Hacker News Reader

Comment by rayiner | Hacker News Reader

Cicconi is self-interested, but he's right on one thing: most proponents of reclassification haven't thought through all the implications of that proposal. Your typical net neutrality advocate has probably never heard of the Universal Service Fund, and certainly couldn't articulate why, e.g. a long distance call made on a Title-II internet using Skype or Google Voice should be treated differently than a long distance call made over a traditional Title II telephone network for the purposes of the USF fees.

The author argues that Title-II reclassification wouldn't expose content companies to regulation, but how does he explain the fact that VOIP services are required to contribute to USF? Isn't VOIP just content too?

Title II is a Depression-era regulatory regime, designed back when people thought that things like government-regulated rates and prices were a good idea. That's not the way forward, it's the way backward.

View on HN

Calling such regulation "depression-era" and a "regime" sounds like calculated corporate FUD.

One could argue that depression era policies were enacted because capital markets proved they could not regulate themselves. I have similar doubts about regulation and internet service providers.

The internet was born into this era of regulation, and has become one of the most important achievements of human civilization. It's hard to argue that things would've been better if AT&T would've been able to use the lion's share of internet bandwidth for a select few... private video conferencing streams, etc.

I don't trust the government, but you cannot trust corporations to police themselves. I just realized as I type this that I trust the U.S. government more than I trust corporations.

Which is sort of like saying I'd rather be eaten by wolf than a tiger, because a wolf is smaller.

In my opinion, the only reason to not trust the government in these matters is that the government itself is bought by corporations. If they had no such interest then the only remaining factor is incompetence.

That's like saying you shouldn't trust the police because a lot of police officers accept bribes. Even if it's true, the conclusion can hardly be that we should stop having the police.

If the majority of police accept bribes then obviously you shouldn't trust the police. I did not advocate any particular solution (such as stop having police or government). But untrustworthy police should not be policing and untrustworthy government should not be governing.

Exactly. The blatant cozy relationship between government and corporations, using lobbyists (aka, former civil servants) as a broker makes the regulators so ineffective as to be worthless.

Hell, the government can't even effectively regulate itself. Look at the NSA "oversight" for example. Ostensibly it is there to regulate the NSA. In fact the NSA simply refuses requests by the oversight committee and nothing happens.

At what point with the AT&T's just start saying no to regulator demands and get away with it? I suspect its already happening.

Or, you know, politics.

You need balance. If corporations and government and people were all about equally powerful things would probably be pretty good. As it is now, people have little to no power, and the government is basically corporate controlled through K-street.

The revolving door between Wall street and government, the dark money in super pacs, the "massive" fines for actions which resulted in much larger profits for banks and corporations, the extremely restrictive costs of running a campaign, all of these things point to the United States being what is essentially a kleptocracy.

Of course you don't trust the government. You have little to no representation. When was the last time congressional approval was above 30%? And does anything ever change?

And until these things change, until people have actual representation by their representatives, there will be no check on either the encroaching police state exemplified by collusion between agencies (DEA and NSA), the Obama administrations attempts to hide police force cellphone interception, and the rapid militarization of police forces around the country or on corporate wrong doings.

Admittedly, the situation is rosy in some respects. The drug war seems to be winding down, albeit slowly. The war on terror might even be abating a bit, although this new situation with ISIS and Ukraine may yet prove fruitful for those who are entertained by the idea of war. The LGBT community is recognizing the rights they deserve. There have been "some" checks on the banks.

But is it enough?

Just a footnote, some of this is a relatively simplistic view of incredibly complex organizations and power structures.

Replacing Title II with an updated version with similar goals would probably fix that. [e.g. Move the government out of the rate/price control aspects but retain the lack of discrimination requirements]

As far as the USF goes it is already being spent on broadband: http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/connecting-america

At which point, it probably makes sense for the USF to be funded by ISPs as well as phone providers. However, the fee structure would need to be altered to not run off what is basically a long distance call tax.

The FCC doesn't have the power to do that, however. Congress would need to fix it. Shall we begin praying for miracles?

I don't think it'll take a miracle. I think that is in fact what we will eventually get: legislation that imposes a neutrality requirement, but with loopholes for QoS and traffic shaping. That's probably not even overtly the wrong thing, although I do think it will drive even more investment out of wireline.

I think you have more faith in Congress than I then. I fully expect the ISPs to manage to buy someone off to make the QoS & traffic shaping loopholes big enough for a lobbyist to sail his new yacht through. ;)

"Unfortunately, as Netflix is not determined to be a 'critical service' under Title II 2.0, we are forced to ask for additional funds so that we may meet our QoS guarantees for Hospitals, Police, and other life saving services. You don't really value saving lives beneath your entertainment, do you? You'd be a terrible person if you did..."

If it was just a matter of cash, it'd be a fairer fight, because the big internet content companies have lots of that.

Do you think it is just a matter of cash?

If that is the case, it is going to be Netflix + Google + Token support from other tech companies vs. all of the ISPs. The ISPs are only pulling this stunt with video services and I doubt the other tech companies are going to throw a ton of money to help "other people".

I'm not sure the tech side would win that fight which is what makes me uncomfortable.

I don't think it's just a matter of cash. Google actually spends more on lobbying than either AT&T or Verizon: http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?indexType=s&showYea.... And the numbers aren't of the magnitude people assume: the top spenders are single-digit millions with the exception of the Chamber of Commerce.

You need a certain minimum amount of money, but after that it's more about ideology and jobs. The tech industry has plenty of money, but it's ideology is not easy to fit into a traditional classification, and it doesn't create that many jobs per dollar of revenue.

AT&T is very effective at lobbying because they can go up to a Republican and say: "look, the internet companies want to revive this FDR-era regulation! Also, we create thousands of jobs for ordinary Americans like utility pole maintenance workers." Per dollar of lobbying expenditure, that's a much more compelling message than: "{something about openness} and also we create a few jobs most people in your district don't have the education to get and most of these jobs are in California anyway."

The reason people "assume" it is expensive is because realistically, even small groups of average citizens, cannot afford to pay for a lobbying effort on things that matter to them.

I never said the process requires ridiculous amounts of money. I just pointed out I fully expect the process to result in rather large loopholes that are in the ISP's favor.

Ah well, it seems we more or less agree, so I probably should stop pestering you. ;)

I see your point and you are unusually well qualified to point out the legal slippery slope upon which reclassification would put the broadband industry, but I feel the need to point out that Universal Service Fund fees do not represent very large sums of money in practice. Personally I've never been bothered by paying a few $ a month for this (I think they total up to about $3/mo), even at times when I've struggled to pay the bills.

In general I prefer market solutions, but perfect competition isn't a good model for infrastructure, for a whole host of reasons.

I'm just using USF as an example of the unforeseen consequences, because that was the example in the article.

I'm not opposed to some regulation in this area, but I worry about driving investment out of wireline. Goldman is already saying Verizon should ditch its wireline business. Also, I think some level of traffic shaping (e.g. throttling Bittorrent and prioritizing HTTP) is necessary just from a network engineering point of view. I don't want my Netflix packets waiting behind some BT packets containing pirated movies.

Eh, I think this is something I've argued with you [or someone before on HN] about.

That isn't exactly what Goldman said.

http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Goldman-Sachs-Wants-Veriz...

1) That was when they were trying to get them to merge with Vodafone.

2) That was more about dumping the overhead that came with the union Verizon was dealing with, dumping pension liabilities, etc. and basically splitting the "high growth" business off from the slower growth business.

That isn't really the same thing. All utilities are going to be low growth businesses by their very nature.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/1599192-slow-growth-but-a-hi...

Unless you are talking about a newer angle of attack from Goldman about it?

EDIT: I guess I'm trying to say it speaks more to Goldman's bias [splitting it up based on what looks to be growing faster so they can invest accordingly].

But who's to say those bittorrent packets contain pirated movies? What if they're a Linux distro, a video game update patch, or something else. You can't. That's the whole point of not prioritizing or de-prioritizing any particular type of traffic.

Even if the bittorrent packets do contain a pirated movie, sure you have the moral highground because you paid for your movie, but in the end they're both essentially the same thing.

Traffic shaping is unnecessary if ISPs provide reserved capacity per QoS tier, per customer. Every customer gets X mbits/s of high priority/low latency traffic, with the rest treated as best effort.

That way the customer can decide what they want their own priorities to be without interfering with other customers.

These concepts can be applied to both outbound and, to a limited extent, inbound traffic. Throttle the customer+QoS pair, not the technology.

I use BTSync to sync some of my server content. Why should my BT traffic wait behind your stupid Netflix movie! I pay for 12Mbit connection, and I expect to get a 12Mbit connection regardless of weather the rest of the people in my neighborhood are watching Netflix, downloading BT, or playing online games. It would be ok if ISPs would advertise a high and low speed for a connection. That is, telling you that they will do their best to deliver say 50Mbit most of the time, but you are guaranteed at least a 10Mbit connection at all times.

It's like saying "I pay for a car that can go 100 miles per hour, and I expect to go 100 miles per hour regardless of whether the rest of the people in my neighborhood are on the road." Over-provisioning shared infrastructure so everyone can always go at full speed is extremely impractical.

If you pay for a road which is advertised as allowing you to go 100 miles per hour, complaining that it's full of traffic is quite legitimate.

But even that is not addressing the point. The point is that if two people are paying for the same connection and using the same amount of bandwidth, the fact that one is using it for BT Sync and the other is using it for Netflix should be of no concern to the ISP and the ISP should be making no distinction between the two.

No, not at all. My laptop has a 1Gbit network card, I paid for it, and yet I do not expect to connect to the internet at 1Gbit all the time. Car = equipment, road = ISP connection. This is also the reason why I stated that I, and I think most people, would be OK with ISPs advertising the maximum and minimum speeds. For instance, let's say the ISP has a 10Gbit fiber coming into a neighborhood of 1000 homes. Also, let's say that their modems can do maximum of 100Mbit. So, they can honestly advertise maximum speed of 100Mbit, and minimum speed of 10Mbit. No problem.

The problem is, if say Verizon was to honestly advertise their speed capabilities, they would have to advertise 100Kbit speeds on the minimum side. They are consistently, and purposefully lying about their networks capabilities.

> Title II is a Depression-era regulatory regime, designed back when people thought that things like government-regulated rates and prices were a good idea.

The principle of universal service at a "reasonable charge" (though not the USF) dates from the same period and is also outdated.

Life is full of trade-offs and where to live is certainly no exception. Some people have affordable houses on acres of land at affordable prices, pure mountain air, and outdoor recreation at their fingertips. I live in a tiny apartment, directly above a highway, and have to travel a few hours to go camping. It is no more appropriate to ask those who live in areas where it is less expensive to provide telecom services to subsidize those who live in areas where it is expensive than for the federal government to impose a property tax on properties over half an acre to subsidize green spaces in cities.

Why isn't it appropriate? I don't see anything qualitatively different about either of those things from other forms of wealth redistribution.

The grandparent said that they were both equally appropriate, presumably with the argument being that since there is no push to charge rural areas a "green access fee" to build parks in cities, the opposite shouldn't apply either.

One could argue that the very highway the grandparent lives by is a government-provided service to make it possible for him to go camping, but I don't know how the cost of building highways is shouldered by rural vs urban areas.

Wealth redistribution schemes utilizing a means test are qualitatively different from those that do not.

That's a ridiculous position. Should we also deny people electricity because they live outside a metropolitan era?

Declaring entire swaths of the population of a country like the United States unworthy of access to things like telephones and access to the global network is ridiculous enough. But it's particularly offensive given that it's cheaper to run and operate these systems today than it ever has been before.

Universal service is about more than telephones in the wilderness. I live in a state capital, about 500 yards from a major fiber optic termination point. Pretty sure my employer has a 40GB line on the telephone pole that I can see from my front porch. I have access to 20/1 cable service or 30/5 cable service at a 70% cost premium. Because there are few poor people there, the surrounding suburbs have FIOS and Cable, and the cable service is significantly less expensive.

No one's denying anyone anything. If it's so cheap to do so, plenty of companies should be happy to do so at an affordable cost without needing a subsidy.

There are many things that are cheaper in rural areas and more expensive in cities, I don't see any rural dwellers lining up to pay extra for goods and services that are cheaper in those areas in order to equalize prices in cities.

Many things are better fully privatized, but i'd argue that infrastructure is not one of them.

Sometimes unprofitable things need to be done.

Are you honestly suggesting that if I moved to a house in unallocated territory, that I not only have the right to demand that someone run power to it, but I have the further right to demand that somebody do so at no greater a rate than the guy who lives next door to the power plant?

One can choose to live without green space. It is far more difficult to choose to live without communications. Everything from banking to education needs fast Internet access, and what better way to ensure that rural residents can make a better life for themselves than to offer them the opportunity to become educated by Internet without having to come up with the funds to attend an expensive university?

> Your typical net neutrality advocate has probably never heard of the Universal Service Fund

As opendais mentioned, an easy fix is to allocate this fund towards broadband connectivity instead of (just) phone service, which seems to be already in the works.

> That's not the way forward, it's the way backward.

I don't think anybody reasonably argues that Title II reclassification is a panacea; the Title II regulations may very well need to be updated themselves, but the structure of being regulated as a "cable service" no longer makes sense for ISPs.

Either way, we're talking about massive changes that need to be made, so you're correct that no single change is going to be sufficient, and it's often the case of "six steps forward, five steps back". But it's still an improvement.

> As opendais mentioned, an easy fix is to allocate this fund towards broadband connectivity instead of (just) phone service, which seems to be already in the works.

That's not the point. If Title-II gives the FCC the right to force VOIP companies to contribute to the USF, how is any other content service that runs over the internet safe? It's just an example of the kind of unforeseen consequences of Title-II that net neutrality advocates don't think about.

I don't follow. Why does that make other content less safe?

Is your only complaint against Title II the USF? That seems like a solvable problem.

Because VOIP data isn't any different than any other data?

I probably should add this is why I said it would need to be re-written to change the USF funding mechanism so it makes sense. Likely a flat fee on the ISP bills. People will complain, people will always complain...but it isn't raising taxes, just changing how they are paid.

Common carrier regulations date back even farther than the depression and they work perfectly well with airlines, prohibiting discrimination.

Title II is appropriate. Broadband connections are the telecom infrastructure of the future, and they should be regulated as infrastructure.

Title II reclassification doesn't have to include price controls as individual portions of Title II can be forbeared.

As for VOIP, the general rule of thumb the FCC set for CALEA compliance works here as well: is the service a replacement for traditional phone service? If so, then they pay into USF. If not, there's no burden.

http://askcalea.fbi.gov/archives/voip.html

Fun fact: deregulation of the U.S. airline industry in the 1970's was a tremendous success, paving the way for companies like FedEx and UPS: http://www.aeaweb.org/annual_mtg_papers/2008/2008_264.pdf; http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/news/allrise/2009/01/30-years-after....

As for VOIP: the concerning thing there is the FCC's taxing of a content service that runs on the internet. I don't think that's a precedent most supporters of net neutrality want to embrace, but that's exactly the path you're going down with Title II.

Any company that acts like a phone company (e.g. providing real phone numbers) is regulated and taxed like a phone company. The fact that some of them run part of the call over the Internet isn't why they're being regulated, but it doesn't magically exempt them from regulation either.

The same thinking applies to all companies. If you're doing something regulated, then doing it over the Internet will still be regulated. If you're doing something unregulated then doing it over the Internet will still be unregulated. Title II shouldn't make any difference.

So Google Voice and Skype should be taxed? Beyond that, isn't "real phone numbers" a totally arbitrary distinction when everything is running on the internet? Just a different sort of endpoint identifier. What you're really trying to tax is "real time voice communications." So shouldn't Facetime be taxed too?

Everything isn't running on the Internet. When you use Google Voice to call a number that isn't part of GV (which is probably the majority of calls), your call is going over the PSTN. And touching the PSTN is what gets you regulated.

Facetime is a good example of a system that isn't and shouldn't be regulated because AFAIK it doesn't touch the PSTN.

But touching the PSTN isn't where VOIP gets regulated under the FCC rules. If you have Vonage and only make VOIP to VOIP calls, you still pay the tax.

That's the whole point of bringing up USF: one can imagine ways to limit the USF fees to the PSTN network, but the FCC has used its regulatory authority to reach a broader set of service providers. Also: the PSTN angle is a red herring anyway. Now that USF is used to fund broadband, its arbitrary to limit USF taxes to something that touches the PSTN network.

> As for VOIP: the concerning thing there is the FCC's taxing of a content service that runs on the internet. I don't think that's a precedent most supporters of net neutrality want to embrace, but that's exactly the path you're going down with Title II.

I would just challenge the premise. The question from the article is:

> How do you distinguish [AT&T's] telephony from Skype or Google Voice?

But the answer is easy. You don't. The only sensible reading of a conflict is if both AT&T and Skype are offering over the top VoIP service. If AT&T is offering PSTN service and Skype is offering VoIP then distinguishing them is trivial, and if AT&T starts offering VoIP then distinguishing them is unnecessary. You just don't put any VoIP services (or any other over the top services) under Title II, because Title II is for the physical network.

That makes perfect sense because what all of that stuff (e.g. USF) is intended to do is only necessary for the physical network. There is no reason for Skype not to offer VoIP service to everyone with internet access. It would occur even in the absence of regulation, as long as those people have a local physical network over which to run such services, which is the clear dividing line between what belongs under Title II and what doesn't.

> You just don't put any VoIP services (or any other over the top services) under Title II, because Title II is for the physical network.

But the FCC already decided, in 2006, that VOIP is subject to USF contributions.

The FCC also decided that broadband is not a Title II service. One bad decision as a consequence of the other. If you put broadband under Title II where it belongs then you don't need VoIP to be there because anybody who can use VoIP (because they have broadband) is already paying into the USF.

The combination of net neutrality and PSTN sunset may lead to a "regulatory swap" where broadband is regulated and the phone network is not. The problem is always in the wires.

Fun fact: the airlines are still regulated as common carriers, even after much of the deregulation.

No one is arguing for the FCC to set pricing, and having a universal service fund for broadband makes sense. USF funding was always levied at communication providers, not folks like plumbers that used the communication system.

Your arguments against common sense, limited regulations of the most important communication infrastructure in the country are a whole bunch of FUD. There's no way the FCC is every going to start charging email providers or taxing What's App.

I can see some sort of argument against the VoiP tax if there's a USF for broadband, but honestly, it's not a precedent that's heading anywhere.

> probably never heard of the Universal Service Fund,

That may be, but I have. And if the ISPs are reclassified as Title II, perhaps one of the outcomes would be the use of the USF to bring broadband to underserved communities. The USF does quite a bit more than 'connect the poor to phone service.'

* It helps ensure that consumers in all regions of the nation pay similar rates to those in urban areas. * Discounts that make basic service affordable for low-income consumers (Link-Up America and Lifeline) * Subsidies for rural health care, centering around video conferencing infrastructure and high speed internet access for rural medical providers * 'E-Rate,' which provides subsidies for internet access, telecom services, internal infrastructure and maintenance of the connections to schools and libraries. It pays a percentage based on need.

If broadband ISPs are reclassified as Title II, that may expand USF to even data costs from rural to urban areas. I'd say that's a win.

> [... VOIP & USF ...] It probably shouldn't: the reason it is right now probably comes down to ISPs not being required to contribute to the fund, and VOIP services come closest to the layman concept of what telecommunications is. They had to make up the gap of contribution caused by people dropping traditional telephony services for VOIP services, and Skype and Google Voice didn't have the FCC lobbying power that TimeWarnerComcastVerizon did.

> [Depression-era FUD]

USF was started by the act of '34, but was seriously updated in '96 to include things like "access to advanced telecommunication services."

Unfortunately, since broadband ISPs aren't Title II, they're probably not included in that.

I am not a fan of Title II, however I think it's a very far leap to go from being Net Neutral --> Title II.

You can be Net Neutral without being Title II'ed.

The problem is, the ISP's (including AT&T) are not Net Neutral.

There is no clear line between what is under Title-II and Title-I of the Communications Act. If there was, then FCC would not have the question put to them, and they could not decide it.

To a large degree, its up to the discretion of FCC to decide what is and what isn't Title-II. FCC could defeine ISP as utility, and there would be no obligation to define video streaming as utility too.

Cicconi could argue that FCC should not have the power to do this but is choosing not to do so. Rather, he is trying to argue a slipper slope argument. I wonder if this is for political reasons, in order to not challenge the authority of FCC while they are deciding on the issue.

> Title II is a Depression-era regulatory regime, designed back when people thought that things like government-regulated rates and prices were a good idea. That's not the way forward, it's the way backward.

Really? There was undoubtedly a lot of enthusiasm for planned economies in the '30s, but wasn't Title II based on older railroad anti-trust legislation? I presume you're not suggesting that the earlier era of the railroad trusts and Standard Oil should be the preferred model for the future...

> most proponents of reclassification haven't thought through all the implications of that proposal

Sure, but that assumes that all those implications are actually relevant.

> but how does he explain the fact that VOIP services are required to contribute to USF? Isn't VOIP just content too?

Not quite. If that VoIP service an actual phone number (i.e. one that could be called from within a traditional "copper" phone network), then (from what I understand) it acts as a provider of a phone network. Both Skype and Google Voice offer that functionality, so they're subject to USF fees.

IANAL, so that should be taken with a grain of salt; that's just my understanding of that particular corner case.

I would agree with you if this discussion were taking place in 1994, when moving away from the legacy of the Bell System was kicking off.

Today, we seem to be going to a model where waves of consolidation are essentially rebuilding something that looks like the old days. If that's the future, you're going to need a strong regulatory leash to keep them under control.

Title ii could have issues. But I don't think it would be for content providers. There's content providers involved with phones that arent subject to anything title ii related (dialup internet). So that argument doesnt seem sound to me.

Sounds more like an argument for overhauling or repealing the USF, which has problems beyond the ones you cited.

The Universal Service Fund is a joke. If you're out in the country, you're still lucky if you can get 128k DSL.

If you are out in the country then you would not have any access at all without USF. No one is going to run thirty miles of wire just so your little farmhouse can get telecom services; wireless may fix part of this, but that also requires towers, maintenance, and a whole lot of other services that do not justify the revenue you would provide in compensation. Consider your 128k a gift from the rest of us, which it is, and say "thanks" every now and then...

Consider your 128k a gift from the rest of us, which it is, and say "thanks" every now and then...

I don't think I've ever read anything so... conceited on HN, and that's saying something. The choice to live in a rural area may have been made involuntarily.

How do you mean? I can't see how someone could be forced to live in the middle of nowhere, other than imprisonment.

I believe that nearly any person living in a rural area could move to a more populated area, if they desired.

What if you want to be a stereotypical farmer, on a farm 50 miles from any city? That is your choice. However, one side effect of that choice is that you have to live with dialup Internet access. Just take that into account when making your decision.

Then why is everyone still paying for universal access, if the farmer is using a line installed in 1930? If it cost $10k to run that line in today's money, they're making out like bandits.

Aside from anything else, moving to heavily populated urban areas costs money that farmers don't necessarily have.

How do you mean?

Having inadequate money to move to a city or suburb or get an education, being born into a rural family with inadequate money to move or become educated, etc.

Then also thank the farmer for the food on your table.

> Consider your 128k a gift from the rest of us, which it is, and say "thanks" every now and then...

From one city-dweller to another: give me a break. Did it ever occur to you that we city-dwellers benefit from having people living in rural areas? These are the people who grow our food, work in our mines, generate our electricity, and so on. And when do you plan to thank them for all the services of ours that they pay for? Think: preventing acts of terrorism, securing ports, virtually every other telecom law?

The point, of course, is that, as common members of a society, we all pay to support one another in various ways. Such a network of mutual support is what makes us a community and not just a swath of land with a border around it. There's no room for smug demands for gratitude.

I LOGGED IN TO SAY THAT YOURE NOT SPECIAL.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com