FCC Releases Open Internet Order

http://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-releases-open-internet-order

by revscat • 11 years ago

191 148 11 years ago

eck3• 11 years ago

30. But this Order does not apply the open Internet rules to interconnection.

TLDR: Relax, Comcast. You can still intentionally let all your transit ports saturate every evening so Netflix will blow unless they pay you to peer. Which is what you really wanted to do.

madanosliw• 11 years ago

But Netflix (or their service provider) probably should be paying to peer. The problem is that Comcast is also in the media game so they have an incentive to use the peering as leverage against a competitor. An ISP should be able to make technical decisions on how they connect to other networks. Unfortunately the big oligopo-ISPs make those technical decisions based on desires other than having an optimal network.

fixxer• 11 years ago

excellent point and a reason why, despite my libertarian leanings, i am happy to see regulation here.

eck3• 11 years ago

My point is that they ban explicit prioritization yet ISPs can achieve the exact same result through network topology. It's a huge loophole.

Put another way, if I pay Comcast for XX mbps, it should be possible for some company to send me data at XX mbps without paying Comcast. Otherwise what exactly am I paying for?

One solution would be to force last-mile ISPs to designate a location for each customer (for example "all Manhattan subscribers => 60 Hudson St") where Netflix etc could peer without settlement only with those customers. Comcast doesn't have to carry Netflix's traffic across the country, just from the nearest IX to the customer. If the customer monthly fees don't cover that, what exactly are they paying for? Any VOD offerings from Comcast would be required to routed through the same points, without routing preference over 3rd party traffic like Netflix.

In some sense, that would be a light version of forced cable leasing, since instead of movies, a service could offer a vpn/tunnel to general internet access with better transit provisioning than the last-mile ISP.

tlrobinson• 11 years ago

I'm pro "net neutrality" in principle, but I'm genuinely curious how we expect to achieve true "net neutrality" given how the internet works. Obviously the internet is not a fully connected network, and we don't have infinite bandwidth.

Could an ISP could decide to only peer with networks that happen to throttle Netflix, for example? Do we expect the government to force every ISP to peer with any network that wishes to peer with them, for free? Maybe at the "market" rate?

wmf6• 11 years ago

Now that the FCC is grading ISPs on packet loss, intentional congestion isn't going to work.

tubbs3• 11 years ago

Here's the portion about unlawful content I was waiting for (page 132m para. 304), with the parts I found especially interesting italicized:

"In the NPRM, we tentatively concluded that we should retain the definition of reasonable network management we previously adopted, which does not include preventing transfer of unlawful content or the unlawful transfer of content as a reasonable practice.782 We affirm this tentative conclusion and re-state that open Internet rules do not prohibit broadband providers from making reasonable efforts to address the transfer of unlawful content or unlawful transfers of content to ensure that open Internet rules are not used as a shield to enable unlawful activity or to deter prompt action against such activity.

For example, the no-blocking rule should not be invoked to protect copyright infringement, which has adverse consequences for the economy, nor should it protect child pornography. We reiterate that our rules do not alter the copyright laws and are not intended to prohibit or discourage voluntary practices undertaken to address or mitigate the occurrence of copyright infringement.783 After consideration of the record, we retain this rule, which is applicable to both fixed and mobile broadband providers engaged in broadband Internet access service and reads as follows: Nothing in this part prohibits reasonable efforts by a provider of broadband Internet access service to address copyright infringement or other unlawful activity.

305. Some commenters contend that this rule promotes the widespread use of intrusive packet inspection technologies by broadband providers to filter objectionable content and that such monitoring poses a threat to customers’ privacy rights.784 Certainly, many broadband providers have the technical tools to conduct deep packet inspection of unencrypted traffic on their networks,785 and consumer privacy is a paramount concern in the Internet age. Nevertheless, we believe that broadband monitoring concerns are adequately addressed by the rules we adopt today, so we decline to alter this provision. This rule is limited to protecting “reasonable efforts . . . to address copyright infringement or other unlawful activity.”786

We retain the discretion to evaluate the reasonableness of broadband providers’ practices under this rule on a case-by-case basis. Consumers also have many tools at their disposal to protect their privacy against deep packet inspection—including SSL encryption, virtual private networks, and routing methods like TOR.787 Further, the complaint processes we adopt today add to these technical methods and advance consumer interests in this area.788"

nickodell• 11 years ago

One part I found particularly interesting:

In the NPRM, we tentatively concluded that we should retain the definition of reasonable network management we previously adopted, which does not include preventing transfer of unlawful content or the unlawful transfer of content as a reasonable practice.

What about cases where an ISP can't tell? For example, if a user is using encrypted BitTorrent, could an ISP block it on the basis that 89% of files on BitTorrent are illegal? [1]

[1] http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2010/07/only-03-of-files-...

Spooky232• 11 years ago

That's why "reasonable practice" is there.

FCC has the ability to interpret what reasonable is.

AnthonyMouse• 11 years ago

That's what concerns me about the rules. It's kind of a bait and switch. First they say that it isn't permissible to block "lawful content", which is actually quite reasonable because it's hard to complain about something that blocks exclusively unlawful content. But then we get this insanity from the quoted portion above:

"Nothing in this part prohibits reasonable efforts by a provider of broadband Internet access service to address copyright infringement or other unlawful activity."

Which is a total inversion of the principle. Instead of allowing blocking only when you're sure it's only blocking unlawful content, it's purporting to allow blocking of unspecified amounts of entirely lawful content as long as it's part of "reasonable" (whatever that means) efforts to address unlawful activity. It's a loophole you could fit a carrier battle group through.

coldpie• 11 years ago

The rules say they can't block lawful content. If the content is questionably lawful, then they won't block it, for fear of being found to have blocked lawful content.

dragonwriter7• 11 years ago

Well, the fact that the whole effort to set up general net neutrality rules at the FCC started when their ruling against Comcast's BitTorrent blocking was struck down by the courts as outside of their case-by-case power without generally-applicable rules, I suspect the answer is that that would be a perfect example of what the present Commission, at least, would not find to be a reasonable effort to address unlawful content.

revelation• 11 years ago

Let's transform this back into a different age:

Some commenters contend that this rule promotes the widespread use of tape recorder technologies by telephone providers and that such monitoring poses a threat to customers’ privacy rights. Certainly, many telephone providers have tape recorders for inspection of voice on their networks,785 and consumer privacy is a paramount concern in the Telephone age. [..] Consumers also have many tools at their disposal to protect their voice against tape recorders — including speaking into a muffler.

Obviously, that is completely insane, so why would we accept that nonsense on the internet? Why would the regulating agency accept deep packet inspection and simultaneously recommend TOR when they are the very agency that is meant to prevent degrading the network?

We'll still need TOR, but at least it won't be Verizon listening in. Note the junior level Orwellian language here, where they list a bunch of reasons why DPI shouldn't be allowed only to follow it up with a Nevertheless, we believe that states the opposite while giving zero reasons for doing so. If they wanted to believe in something, they should have opened up a church. From a government agency, that's an insult.

chatmasta2• 11 years ago

It would not be easy to legislatively protect consumers from deep packet inspection, because the FCC would need to agree on a suitable definition of "deep packet inspection." I fail to see many reasonable paths to accomplishing that without simltaneously interfering with real network monitoring policies and best practices.

Personally I'm happy that the FCC acknowledged the complaint of DPI, but also acknowledged the tools to defend against it if need be. They are actually avoiding additional legislation, by refusing to limit DPI and therefore define it in law.

I do wonder if this acknowledgement of VPN/Tor, which must certainly be one of the first in the history of executive agency legislation, will simply be the first of many. I hope this tacit acknowledgement does not tumble into subtle discouragement in future legislation.

bjt2n3904• 11 years ago

Everyone's far too busy celebrating how they think this will bring them fast, cheap, reliable internet to be concerned about insignificant things like privacy.

sschueller• 11 years ago

The phrase "lawful content" occurs 32 times.

"No-Blocking. First, we adopt a bright-line rule prohibiting broadband providers from blocking lawful content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices."

So I guess that means they can block thepiratebay.com, wikileaks or any content congress deems unlawful.

Couldn't these new rules be applied to the Chinese internet and nothing would change? The great firewall only filters what is not lawful.

xyzzyz• 11 years ago

So I guess that means they can block thepiratebay.com or any content congress deems unlawful.

Yes, but it's hardly surprising. The point of the FCC net neutrality rules is not to protect Americans from the censorship by US government -- FCC simply has no power to do that. These rules are there to protect Americans from the censorship by ISP companies.

tubbs3• 11 years ago

How "lawful content" is determined and how liberal they are at blocking is the real question.

Obviously sites like thepiratebay.se will be censored, but how about, say, torrentfreaks?

I continue to believe that none of this will be an issue if we continue to push encryption.

Goronmon• 11 years ago

Was there any expectation that this wouldn't be the case?

mattybrennan2• 11 years ago

That's a bit of a stretch. China doesn't have a 1st Amendment

pmalynin• 11 years ago

Well, DPRK says "[People] also have freedom of speech, the press, assembly, demonstration and association, freedom of religious beliefs and they are entitled to submit complaints and petitions." [1]

[1] http://korea-dpr.com/citizen.html

smutticus9• 11 years ago

This gets brought up on HN whenever these rules get mentioned. The point is that the FCC cannot stop ISPs from blocking unlawful content. If an ISP is under some other obligation to block unlawful content these FCC rules cannot overrule that.

That's really all that's going on. By using the term 'lawful content' the FCC is limiting the scope of their rules, nothing more.

wnevets• 11 years ago

Your post makes sense and I don't wanna make it sound like I'm disagreeing with you but can't this be used as a launching point by congress to start deeming new internet content as unlawful?

duaneb2• 11 years ago

A) congress typically doesn't dictate what is lawful, that's for a judge. Congress just writes the laws.

B) wouldn't this imply that ISPs now need to demonstrate that it's unlawful to block it?

001sky• 11 years ago

The executive branch has the ability to define lawful when congress provides them leeway to do so. thats exactly what these rules are about. so that's an important qualifier I would think. All three branches of government dictate what is lawful (at different levels of abstraction).

chasing2• 11 years ago

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that unlawful activity existed outside of the law, anyway.

Meaning, if (for example) I sell you heroin, you can't sue me in small claims court saying that I cut it with baby laxatives and therefore you demand your money back.

If that's how things work, then if Comcast were to block a child porn site, the child porn site couldn't take Comcast to court over it and expect to win. Regardless of any net neutrality laws.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/c/clean-hands-doctrine/

trose• 11 years ago

Yes but say you're a torrenting site that allows users to upload their original content to distribute and ISPs block your traffic because they think all torrents are illegal. Then you'd care a lot about that clause.

Igglyboo2• 11 years ago

The FCC can't force them to serve unlawful content, that would be forcing them to break the law.

emeraldd• 11 years ago

Any chance someone could fix the title? It should be FCC shouldn't it?

dang2• 11 years ago

Thanks! (Submitted title was "FFC publishes full Net Neutrality rules".)

oh_sigh• 11 years ago

*FCC

adelevie2• 11 years ago

I put together some quick and dirty scripts for searching the text of the Order: https://github.com/adelevie/open-internet-order.

petecooper• 11 years ago

FFC published full Net Neutrality rules [pdf]

Typo in title: FFC should be FCC.

supergeek1335• 11 years ago

Oh thank god, all I've been asking for is to read this. BRB.

vlan0• 11 years ago

I saw so many people complaining about how this would increase taxes. Yet, the full details of the ruling had yet to be seen by the public. Now they can eat their words.

37. "Nor will our actions result in the imposition of any new federal taxes or fees; the ability of states to impose fees on broadband is already limited by the congressional Internet tax moratorium."

neonhomer• 11 years ago

It won't be taxes, it will be the ISP's that raise rates.

wmf6• 11 years ago

I don't know why this was voted down. If ISPs are not allowed to double-bill or drop packets, it's likely that they will increase prices (or not increase speed while keeping prices the same, which amounts to an increase over what it should be).

ejain• 11 years ago

a.k.a "regulatory recovery fees". On the other hand, if an ISP felt they could charge more, why aren't they doing so already? It's not like this is a competitive market with low profit margins...

sigzero2• 11 years ago

They say that "now". They have their foot in the door now so I wouldn't hold too much to that statement.

rektide2• 11 years ago

Are the dissenting opinions available?

The FCC delayed this release, declaring that they were obligated to respond to dissenters and that they were going to hold off releasing until dissenters had written up their opinions and they could prepare a rebuttal. (This strikes me as a surprisingly sensible, all-cards-on-the-table governance model, rather than an ongoing media-frenzy feeding blow-by-blow release.)

It pains me greatly knowing that Google worked hard to get a piece of this document dropped. Alas due to a lack of transparency and openness among the FCC and Google's discussion, we'll never have more than faint rumormongering to do here, but in tandem to "Broadband Internet Access Services" it seemed like there was to be another leg of openness, "Broadband Subscriber Access Services." Google not only got to know what was being proposed but got to get it dropped before the public had any idea what was under consideration here. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/02/26/net_neutrality_rules...

To me it comes off as a denigration of the public by the FCC and Google, and the scant evidence about is hard to interpret as anything but subterfuge and sabotage done at the very last minute. A more transparent process would have been appreciated- rather than this "Government as a Service" model of building regulations and applying them, I'd like to have seen the FCC use some transparency and openness in their creation of these regulations to bootstrap regulations better meeting the public mandate.

I expect most registered, official dissent is going to focus on the FCC doing too much, and that no one is going to dissent saying these protections fail to address core points. But gee do I want to know what was in the 15 "Broadband Subscriber Access Services" pages the FCC dropped at the last minute, and why Google lobbied to drop them.

adelevie2• 11 years ago

Are the dissenting opinions available?

Yes. Keep scrolling :)

georgemcbay• 11 years ago

Applies not just to this thread, and virtually every HN thread ever, but all comment section threads anywhere on the Internet.

intrasight2• 11 years ago

Perfect :)

smutticus9• 11 years ago

The opinions of the dissenting FCC commissioners are exactly what you expect. They claim the FCC is engaging in over reach.

I'm curious to hear more about the '15 "Broadband Subscriber Access Services" pages' you mention. Where is this mentioned?

You might want to check out a recent talk @ NANOG from John Yoo. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVJV1gWYPX8

IMO the questions are more interesting than the actual preso.

What we got with this FCC ruling is an arrangement between the ISPs and the edge. Or you might call them the pipes and the content. It's striking to me how little discussions of the last-mile were framing the debate, or how little consumer choice was taken into consideration. According to Wheeler, my interests as a consumer end at me not having my traffic biased. When in fact, most consumers are more interested in having choice in last-mile providers, or just paying less for their Internet connectivity. In short, I'm bummed we didn't get unbundling in the last-mile.

The pipes got a monopoly. Content got the right to offer services without having to pay the pipes for the privilege. Google got the right to access utility poles. Google is the interesting hybrid with a history in content, but quickly moving into pipes.

None of these interests really care if you or I have choice in our last-mile ISP, or how much we pay. So Comcast, TWC and Verizon get handed a monopoly by the FCC. Americans shouldn't have to clamor and beg Google to deliver fiber to their homes.

Also, what happens once Google is everywhere and they turn tyrannical? Do we need to have yet another last-mile provider invest billions to deliver service to our homes? How many Internet wires do I need running into my house to get competition? Imagine how stupid it would seem if I had multiple water pipes running into my house, or electricity wires.

The FCC missed an opportunity to reframe the debate away from net neutrality and towards monopoly in the last mile. If I had choice in last-mile providers net neutralty wouldn't be an issue. If my provider treated me like crap I could simply choose another one.

supergeek1335• 11 years ago

The general response I've seen to that is they're encouraging more last-mile providers to be developed from Title II opening up the equipment poles/lines.

Basically, making it easier for the Google Fiber types to do their thing.

But then they have to live under the same rules as the big guys, and that was one of the rebuttal points. Valid or not.

digikata2• 11 years ago

This step gives a foundation to curb many aspects of monopoly broadband providers. There needs to be another related but separate fight on competition in the last mile.

intrasight2• 11 years ago

I lean towards the belief that the FCC is involved specifically because there is little or no competition in broadband because it has characteristics of a natural monopoly when delivered via wire/cable/fiber. The FCC didn't hand them a monopoly. The market handed them a monopoly and therefore the FCC needs to regulate it. Besides that, I agree with your other sentiments.

rektide2• 11 years ago

I agree 100%. I was agape that Wheeler at least twice used his old company NABU as an opening shtick- a story about trying to create a competitive cable provider, but not having unbundling to pull it off; for him to transition into regulation instead of competition was comedically dissonant.

As for actually undoing bundling, it's the courts. They decided that given that fiber investments were going to be costly, and given the threat that build-outs might not happen, the scales somehow tipped to allow them to overturn (on purely economic merits) the FCC's rules on local loop unbundling.

Thus, we determine that, particularly in light of a competitive landscape in which competitive LECs are leading the deployment of FTTH, removing incumbent LEC unbundling obligations on FTTH loops will promote their deployment of the network infrastructure necessary to provide broadband services to the mass market.

https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-36A1.pd... , paragraph 278.

Truly one of the worst, least well-structured Court rulings to have occurred. And worse, here we are almost 15 years in, with fiber no longer rolling out, and there's no structure or hope to revise this court edict made at a particular time balancing particular economic factors to demand a reassesment- the FCC's Triennial Review.

On the bright side, I'm very happy that on the same day that the FCC announced Open Access approval, they also announced they were going to move to block states and municipalities from legally obstructing community and municipal competitors.

hackuser• 11 years ago

check out a recent talk @ NANOG from John Yoo

Christopher Yoo. John Yoo is the advocate for torture.

mikeyouse• 11 years ago

Here's the 67-page dissent from Pai:

http://www.fcc.gov/article/fcc-15-24a5

digitalchaos• 11 years ago

I'm pretty sure this is the answer to what Google wanted dropped (Edge Service): http://www.telecomsense.com/2015/03/the-fcc-avoided-a-bigger...

tzs2• 11 years ago

It pains me greatly knowing that Google worked hard to get a piece of this document dropped. Alas due to a lack of transparency and openness among the FCC and Google's discussion, we'll never have more than faint rumormongering to do here, but in tandem to "Broadband Internet Access Services" it seemed like there was to be another leg of openness, "Broadband Subscriber Access Services." Google not only got to know what was being proposed but got to get it dropped before the public had any idea what was under consideration here

Google didn't have access to anything you didn't have access to. The got their information from the publicly available Fact Sheet Wheeler released on 2015-02-04.

More detail is in Google's Notice of Ex Parte Communication they released on 2015-02-20 describing the conversations they had via phone with various FCC people [1].

[1] https://prodnet.www.neca.org/publicationsdocs/wwpdf/22015goo...

dragonwriter7• 11 years ago

Are the dissenting opinions available?

Yes, as well as the text of the order, all 5 commissioners statements are available at the link provided.

It pains me greatly knowing that Google worked hard to get a piece of this document dropped. Alas due to a lack of transparency and openness among the FCC and Google's discussion, we'll never have more than faint rumormongering to do here, but in tandem to "Broadband Internet Access Services" it seemed like there was to be another leg of openness, "Broadband Subscriber Access Services."

Google's (and others') objections to what was openly stated in earlier FCC communications about the rules under development -- that they would classify both retail service provided to consumers and the "service" provided by broadband operators to edge providers (content/service providers that are not their direct customers, like Google, etc.) as separate Title II services were made public. Wheeler openly stated that this was done to provide the strongest possible basis for preventing ISPs from actions like discrimination among edge providers.

The basis for the objections -- from Google, but also from others, IIRC, including other big "edge providers" -- was that classifying a "service" provided by ISPs to edge providers as a "service" might provided a basis for ISPs to charge edge providers for that service, and that classifying retail service as a Title II service provided a strong-enough basis for neutrality regulations without additionally finding the existence of a Title II service provided to "edge providers".

All of this played out in public, was widely reported, and was commented on here on HN.

dang2• 11 years ago

Url changed from http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2015... via https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9191125.

0x09• 11 years ago

This part sounds neat

Section 254: Promoting Universal Broadband. Section 254 promotes the deployment and availability of communications networks to all Americans, including rural and low-income Americans—furthering our goals of more and better broadband.

The FCC has been running pilots related to this under the existing Lifeline program, but nothing has materialized yet. Seems they're taking seriously the U.N. report that regarded Internet access as a basic human right.

http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/low-income-broadband-pilot-p...

ctdonath• 11 years ago

Note that the FCC recently redefined "broadband" to >=25Mbps.

Note that the term "broadband" has largely disappeared in last-mile ISP advertising. (I briefly talked to AT&T about it a la "I signed up for broadband, but am not getting anywhere close to 25Mbps", rep got vague about what was promised.)

This all may provide interesting consequences. By redefining, suddenly large swaths of the country which have & are generally satisfied with 3-20Mbps connections are suddenly "without broadband" and subject to renewed FCC bureaucratic campaigns to bring them out of such third-world conditions.

arh68• 11 years ago

  Today we include packet loss as a necessary
  part of the network performance disclosure.

Interesting! Wireless carriers could definitely compete on that..

  The 2014 Open Internet NPRM tentatively concluded that we should require 
  that broadband providers disclose meaningful information regarding the 
  source, location, timing, speed, packet loss, and duration of network 
  congestion. As discussed above, we continue to require disclosure of actual 
  network speed and latency (as in 2010), and also require disclosure of 
  packet loss. We decline at this time to require disclosure of the source, 
  location, timing, or duration of network congestion, noting that congestion 
  may originate beyond the broadband provider’s network and the limitations 
  of a broadband provider’s knowledge of some of these performance 
  characteristics.

grellas• 11 years ago

U.S. law fundamentally rests on the idea of checks and balances and a division of power so that no one person or body can easily enact or execute laws that are against the interests of the people. The legislative branch enacts laws, the executive branch laws executes them, and the judicial branch interprets them.

In the modern era, when a law requires complex administration, its enactment by the legislative branch does not end the process of defining what the law will be and how it will function. For any complex area, an administrative body is set up to implement and administer the law in its details. That means appointing bureaucrats who take the broad mandate of the law and give it life by applying it to the countless details that actually affect people's lives. So, the tax laws specify broad enactments saying that people must pay income taxes, estate taxes, excise taxes, etc. But the IRS exists to give those laws life and to promulgate a mountain of regulations that tell us when this is that item constitutes an item of income or a deductible expense or an exemption from this or that, etc., etc. Of course, under the way that U.S. law works, any such agency must be given full authority to exercise discretion to give reasonable interpretations to whatever legislative enactments set up the statutory authority under which it functions. At the same time, the power of the agency is strictly limited to working within that statutory authority. Within its bounds, the agency has vast powers; outside its bounds, it can do nothing.

Thus, the essence of administrative law is the idea of reasonable discretion to promulgate and enforce regulations to see that the law's underlying purposes are fulfilled. The power of the bureaucrats who make such regulations is enormous, as long as they stay within their bounds. And courts routinely accept this. So long as the regulations adopted by the bureaucrats are deemed to be within their bounds, and not deemed to be acting arbitrarily or capriciously or without rational basis, the courts defer to the bureaucratic judgment and uphold whatever they do.

And so we now have the FCC of "we will censor this and that" and of "we will revoke your license for this or that" fame being entrusted with broad powers to regulate the internet, powers that could be legally used to do all sorts of things deemed abhorrent and restrictive of freedom but as to which the agency assures us it will use voluntary restraint in exercising.

This, I believe, is hardly a sure foundation upon which to base a long-term hope of assuring a free and open internet.

I do believe, given the political climate, that it will be a short-term solution for guaranteeing "net neutrality," whatever that means exactly.

But, in our federal system, amid the various ways the idea of net neutrality might have been won and protected, the worst imaginable way from a conceptual standpoint is to say that internet freedom can best be guaranteed by giving broad discretionary power to bureaucrats to do what they will within the nebulous confines of a communications act enacted 80 years ago that did not even contemplate modern technology as we now know it. This is the very act that has been most characterized for decades now by an orgy of lobbying by one competitive group or interest or another to gain this or that advantage over others and whose crowning glory appears to rest in a mountain of endless litigation over what this or that may mean in the act.

I have purposely framed the above comments with multiple "this or that" references because that is the whole idea behind a nebulous bureaucratic framework: it can morph and shift in ways scarcely imaginable as time passes, as vested interests mount campaigns for their pet issues, and things get carved up by insiders with the nominal aim of protecting consumers but with the normal goal of carving up the booty for those who have the biggest stakes in the process.

Even in this thread (and many others like it), we already see vigorous debates over the meaning of this or that interpretation and of the motives behind them. This is all deemed safe for the moment because it is discussing an issue over which people are passionate, an issue which is right before us, and an issue over which each of us believes we have sound reasoning that ought to be adopted in the current debate.

But take that same process, extend it to a whole range of issues that the FCC might now address, add to the mix the vigorous energies of everybody and his uncle who has a stake in getting this or that competitive advantage on the issue, and then toss it to the courts to sort out who is right, well, you then have a lethal brew that in my view leaves us vulnerable to future abuse that is hardly trivial but affects the very essence of how a free and open internet ought to function.

Remember, you always believe the "good guys" will be in charge. But give enough unrestricted power to any governmental agency with very few checks on that power and the "bad guys" may then run wild with what you have done, much to your chagrin.

I realize this is a very unpopular position in this forum. But it has to be said. I truly hope I am wrong in my concerns.

digikata2• 11 years ago

The alternative is that your only last-mile private broadband provider is in complete control of your link to the internet, and you can't even begin to have a say in how the link is managed...

Markets with multiple private competitors end up the most efficient, but when you exclude a government based solution, what do we do about critical markets without competition?

gojomo8• 11 years ago

Very few places in the US have "only" one last-mile provider. Most have 2 or more wired, and 3 or more wireless options. (The wireless isn't usually cost-competitive for bulk HD video yet... but will get there in another 5-10 years.)

Running new wires is also always possible. It'll be even easier now, with a richer society and new automation, and municipalities less likely to offer monopoly franchises, than the cable deployments of the 60s-80s.

Bits are bits, and the ways to deliver them to any point on the planet keep growing. Any brief advantage one medium or company may have – such as cable & Comcast at this precise moment – can disappear quickly. And will disappear even faster if they try to abuse their power, providing an easy motivational/marketing/profitability hook for competitive alternatives.

dmfdmf2• 11 years ago

TLDR: The Federal government via the FCC just nationalized the internet using the red-herring of "net-neutrality". Such wide regulatory power over the communications system crucial to a free society is ripe for abuse by a future dictator.

I agree.

smokinjoe• 11 years ago

Could you point out specific ambiguities in this set of rules if you agree? The only significant one (in my opinion) is a lack of definition of DPI.

smutticus9• 11 years ago

So are you OK with Comcast dropping all of my packets from Netflix? If you're not, then how can we go about setting up a system where they can't do that?

Verizon sued and won when the FCC issued the 2010 Open Internet rules. The court said the FCC couldn't mandate these rules without a reclassification to Title II. So the FCC reclassified ISPs to Title II and then basically said the same thing. ISPs cannot block or bias traffic, and they have to open about their operations.

How do we go about stopping ISPs from blocking or biasing without Title II reclassification? What's your solution?

remarkEon• 11 years ago

For the sake of not reading things in a vacuum, linked is the Verizon v. FCC opinion for further context.

http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/3AF8B4D93...

supergeek1335• 11 years ago

Situational/real world situation comment.

Take the scenario where Comcast never allowed HBO Go access on PS3 and more recently PS4. Do these rules apply to that?

That's the kind of stuff real consumers are interested in.

Igglyboo2• 11 years ago

That was due to a DNSSEC misconfiguration, it had nothing to do with net neutrality. The misconfiguration affected android devices as well.

supergeek1335• 11 years ago

I wasn't aware that was the issue. I was under the impression it was a business decision by Comcast.

dublinben2• 11 years ago

You seem to be mistaking the newly launched HBO Now for the existing HBO Go service. Comcast continues to block the latter on certain devices, even for paying customers.

Splendor• 11 years ago

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe that Comcast "blocking" access to HBO Go has anything to do with net neutrality. In that case Comcast is saying that the HBO cable subscription they sell doesn't include HBO Go access. This is possible because of the requirement to "authenticate" your HBO Go access through your cable/satellite provider.

So that has more to do with television than internet regulation IMO.

supergeek1335• 11 years ago

But it does, on PC. Just not PS4 and PS3.

I can login to HBO GO with my Comcast account on PC just fine, always have been able to.

dragonwriter7• 11 years ago

Comcast isn't blocking anything there, they are failing to take positive steps that enable their TV customers to use a service that is dependent on verification that they are Comcast's TV customers with an HBO subscription

Even though it is a service provided over the internet, what Comcast is doing (or, more precisely, delaying or failing to do) is in their role as a Cable TV service provider, not as a broadband ISP.

Now, once HBOs streaming service that is independent of a TV contract is available, if Comcast were blocking that (whether generally or on a device-specific basis), these rules would apply to that blocking.

Rhapso• 11 years ago

mirror: http://gateway.ipfs.io/ipfs/QmNRGTQjo6FGjD3JHZUrDsqwxucCz63Y...

Shivetya• 11 years ago

Going to have to withhold judgement on this document until better minds have their time with it. While I agree with rule that providers may not establish preference with regards to content I am mostly concerned with the idea it takes four hundred pages to document this requirement.

tzs2• 11 years ago

It takes 8 pages. See Appendix A, which is the actual rules. All the rest is commentary, analysis, historical background, and something like 80 pages of dissents by the Republican Commissioners.

ForHackernews• 11 years ago

So where are all the people who in the last thread[0] were so very concerned that the FCC was "hiding" the rules? Are you satisfied?

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9113976

jamiesonbecker• 11 years ago

Dissenting Opinions:

FCC Chairman Pai: http://www.fcc.gov/article/fcc-15-24a5

FCC Chairman O'Rielly: http://www.fcc.gov/article/fcc-15-24a6

freeasinfree• 11 years ago

Pai's dissent touched on a point no one I've talked to has considered: the hundreds of tiny carriers--mostly WISPs--across the US who might/will be affected by this. They can barely compete against big telco and cable as is.

wmf6• 11 years ago

Brett Glass has written quite a bit about the WISP perspective, but my interpretation is that WISP networks are so limited that they can only compete if they lie about either their speeds or about how much of the Internet they're providing access to. I don't want competition that bad.

Randgalt5• 11 years ago

These are the rules today. Another FCC on another day will change the rules. 400 pages will become 4000. There is no end to this. It's a sad day.

rubbingalcohol• 11 years ago

The "free market" failed when telco companies started flexing their monopoly muscle to punish their competitors. In the U.S. we have a rich history of regulating monopolies, and these companies brought it on themselves with their inability to behave like good corporate citizens.

"Free markets" should be limited when they obstruct the liberty of the majority of the public or limit competition on a massive scale. This creates deadweight loss which is an economic net negative.

Imagine if, six months after moving to a new house, your electricity bill doubled because you were no longer in the "promotional period." Your electric company claims there's a free market, because you're free to install solar panels. Comcast et. al are no different than other local monopolies. Their claims of providing a "vibrant and innovative" broadband market are laughable when you look at the far superior state of broadband in other countries.

The cable companies were acting like a cartel of corporate thugs, they openly defied the government's ability to do anything about it, and they got served a massive dish of justice. All because the people spoke out and pushed the government to act in their interest. This is a great moment for American activism and democracy.

Randgalt5• 11 years ago

The Cable Cos have a government granted monopoly. No free market there. The simplest solution is to eliminate this monopoly.

Amezarak• 11 years ago

400 pages will become 4000.

The actual rules aren't even close to 400 pages. The 400 pages consist of the legal justification, the whys and hows, and dissents. The actual rules are seven pages.

Randgalt5• 11 years ago

OK - 7 today, 700 tomorrow. The first tax code was just a few pages.

FCC Releases Open Internet Order

Related Stories