Trump FCC is doing away with net neutrality,

[Liquid]

The Telecommunications Act is a law. The FCC deciding that the internet belongs in it, and then deciding that it doesn't, is either a change to the law, which should be under the purview of the legislative branch of government is for, or a change to the interpretation of the law, which should be the domain of the judicial branch. As far as I can tell, the FCC is neither a lawmaking body, nor a judicial one - so I don't see how, Constitutionally, it fits into the picture at all.

The next step is that Congress votes on it, unless I am mistaken, so "it", the repulsion of net neutrality or however you want to describe it, is passed on to a legislative body.

 

[Danoff]

There's still two things I don't get here.

Firstly, was the internet really, really bad in 2014 or something? I don't remember it being super awful or anything.
Secondly, what is the FCC doing making law? I thought governments made laws and its agencies ensured compliance?

They aren't laws, but rather rules. And Congress gives them the power to create and enforce them I believe.

It's called administrative law, and it's unconstitutional.

In the Federal Government of the United States, the nondelegation doctrine is the principle that the Congress of the United States, being vested with "all legislative powers" by Article One, Section 1 of the United States Constitution, cannot delegate that power to anyone else.

There's a good reason for that too, which is that administrative agencies are not staffed by elected officials. It's considered a necessity in US government today simply due to the amazing number of laws that exist. We apparently need so many laws to regulate us that we can't be bothered to elect the people that make them.

 

[Joey D]

So does that mean net neutrality could, in theory, be challenged in court for being unconstitutional?

When I looked through the FCC website, they seem to point out that they are able to make the rules because Congress gives them the power to do so.

 

[Danoff]

So does that mean net neutrality could, in theory, be challenged in court for being unconstitutional?

When I looked through the FCC website, they seem to point out that they are able to make the rules because Congress gives them the power to do so.

As a law student, the first lecture of your administrative law course includes your professor telling you "everything we're going to talk about in this class is unquestionably unconstitutional" followed by "nobody cares, this is how it's done, so we're going to talk about it anyway".

 

[Danoff]

Whether or not the FCC had the authority to reclassify ISPs as common carriers is being appealed to the supreme court:

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy...itle-ii-net-neutrality-rules-now-and-forever/

The history (detailed on wikipedia) for net neutrality is pretty sketch. The Obama administration wanted net neutrality, and the FCC tried a couple of times and got shot down by the courts. There were two communication acts that were considered as a means for bypassing congress (using the FCC) to obtain net neutrality, one from the 1930s and the other from 1996. The administration favored the one from the 30s because it had the right language for non-discriminatory carrying of information. The 1930s act was aimed at power companies and telephone companies. The principle behind it was that phone companies had to "carry" information rather than deciding which information to carry. As if they were the US postal service basically. The FCC tried applying these rules a few times, but ultimately got overturned by the courts as having overstepped their authority. Eventually they reclassified ISPs in order to make the 1930s act fit, and that reclassification has so far been upheld in the courts as being within FCC authority. It's being appealed to the supreme court.

Honestly, regardless of how you feel about net neutrality, the current situation is absurd. The Obama administration wanted to legislate net neutrality, but didn't have congressional support. So they told the FCC to shoehorn ISPs into a piece of law written for phone companies in the 1930s. Suddenly in 2015, internet fell under the purview of a law that has been on the books since before the internet was a thing. This is not how we make law in the US. Why? Because the next administration will jerk the whole situation around the moment they take office. Oh and also because nobody in the FCC is an elected representative and they're legislating the internet!

Congress needs to act. The 1930s act was a terrible solution. As you'd imagine, it's not well written for modern ISPs. The fact that what they did even passes the sniff test in court means that it'll get tried again by the next democratic administration, and the FCC will jerk around the entire internet (this stifles investment in development of new projects for ISPs) every time we change administrations. Congress is the appropriate avenue for this kind of regulation.

It also terrifies me that congress will act, because they're being lobbied hard by some of the biggest companies in the US, and I don't think I'm going to like the result of putting Google and Facebook even remotely in charge of regulating the internet.

 

[DK]

What is it about stopping ISPs from throttling content that is so stifling to their innovation? God forbid we miss out on Comcast's answer to Netflix or YouTube.

 

[Danoff]

What is it about stopping ISPs from throttling content that is so stifling to their innovation? God forbid we miss out on Comcast's answer to Netflix or YouTube.

It's not specifically that, although that specifically has the effect of expanding the marketability of rural areas, which encourages investment in growing their networks to communities that don't currently have them. Why? Because it lowers the end-user bill, meaning more subscribers.

But there are a lot of unintended effects of treating ISPs as common carriers under the 1930s act. The particular act is apparently well known for its bloated, extensive regulations. ISPs have to make sure that they're in compliance with regulations set forth for 1930s phone companies. It discourages investment.

Investment is further discouraged when you're not sure exactly what regulations you're going to be treated under next year. If the FCC suddenly categorizes you under the 1930s act (as they did) what do you do? You put off investment until you can finish challenging it in court. And if you don't get a definitive answer, you put off investment even further until things settle out. If you're getting jerked around from one administration to the next (which they are), you look to congress (appropriate) to give an answer that you think will survive partisan politics. Until then, who is going to roll out the dough for infrastructure improvements and tech development?

You have to step back and think about this from the perspective of a company.

 

[Spurgy 777]

What is it about stopping ISPs from throttling content that is so stifling to their innovation? God forbid we miss out on Comcast's answer to Netflix or YouTube.

What if someone wants to pay less and have slower connection to websites they don't use? Isn't it essentially the equivalent forcing everyone to have all of the TV channels regardless of whether they watch them or not? And do you think that there will be no negative effects on a company that tries to bully their customers into using their services instead of competitors, you don't think people will change ISP? Even if it was just targeted at certain areas there's bound to be a backlash especially as they would be doing the exact thing people didn't want them to do.

 

[TenEightyOne]

you don't think people will change ISP?

Haven't we been over and over that? What if there is no other ISP or the choices you do have are all favouring particular services in a way that doesn't suit you?

 

[Danoff]

Haven't we been over and over that? What if there is no other ISP

We went over that one. There is no place in the US that I know where that is the case.

or the choices you do have are all favouring particular services in a way that doesn't suit you?

There is a ton of demand for unfiltered internet, especially at this very moment since the topic is so hot. That much pent up demand means someone caves and meets the demand. Remember when cell phones had "minutes" where you could only talk, even on local calls, for a set number of minutes? There wasn't a single cell provider that offered an "unlimited" plan. Texting used to cost money too. Same for long distance. I remember arguing with someone that cell phone providers would eventually get rid of minutes altogether. They thought I was crazy, why would they do that? When all of the competition charges for minutes, the consumer has no choice!

Demand.

BTW, this offer is pure evil! Net Neutrality should squash it!

 

[ryzno]

God forbid you use the internet and use your data.
I honestly think the whole thing is dumb.

Unlimited isn't unlimited and companies DO throttle your speed. I got "unlimited" data and got a warning after watching 2 movies.

I really don't see much changing.
Then the whole internet is a right argument is stupid too.
And don't get me started on the arguments I heard on the radio the last few days, it's like Y2K all over again.
The world isn't going to end and we'll still have internet.

Being Premium here is a perfect example, you don't want ads you pay to be a member. Let that sink in...

 

[TenEightyOne]

God forbid you use the internet and use your data.
I honestly think the whole thing is dumb.

Unlimited isn't unlimited and companies DO throttle your speed. I got "unlimited" data and got a warning after watching 2 movies.

I'm not quite sure what that has to do with companies being able to electively block/choke particular sites/data based on their own views/contracts?

 

[Liquid]

Being Premium here is a perfect example, you don't want ads you pay to be a member. Let that sink in...

The argument some people are saying could happen is different to what you're saying. You might pay money for a premium membership on GTPlanet of your own volition but imagine that your ISP blocks access to https://www.gtplanet.net because your ISP has an exclusive partnership with Sony and this is not an official Sony Playstation® Gran Turismo™ forum and therefore access is restricted, regardless of the fact that you're paying extra on that site.

I'm not saying that that will happen but that's what the pro-net neutrality argument/scenario is.

 

[Lain]

BTW, this offer is pure evil! Net Neutrality should squash it!

Well, one has to wonder... if they can afford to give you unlimited video streaming, why are there data caps period?


Also, unrelated but hilarious: https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1051157755251

 

[Com Fox]

I'm not quite sure what that has to do with companies being able to electively block/choke particular sites/data based on their own views/contracts?

I really don't get this argument, because it mainly sounds like a bad business tactic. You can easily go to another one if the one your using screws you over.

I hardly see this something as concerning in the slightest. I mean I guess I'd rather Net Neutrality win just to play it safe but wouldn't complain if it lost.

 

[McLaren]

The argument some people are saying could happen is different to what you're saying. You might pay money for a premium membership on GTPlanet of your own volition but imagine that your ISP blocks access to https://www.gtplanet.net because your ISP has an exclusive partnership with Sony and this is not an official Sony Playstation® Gran Turismo™ forum and therefore access is restricted, regardless of the fact that you're paying extra on that site.

I'm not saying that that will happen but that's what the pro-net neutrality argument/scenario is.

In such a situation, would @Jordan have any power to act against an Internet Provider blocking his site from users? Take this commonly passed around image for example:

I find it very hard to believe Zuckerberg or Hastings would let their companies be stuck behind a "$9 fee" to access their services.

I get where both sides of the argument are coming from, but after these last 2 weeks, the side for N.N. has so much fear mongering behind it that acts like a 3-2 vote to repeal means end of the Internet freedom. I don't know how many times I've read people get so aggressive with, "If you don't call your representative, you're part of the 🤬 problem". Is that really how people intend to get others to side with them when it seems like the general population doesn't really seem to be fully aware of what N.N is to begin with? People I work with know about it because the news has discussed it, but they typically ask what's the beef & potatoes behind it; why is it such a big topic?

 

[TenEightyOne]

In such a situation, would @Jordan have any power to act against an Internet Provider blocking his site from users? Take this commonly passed around image for example:

I find it very hard to believe Zuckerberg or Hastings would let their companies be stuck behind a "$9 fee" to access their services.

With the greatest of respect for @Jordan I imagine that his working budget is somewhat less than Zuckerberg's. You're likely to see large providers being lobbied by Zuckerberg to get Facebook out faster/wider across their networks.

...it seems like the general population doesn't really seem to be fully aware of what N.N is to begin with? People I work with know about it because the news has discussed it...

If people are only getting information from major news outlet then they're only getting information from one (very partisan) side of the fence.

 

[Danoff]

Well, one has to wonder... if they can afford to give you unlimited video streaming, why are there data caps period?

...because load on their network costs money?

 

[Lain]

...because load on their network costs money?

And streaming a video on PornHub puts the same load on the network as streaming a video on YouTube, so why is one limited if the other can be unlimited?

Assuming PornHub isn't part of the "many more" sites that they'll allow unlimited access.

 

[Danoff]

And streaming a video on PornHub puts the same load on the network as streaming a video on YouTube, so why is one limited if the other can be unlimited?

Assuming PornHub isn't part of the "many more" sites that they'll allow unlimited access.

They think they can accommodate the loads from the listed websites and not the loads associated with porn? Why would you assume that if you can accommodate some websites you can accommodate all web traffic?

 

[Joey D]

the loads associated with porn?

 

[Danoff]

 

[Jordan]

You might pay money for a premium membership on GTPlanet of your own volition but imagine that your ISP blocks access to https://www.gtplanet.net because your ISP has an exclusive partnership with Sony and this is not an official Sony Playstation® Gran Turismo™ forum and therefore access is restricted, regardless of the fact that you're paying extra on that site.

I'm not saying that that will happen but that's what the pro-net neutrality argument/scenario is.

In such a situation, would @Jordan have any power to act against an Internet Provider blocking his site from users?

No, I wouldn't have any power to stop @Liquid's scenario — unless I was willing to pay more than Sony (ha!) to persuade the ISP to prioritize GTPlanet's traffic instead. This essentially becomes a bidding war, and the only winner is the ISP.

Sony's cost of doing business has gone up (assuming they "won"), my business is dead, and you can't access the website you want via the Internet connection you're paying for. The ISP, meanwhile, is very happy: they're making more money from Sony and it didn't cost them anything (aside from paying lobbyists and buying off the FCC and members of Congress to repeal net neutrality, of course).

Sounds great, huh?

why is it such a big topic?

It's a big topic because it allows ISPs to break the inherent, fundamental structure of the Internet. With all due respect to everyone on the other side of this argument, if you don't support net neutrality, you don't understand how the Internet works or what made it so awesome in the first place.

 

[Danoff]

No, I wouldn't have any power to stop @Liquid's scenario — unless I was willing to pay more than Sony (ha!) to persuade the ISP to prioritize GTPlanet's traffic instead. This essentially becomes a bidding war, and the only winner is the ISP.

Sounds like something that would create a lot of demand for unfiltered access.

It's a big topic because it allows ISPs to break the inherent, fundamental structure of the Internet. With all due respect to everyone on the other side of this argument, if you don't support net neutrality, you don't understand how the Internet works or what made it so awesome in the first place.

I think I do. What do you think about my T-Mobile ad?

 

[Lain]

They think they can accommodate the loads from the listed websites and not the loads associated with porn? Why would you assume that if you can accommodate some websites you can accommodate all web traffic?

Admittedly I’m thinking of this offer being taken to the theoretical limit, because in theory they’re offering the ability for all of their consumers to stream Netflix 24/7... and if they can accommodate 100% of their customers streaming video simultaneously, then no it doesn’t matter if it’s 100% Netflix or 10% Netflix/90% PornHub.

But sure, they’re banking on the fact that not everybody’s going to obliterate their network like that... not unlike an all-you-can-eat buffet banking on not everybody eating a buttload. And making PornHub also unlimited would certainly increase the overall load on the network.

 

[Danoff]

Admittedly I’m thinking of this offer being taken to the theoretical limit, because in theory they’re offering the ability for all of their consumers to stream Netflix 24/7... and if they can accommodate 100% of their customers streaming video simultaneously, then no it doesn’t matter if it’s 100% Netflix or 10% Netflix/90% PornHub.

But sure, they’re banking on the fact that not everybody’s going to obliterate their network like that... not unlike an all-you-can-eat buffet banking on not everybody eating a buttload. And making PornHub also unlimited would certainly increase the overall load on the network.

Yea, they have some statistics on netflix consumption and they've projected how much their customers will take advantage of this. They're probably theorizing that actual netflix consumption won't change much just because access via t-mobile became less restricted. But if they turned it over to all internet usage, they'd have to accommodate pornhub. And maybe pornhub consumption wouldn't change that much, but the combination of the two would be more than they expect to handle.

I'm wondering if it's not something a little simpler. I wonder if most of t-mobile's consumption is during the day, while people are out and about, and almost nil at home when they're on wifi. So they greenlight netflix (with usage statistics that probably correspond more to night-time use) because their network is empty at night. And maybe they could greenlight pornhub too but don't want it on their marketing materials. If they turned everyone loose during the day as well, what they'd have is a bunch of pandora, google music, etc. streaming and they think they can't handle it.

 

[McLaren]

It's a big topic because it allows ISPs to break the inherent, fundamental structure of the Internet. With all due respect to everyone on the other side of this argument, if you don't support net neutrality, you don't understand how the Internet works or what made it so awesome in the first place.

To clarify, I was speaking in the tone of how my co-workers generally ask about it due to their curiosity. Sort of a rhetorical question.

 

[Jordan]

Sounds like something that would create a lot of demand for unfiltered access.

Are you sure about that?

What is the economic incentive for an ISP to provide "unfiltered" access? The "real money" for service providers — that new source of revenue which you believe will attract so much competition — will come from striking lucrative content deals with websites and online services, not adding subscribers. The only successful ISPs will be the ones who can leverage the most favorable agreements with content providers, not the ISPs who are committed to providing the best quality of service for their paying customers.

I think I do.

I'm not sure if you do, and for the record, I think we're on roughly the same side of the political spectrum. I'm a staunch capitalist and pro-business libertarian (that's one reason I love the Internet so much — it is was an equal playing field), but to me, net neutrality has nothing to do with politics. It is quite jarring to see so many people I usually agree with (politically) arguing for something that I know is wrong, but I think it happens because so many people don't fully understand the Internet or what net neutrality is.

Using "more competition" as the cornerstone of your argument underscores this point. Internet service is not like other types of businesses. You can't just buy a piece of property and start your own ISP to compete with the big guys: you'll have to secure a local franchise agreement in a city, town, or county, make arrangements with the local power company to hang your fiber on their poles (if they'll even let you), get FCC licenses, etc. Google Fiber and municipal broadband projects have been trying to do that for years now, and incumbent providers have fought tooth-and-nail in the courts to prevent competition and hold on to their local monopolies. They'll fight even harder without net neutrality, making the barrier to entry for new ISPs even higher.

Of course, we haven't even touched on what the lack of net neutrality means for backbone providers (the companies who ISPs buy their bandwidth from). What happens when you try to start your own "neutral" ISP, only to discover that you yourself can't buy bandwidth from any neutral provider? The whole Internet infrastructure turns into a tangled, corrupt mess of back-room deals that artificially raises prices and lowers quality of service. This leads to consolidation and cartels, not open markets and competition.

What do you think about my T-Mobile ad?

Because "Binge On" can be turned on or off at no additional charge — so T-Mobile users have the option of whether their traffic is filtered or not — and because T-Mobile has made efforts to ensure that any video provider can use it free of charge (yes, even PornHub), I don't see that as a net neutrality issue.

To clarify, I was speaking in the tone of how my co-workers generally ask about it due to their curiosity. Sort of a rhetorical question.

I know; mine was a rhetorical answer.

 

[Com Fox]

Are you sure about that?

What is the economic incentive for an ISP to provide "unfiltered" access? The "real money" for service providers — that new source of revenue which you believe will attract so much competition — will come from striking lucrative content deals with websites and online services, not adding subscribers. The only successful ISPs will be the ones who can leverage the most favorable agreements with content providers, not the ISPs who are committed to providing the best quality of service for their paying customers.




I'm not sure if you do, and for the record, I think we're on roughly the same side of the political spectrum. I'm a staunch capitalist and pro-business libertarian (that's one reason I love the Internet so much — it is was an equal playing field), but to me, net neutrality has nothing to do with politics. It is quite jarring to see so many people I usually agree with (politically) arguing for something that I know is wrong, but I think it happens because so many people don't fully understand the Internet or what net neutrality is.

Using "more competition" as the cornerstone of your argument underscores this point. Internet service is not like other types of businesses. You can't just buy a piece of property and start your own ISP to compete with the big guys: you'll have to secure a local franchise agreement in a city, town, or county, make arrangements with the local power company to hang your fiber on their poles (if they'll even let you), get FCC licenses, etc. Google Fiber and municipal broadband projects have been trying to do that for years now, and incumbent providers have fought tooth-and-nail in the courts to prevent competition and hold on to their local monopolies. They'll fight even harder without net neutrality, making the barrier to entry for new ISPs even higher.

Of course, we haven't even touched on what the lack of net neutrality means for backbone providers (the companies who ISPs buy their bandwidth from). What happens when you try to start your own "neutral" ISP, only to discover that you yourself can't buy bandwidth from any neutral provider? The whole Internet infrastructure turns into a tangled, corrupt mess of back-room deals that artificially raises prices and lowers quality of service. This leads to consolidation and cartels, not open markets and competition.


Because "Binge On" can be turned on or off at no additional charge — so T-Mobile users have the option of whether their traffic is filtered or not — and because T-Mobile has made efforts to ensure that any video provider can use it free of charge (yes, even PornHub), I don't see that as a net neutrality issue.


I know; mine was a rhetorical answer.

This gives me a lot of insight to this all, thanks.

Although question I have, would all the ISP be willing to do this regardless if Net Neutrality is no more? This is the thing that confuses me, I mean I'd rather Net Neutrality win but I don't see ISPs eager to jump on the screwey bandwagon because there could be potential backlash and ISPs losing people to other ISPs, which doesn't make me fear much but I could be wrong on this.

 

[Imari]

Although question I have, would all the ISP be willing to do this regardless if Net Neutrality is no more? This is the thing that confuses me, I mean I'd rather Net Neutrality win but I don't see ISPs eager to jump on the screwey bandwagon because there could be potential backlash and ISPs losing people to other ISPs, which doesn't make me fear much but I could be wrong on this.

You know at least ones in areas with monopolies will. You'll probably see either intentional or inadvertent collusion from other ISPs, where they realise that they can all make more money if they play the same game.

It's more a matter of time than anything else. It might not happen immediately, but it'll happen. For reference, see loot boxes.