The real battle for net neutrality begins: The people v. FCC | Hacker News Reader

The real battle for net neutrality begins: The people v. FCC

zdnet.com

52 pointsCrankyBear32 comments

In choosing a corporate shill like Pai, I think Trump has no idea of the kind of Trojan horse he unwittingly planted for his 2020 re-election. NN is, at least in my view, an entirely non-partisan, cross cutting concern/issue that concerns -everyone-, regardless of their views held on any particular point.

Yes, I am aware that increasing ISP competition will nullify the need for NN, but that is -not- where we are now, are we? Leave the regulation in place, or at least put some serious conditions and stimuli for new broadband investments if you're going to repeal NN. The way they went about it now makes it look like all they're trying to do is enrich the entrenched players.

This is sure to bite this administration in the ass far more than they imagined.

> I am aware that increasing ISP competition will nullify the need for NN

I see this argument being used a lot, but I think it is a logical fallacy.

Why do they assume that non-NN will increase ISP competition?

I have a choice of exactly one ISP in my area and I really don't see how the repeal of NN will make other ISPs lay fiber to my place.

Can someone break down this argument for me? I cannot.

I think you have it backwards. The argument is that, assuming we have a lot of competition between ISPs (which is obviously a false assumption in the US), there is no need for NN.

Well, that still does make a very bad argument, exactly because it is a false assumption.

But aside from stating the obvious: I would actually be interested if there is a country where a lack of competing ISPs is not the status quo. And if there is, what the reason for that might be. If there is, I'd assume it would have to do with that country treating network infrastructure the same as roads and allowing small companies to access it.

I think UK has pretty healthy competition between ISPs.

Denmark have reasonable competition. Exactly for the reason you assumed. A small ISP just rents the cabel.

Well, despite the appalling infrastructure in Australia, I had a choice of:

* Exetel

* Optus

* Vodafone

* Dodo

* iiNet (the only one who provides fibre here)

* Telstra

At every residence I've occupied. 3 or more seems to the national norm.

So far as I understand it, it's common for providers to rent their architecture to other providers, so long as they are using similar pricing. (The NBN is slightly different as the mostly-Telstra-controlled NBNCo gets to set minimum prices for some reason. It results in usually-identical pricing.)

Like sibling comment said, you have it backward. The argument is "more competition -> no need for net neutrality", not "repeal of net neutrality -> more competition"

Unfortunately, competition is hard to foster when the barrier for entry is so high as to discourage ISPs to build out wherever their competitions already provide service (which leads to effective monopolies).

> The argument is "more competition -> no need for net neutrality"

Are you sure?

Ajit Pai's argument is here: https://www.theverge.com/2017/12/14/16777626/ajit-pai-net-ne...

Also: https://fee.org/articles/goodbye-net-neutrality-hello-compet...

> In choosing a corporate shill like Pai, I think Trump...

Don't you mean the last administration? Pai has been with the FCC since 2011.

> Leave the regulation in place, or at least put some serious conditions and stimuli for new broadband investments if you're going to repeal NN.

You mean government regulation that does nothing to the big players? The government still has failed to go after Comcast after they violated the terms of the Comcast - NBCUniversal merger. Or what about the millions of dollars given to Verizon to expand their FiOS network and have yet to make good on that.

Crying more government regulation does not help if the government picks and chooses who it will go after and when. If anything, the FTC (Federal Trade Commission) should be where "Net Neutrality" should be enforced since this would be an issue of failing to provide a good or service.

Edit: Missing word.

> Don't you mean the last administration?

Both. Obama appointed Pai to the FCC; Trump appointed him chair.

Was this not going to happen anyway (next one in the chain)? Many appointments require some sort of recommendation by someone already in power...

> I think Trump has no idea of the kind of Trojan horse he unwittingly planted for his 2020 re-election.

Not at all. Odds are more or less certain that Trump won't have a serious Republican primary challenge, because parties almost always support their incumbents. It's more likely that net neutrality will be an issue in the Democratic primaries, but once both parties pick their candidates, most Americans distill their choice down to not being able to vote for somebody who is pro-guns/anti-guns or pro-immigration/anti-immigration or pro-abortion/anti-abortion or one of any other hot-button, "this touches my deepest moral sense" issues, and vote Democrat or Republican accordingly.

If the worst predictions come true, and we're all forced to watch Comcast on Demand (now with 50% more ads) and pay for Comcast Chat, you may have a point.

But if things don't change very much without net neutrality regulations, this might all seem like much ado about nothing in three years.

> Congress isn't sitting idly by either. The bill, H.R.4585 - Save Net Neutrality Act of 2017, has already been proposed, and more will come. After the FCC announced its decision, Colorado Congressman Mike Coffman, a Republican, immediately announced, "This conversation belongs in #Congress."

Watch out for those in the Congress pushing a law that would actually cement in place fake net neutrality, that doens't really prevent any monopolistic abuse.

I suspect it was the plan of monopolists all along. They knew well, that blantant actions of FCC won't fly, but they hoped their corrupt influence on the Congress would allow them to pass a "law" that would let them run amok with anti-competitive and user fleecing behavior.

Example of where it can be heading: https://web.archive.org/web/20171215060507/http://corporate....

Read carefully what Comcast lobbyists are writing. They describe their own plan pretty well.

Why would someone like Comcast who fought tooth and nail against FCC net neutrality rules, suddenly be so interested in passing a law that "solidifies" and "permanently preserves" it? Only because they hope that they'll manage to solidify something that doesn't do anything, while "putting the discussion to rest" (i.e. making fixing it much harder, than simply restoring previous FCC rules again).

Comcast doesn't say that they want Congress to implement title ii regulation. You're mixing up 2 different things.

I explained above what they are saying. They want two things: prevent strong net neutrality protections and prevent it practically permanently. For that they are now pushing for a fake law about it. Their logic is, that repealing a garbage law is usually much harder, than for FCC simply passing some new regulation. Look at how long DMCA-1201 persists, despite it being an obvious garbage.

You said "Why would someone like Comcast who fought tooth and nail against FCC net neutrality rules, suddenly be so interested in passing a law that "solidifies" and "permanently preserves" it?"

You seem to be ignoring the obvious response, which is that they're fine with NN regulations as long as it doesn't come with the overhead of Title II.

Point is, they are pretending they are pro-net neutrality, while in essence they are completely against it. It's their usual smokescreen tactic, to fool those who would fall for such weasel talk.

Saying they are fine with NN regulation, but only when it's actually not doing anything to protect NN, is fallacy.

So let's be clear - they are simply lying through their teeth.

You keep on saying some version of this but aren't giving any reason to actually believe this.

What would you expect to see differently in a world in which they wanted Congress to pass clear NN rules?

> What would you expect to see differently in a world in which they wanted Congress to pass clear NN rules?

They should stop lying and admit they are simply against net neutrality to begin with. But I don't expect them to, naturally, since they are professional lairs.

Anyway, my point was that the public should be aware about this sneaky attack on net neutrality, veiled as "support" for it.

You aren't answering the question. You've given zero reason to think they're lying except asserting it over and over.

I see no question here. What point are you trying to make? Are you defending Comcast's attack on NN veiled as support for it (through pushing a law that redefines NN as something that does nothing to actually protect NN), or you are trying to explain that we should have expected it? If the later, it's the same thing I'm saying.

You're asserting something without offering any evidence for it - I would like you to explain why people should believe you.

Comcast opposed NN before. What other evidence do you need? They never hid the fact. They violated it multiple times, from BitTorrent throttling, to data caps, zero rating and interconnection shenanigans, and they clearly benefit from not letting strong NN protections be in place. So when they suddenly come out in support of something they call NN, if you don't see foul play, then you simply didn't pay any attention.

You mention 4 things, but only one is a NN violation and it was from a decade ago.

All of these are NN violations, or related to it.

The goal of Comcast in violating NN is not just abstract violation of it, their goal is harming competition, and giving themselves an unfair advantage. The core of the problem is that besides owning the physical network, they are also media company. So their direct competitors are video services for instance.

Comcast try to raise the price of those services for users (and thus pushing them to use Comcast's own ones instead), by combining usage of data caps (which have no technical need and are purely fleecing / anti-competitive tool) in combination with zero rating, i.e. excluding their own services from data caps. Users have to pay extra to avoid data caps. That basically taxes users who prefer their competitors. Another method they use is interconnection starvation. That simply degrades the quality of competing services, again pushing users to use Comcast's ones.

NN is relevant here (in addition to regular anti-trust of course), because Comcast are giving preferential treatment to their own traffic, while punishing competitors with data caps and bad interconnection.

So, we established that Comcast clearly violate principles of NN, and can't be interested in the least in codifying proper NN law.

This is an extremely disingenuous argument.

First you point out that data caps have no technical need. Something else that isn't required technically: charging for service. Would you say that the fact they charge to use their services means they're anti competitive?

Zero rating was not included in the 2015 Order that was repealed - it was always legal.

What I find disingenuous, are attempts to whitewash abusive monopolistic behavior like data caps or claims that zero rating is not violating net neutrality.

This. The long game for monopoly isps has been to get this in front of a favorable congress since the title II rule was enacted. Would be hard to imagine a more favorable congress than the current one, which in anticipating a wave in 2018, are all on the hunt for wingnut welfare.

https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1051157755251

C'mon now, how dumb do we think we are that these are legit comments?

> Name of Filer: Barack Obama

> Address: 1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Washington, DC 20500

> The unprecedented regulatory power the Obama Administration imposed on the internet is smothering innovation, damaging the American economy and obstructing job creation. I urge the Federal Communications Commission to end the bureaucratic regulatory overreach of the internet known as Title II and restore the bipartisan light-touch regulatory consensus that enabled the internet to flourish for more than 20 years. The plan currently under consideration at the FCC to repeal Obama's Title II power grab is a positive step forward and will help to promote a truly free and open internet for everyone.

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/554441dae4b07d3f99017...

> 88% of survey respondents whose emails were used to submit pro-repeal comments likely had their identity appropriated to submit a comment, compared to just 4% of pro-net neutrality respondents.

The courts are also packed with ideological appointees. I don't have much faith that they'd consider the issue impartially or with the benefit of the consumer in mind. You have to remember that they're the ones that let the DMCA and endless copyright extensions stand, along with giving us other anti-consumer/pro-corporate decisions like Citizens United.

It's a wonder that the US has any consumer protections at all, and those that are there are steadily being dismantled under the "pro-business" mantra, or whatever other fig leaf can be dug up.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com