the wireline networks that enable next-generation of web services if they can't make enough money to justify the investment? The liberal response to this point is either myth or fantasy. Myth, in that they assume that wireline is insanely profitable, and that fat Verizon shareholders will just have to squeeze their belts a bit. In reality, the operating margin of Verizon's wireline division is 2-3%.[1] Fantasy, because they alternatively posit that municipal systems will take up the slack. How states and cities that are broke, crushed under liberal public union pension obligations, will pay for these municipal networks is up in the air.

The worry of further regulation is also real. Telecom is already a morass of regulation, largely to fulfill liberal concerns. For example, there is already rate-setting. Municipal governments require cable companies to offer basic cable at low regulated rates. Since it doesn't cost appreciably less to offer basic cable than more expensive packages, this sets an important constraint on the economics of the network. Huge amounts of wealth transfer from urban to rural areas are already baked into the system at the federal and state levels. And build-out restrictions, preventing upstart competitors from stealing away lucrative tracts of incumbants' service areas, are already stifling competition. The HN crowd acts like NN is being added on top of an otherwise pristine regulatory regime, but in reality it's just one more straw on a giant pile of hay.

None of this is FUD. The fact that these points are also raised by the telecom companies, who have a monetary interest in avoiding NN, does not make them FUD any more than the pro-NN points are FUD because they're raised by web-tech companies.

I'm not an ideologue. I'd be fine with, for example, the U.K. approach. But what that would mean, which most people on HN don't know, would be putting AT&T back together and letting them enjoy monopoly profits. Take a look at BT Openreach's financials sometime: http://www.digitallook.com/news/news-and-announcements/retai.... Their EBITDA margin is a staggering 45%, double that of Verizon wireline, significantly higher than Comcast's whole operation, and higher than AT&T and Verizon's wireless divisions.

[1] http://www.verizonwireless.com/news/article/2012/01/pr2012-0....

dublinben• 11 years ago

What incentive will telecom companies have to build the wireline networks that enable next-generation of web services if they can't make enough money to justify the investment?

A 97% profit margin[0] on those very same services ought to be enough of an incentive for any business.

[0]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-kushnick/time-warner-cab...

pdabbadabba• 11 years ago

the fact that reclassification gets us one step closer to rate setting

As I've said elsewhere, this is indeed FUD. (I also disagree with most of the rest of what you say, but I agree that it's not FUD.)

The notion of "steps closer" to rate-setting makes little sense in the real-world regulatory environment. If today's FCC hadn't decided to reclassify broadband Internet service under Title II, this would do very little, perhaps nothing, to hold back a future Commission that wanted to impose a rate-setting regime. That future Commission, persuaded that rate-setting was a good idea, would simply open a proceeding to reclassify broadband internet service under Title II and impose a rate setting regime. The fact that broadband internet service was not already classified as a Title II service would be, at most, a very minor impediment given the tremendous deference the FCC is given in making such regulatory decisions. (For one thing, the reversal of a prior regulatory decision is subjected to no special scrutiny.) This would only require a single proceeding in which whatever reasoning the Commission had to support rate setting, would also be its support for Title II reclassification. And since one of the primary objections to Title II reclassification today is that it somehow raises the risk of rate setting, one can only imagine the resistance to actually imposing a rate-setting regime.

In other words, this is a classic slippery-slope argument. All the considerations that stop us from setting rates today will be present in the future. The minor administrative hassle of reclassifying broadband internet service under Title II, barely ranks as one of the impediments to imposing such a regime.

jackmaney• 11 years ago

"What incentive will telecom companies have to build the wireline networks that enable next-generation of web services if they can't make enough money to justify the investment?"

Regulation forcing them to build the networks or be heavily fined. Given their profit margins, I'm weeping...hold on...taking careful count...carry the seven...zero tears for them.

tzs• 11 years ago

(Possibly out of order replies)

Why do you dismiss the anti-NN concerns as FUD?

He said anti-NN were spreading a lot of FUD. I didn't see him say all anti-NN concerns were FUD.

And he's right about a lot of FUD from anti-NN people. Some claims I saw, largely from Republican official, Republican writers and radio/TV hosts, and random people whose affiliation was not stated but from their remarks about Obama being a communist, dirty liberal, or Muslim I think it is a safe bet that they are not moderates or liberals:

• You will have to apply for an expensive license from the FCC if you want to put up a website.

• The FCC will be regulating Google search results, Facebook's news feed, and the like.

• This helps the governments of North Korea, Syria, Iran, and China to oppress their people with their internet censorship, because now the US cannot pressure them for a free internet without appearing hypocritical because now we are imposing the same kind of controls on the internet in the US.

What incentive will telecom companies have to build the wireline networks that enable next-generation of web services if they can't make enough money to justify the investment?

What money making opportunity, besides paid prioritization, does this remove?

The fact that these points are also raised by the telecom companies [...]

By some telecom companies. T-Mobile and Sprint aren't having much of a problem with it. The rural broadband provider's trade group outright supports it and has long asked for Title II.

I'm not an ideologue. I'd be fine with, for example, the U.K. approach. But what that would mean, which most people on HN don't know, would be putting AT&T back together and letting them enjoy monopoly profits.

What do you mean by the U.K. approach? The main aspect of their broadband approach that I'm aware of us the forced line sharing, but I don't see how that would require putting AT&T back together.

Question: wireless voice has been regulated under similar (but more extensive) Title II regulations for around 20 years. Why have the doom and gloom scenarios forecast for internet not already come to pass there? The carriers there have invested massively in their infrastructure under those rules.

unprepare• 11 years ago

Both concerns are more "real," more rooted in actual observable practice, than the specter raised by the pro-NN people of a tiered, pay-for-pay internet.

You mean because neither of those have happened at all, and ISPs were already charging companies for pay-for-play? Its well documented that several ISPs were throttling Netflix for months before netflix folded and agreed to pay additional fees. That happened. thats real life. Thats more of a real concern than any of your hypotheticals.

In reality, the operating margin of Verizon's wireline division is 2-3%.[1]

Nice cherry picking, meanwhile Comcast reports over 40% operating margin each year.

Cable Communications Segment — Operating Costs and Expenses We continue to focus on controlling the growth of expenses. Our operating margin (operating income before depreciation and amortization as a percentage of revenue) for 2011, 2010 and 2009 was 41.1%, 40.4% and 40.1%, respectively.[1]

So where was that lack of incentive again? because 40% operating margin sounds fantastic to me

Since it doesn't cost appreciably less to offer basic cable than more expensive packages, this sets an important constraint on the economics of the network

Source? Do you know how much cable companies pay each cable channel to carry them? Are you qualified to evaluate the cost differential to the provider of basic cable vs other packages?

And build-out restrictions, preventing upstart competitors from stealing away lucrative tracts of incumbents' service areas, are already stifling competition

I agree here, this is why google has been rolling out fiber in the way they have, they are finding municipalities willing to overlook buildout requirements

The HN crowd acts like NN is being added on top of an otherwise pristine regulatory regime, but in reality it's just one more straw on a giant pile of hay.

I dont know where you got that opinion, I've seen little other than criticism of the current status quo.

I'd be fine with, for example, the U.K. approach

Do you have a link that kind of explains their approach? I'd be interested to learn more about it and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_in_the_United_Kingdom#... isnt doing a particularly great job

[1] http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1166691/0001193125120...

dragonwriter6• 11 years ago

Both concerns are more "real," more rooted in actual observable practice, than the specter raised by the pro-NN people of a tiered, pay-for-pay internet.

Blocking certain lawful services was actually done by major ISPs, and prohibiting lawful services and applications to retail customers is still policy of most ISPs (fixed and mobile.)

Likewise prioritization of content provided by ISPs affiliates (either same owner or paid prioritization of third party service) has been done, by both fixed and mobile ISPs.

So while the anti-NN concerns may be "real" in the sense of having a valid chain of reasoning supporting them, they are not more real than the pro-NN concerns which center around real, actual practices that exist in the status quo and have been seen in the period that NN has been debated.

coldpie• 11 years ago

Conservatives in the US gov't manage to be incorrect about many objective things (AGW, evolution), so it's not too surprising that they manage to fuck up on subjective things, too (net neutrality, role of religion in gov't).

mikeash3• 11 years ago

Your fellow "conservatives" are mostly such in name only. They've been convinced that the Republican Party is the conservative party despite the fact that they're anything but, and they mold their positions to match. It's sad.

joelgrus• 11 years ago

"We won! A free tiger! But now we face the really hard part: making sure the tiger doesn't eat us."

hexis• 11 years ago

TIL if you've run a bootstrapped web business for ten years, but didn't support Net Neutrality, you've just been kicked off Team Internet.

danielweber7• 11 years ago

Didn't you vote in the election that gave the EFF the right to speak for us?

programmarchy3• 11 years ago

Regulation has a history of locking in incumbents, and locking out potential future competitors. It will be much harder for challengers to enter the market now because of the increased cost of compliance, something only the big incumbents can afford. What's worse is that the costs for Title II companies will be subsidized by government. So they may appear to have low prices, at least for awhile, but the real price will be hidden in a nebulous cloud of federal taxes. You won't even really know how much you're actually paying due to price distortions caused by corporate welfare. It's sad that people have such a short term memory about these corporate welfare cons, and just fall in lockstep with the propaganda. This will be very bad for consumers in the long run.

bougiefever2• 11 years ago

Nothing but FUD.

This is a huge win for consumers.

xname• 11 years ago

If ISPs lose, consumers cannot win.

TheCowboy• 11 years ago

Would you mind supporting your statement by explaining how this actually applies here? It comes across as generic anti-regulation-no-matter-what astroturfing, but would be more interesting if the details of your argument were fleshed out.

programmarchy3• 11 years ago

What details would you like me to flesh out?

Maybe I can offer an example. I'm sure you will be able to poke technical holes in this, but let's say a company comes up with a new technology (i.e. not cable) that can handle small packets very efficiently in a small locality. It's super cheap to do this, and it's great for networking small communities. But, video traffic really slows down the network so it's filtered out and thus it can't effectively treat all data equally. Instead of being able to quickly start up and offer their services, first they have to register with the FCC. Then they have to pay an inspection fee, and account for yearly audit fees. Plus, even though their prices are cheap, they're not much cheaper than cable because all the cable infrastructure is subsidized by taxpayers so their prices appear to be less competitive. All these extra costs to comply with the regulations add up to the point where the capital needed to even start this business is way too high and way too risky, so this technology just won't even have a chance of existing. It is effectively crowded out by the heavily subsidized and protected cable telecoms.

For a real historical reference, take the railroads for example, where these types of regulations began. The railroad businesses got huge subsidies from the government in the form of land and tax breaks. This allowed the railroad companies to effectively cartelize the industry because it crowded out more decentralized forms of transportation like the small rail and networks of canal systems. Even though these localized, less capital intensive systems could have served people better than railroads, we'll never know it because of the opportunity cost of central planning: the railroads used the state to force the public to pay for and subsidize their infrastructure. These crowding out effects are the unseen consequences of regulation.

Big business has a long history of using the power of the state to impose regulatory barriers on future competitors as a way to preserve their monopoly power. It started with the railroads, continued through the Progressive Era, and continues today with policies like "Net Neutrality". And they always use the same public relations con, too, appealing to the common good and fairness to get public buy in. They say that these policies will protect the consumers, but really in the end these policies will protect big business from competition. This creates artificial scarcity and allows big business to charge consumers higher prices.

See my other post here [1] if you want a little more historical background on how this works.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8998958

bougiefever2• 11 years ago

One of the immediate benefits for consumers is that companies can no longer block tethering apps on your phone or make you pay an additional fee for it. Sprint wanted me to pay an extra $30/mo when I was with them to be able to tether. Of course, I just rooted my phone and tethered anyway. (now I have Ting -- so much better)

programmarchy3• 11 years ago

You'll still be paying for this, except it will be through federal taxes for corporate subsidies instead of a bill, so you won't know the real price. Usually things you pay for indirectly are much more expensive than they would be if you paid for them directly, so you'll probably be paying more in the end.

Dear FCC: Thanks for Listening to Team Internet

Related Stories