The FCC is so swamped with net neutrality comments, it’s extending the deadline(washingtonpost.com) |
The FCC is so swamped with net neutrality comments, it’s extending the deadline(washingtonpost.com) |
On a general note, I don't get the cynicism as to the FCC's intentions here. The FCC already passed net neutrality rules, and those rules were struck down by the D.C. Circuit. Internet companies have argued that the FCC could implement net neutrality if they regulated internet service providers under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934, but the FCC desperately wants to find a way to avoid doing that. Not because it doesn't want net neutrality, but because Title II is a big regulatory regime with a lot of baggage.
You have to understand that none of this is taking place in a vacuum. There is a general regulatory paradigm that's in vogue at the FCC. The FCC has been thrilled with the results of its "light touch" approach to cellular wireless regulation. That's the mantra of post-Clinton liberals: "we'll have regulations, but lightweight ones." Title II is an FDR-era piece of legislation that is anything but lightweight. Regulating the internet under Title II would invoke a firestorm of criticism from conservatives as well as centrist-liberals who see it as inconsistent with how regulatory agencies should operate in the modern era.
The "enemy" to network neutrality was the DC Circuit court. The FCC wants network neutrality, but it lost the power to make such a rule earlier this year.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verizon_Communications_Inc._v._...
I'm not sure I agree. I think the D.C circuit was correct, and that the FCC doesn't have the right authority under the Title I of the Communications Act. The guilty party is congress, which left the FCC the choice between using the warhammer that is Title II and the inappropriate use of Title I (general provisions).
They need effective tools to regulate correctly, and Congress arguably hasn't given them any. Though nothing says they have to use Title II for the whole internet. I'd personally like to see something like Title II (common carriage) applied to the last mile, and the return of competing ISPs that can leverage that public infrastructure.
The DC Circuit made the right decision. The FCC was trying to classify Comcast and Verizon as "information services" which is the classification used for something like a website or an email server. The FCC is not supposed to have that much authority over actual information services.
The problem is the current state of the law. The FCC can either classify broadband as a telecommunications service with all that entails, or classify it as an information service and have insufficient authority to do anything meaningful. There is no intermediate option available, which is what everybody really wants. The ideal would be to change the law to give the FCC the ability to regulate last mile providers in some ways without full Title II classification, but it's unlikely such legislation would pass in the Republican-majority House of Representatives when the status quo is a lack of regulatory authority under the existing classification. It might actually be more likely to pass after reclassification, because it could then be sold as in practice reducing the FCC's authority rather than increasing it. But that would essentially be a rewrite of the Communications Act, which is not anything you can expect to happen in the short term.
You end with FUD. Your credibility is at risk.
To highlight what I see as an impedance mismatch between Silicon Valley and Washington, take YC's comment to the FCC. There is a line in there "we should treat the telcos like the utilities they are" or something to that effect. That resounds here on HN, but made me cringe. The failures of utility regulation are a source of embarrassment to both sides of the aisle. Whether we're talking about rolling brownouts or ancient sewer systems dumping waste into rivers, nobody is really happy with how utilities are regulated in the U.S. So why evoke that association? You're guaranteed to alienate all but the hardcore "consumer protection" contingent of liberals, which are a dying breed.
As for the second part, Title II reclassification is controversial enough that even the EFF didn't support it until very recently, and even then only under the assumption that the FCC would practice forebearance[0].
Finally, while I very strongly disagree with many of the things rayiner has posted on this issue in the past (including the interpretation of some of the evidence he cites), it's clear that he has done his research and knows what he's talking about. As far as semi-anonymous/psuedonymous online forum discussions go, that's a reasonable enough amount of credibility for me.
[0] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/07/forbearance-what-it-wh...
EDIT: Of course I've left the FCC a comment, made a phone call, and talked to my political representatives (in addition to bitching at the president) about this issue anyway. I don't expect that my word is worth anything without a bribe, though.
Even cynical old me :-)
In the past these internet movements have gone is a direction that is more about individual freedoms, but like Occupy Wall Street, what it has to say about Net Neutrality is dead wrong, and I say that because the whole thing is based on buzzwords and ignorance.
If we had proportional representation, I'd vote for whoever is closest to my views and best able to represent them.
A representative that works for everybody in a district doesn't represent anybody in particular, except those who contribute to expensive campaign required to get a majority of the votes.
PR gets rid of the need to win a majority and the ability of lobbyists to buy off a single winner per district.
Takes time to figure that out.
While I don't advocate doing nothing, playing their game their way isn't going to lead to a win.
Not that I would advocate using violence, since it is likely to get you (or me) in trouble.
Think of it this way: "they" want you to be cynical about the usefulness of democratic action. A necessary precondition for oligarchic takeover of democracy is that the people decide not to make use of the tools they have available to retain control.
A formally democratic society where nobody but the rich bothers to advocate for their own needs is the ideal form of oppression.
We're cynical about the usefulness of democratic action specifically because there have been numerous elections without any major changes to our country's current death spiral.
The poor and middle classes constantly advocate for their own needs (jobs, money, healthcare) but are consistently beaten by the rich's purchased politicians.
Don't get cynical, your words matter and enough voices coming together on an issue has worked in the past (SOPA) and will work in the future. I'd strongly encourage anyone who has a stake in this fight (most of HN's audience) to submit their thoughts to the FCC and your congressional representatives.
However, there is no way they address every single letter. They'll just summarize what all the public comments argument and address that.
So unless you come up with some new groundbreaking comment, it has no effect.
I want my NETFLIX! comments won't do shit.
My understanding of regulatory proceedings is that the number and substance of the comments tends to play a role but (in a way, somewhat opposite of many legislative proceedings) the substance is a lot more significant than the numbers. The purpose of the comment period isn't to get a pulse of popular opinion, its to assure that the policy analysis underlying the regulatory action is able to consider all relevant information, including information that may not have been apparent to the commission's staff.
The individually most effective comments, then, are probably those like Mozilla's, which not only makes very specific recommendations, directly addressing the points raised in the call for comments, with strong support and analysis behind the recommendations.
EDIT Not sure why the downvotes. Historically it's been true. Most wars we have been involved with have been to serve an industry or spend much of the budget on defense (after WWII anyhow). Citizens United was created to treat companies as people. Obamacare, while started with good intentions, ultimately created a gift for insurance companies. Lobbyist run much of Washington and local governments, and are rarely funded by your average citizen.
Cases like net neutrality may be denied/shutdown today, but it's a topic that will show up year after year, under a different name, with different verbiage by the end goal will be the same. I don't see this working out for the average American citizen. Take it for what it is but money talks, especially in politics.
It's certainly worth my 95 seconds to participate in this democracy in some fashion. Wouldn't you be outraged that the FCC didn't listen to you when you spoke, rather than being outraged that they didn't listen to you when you were silent?
This was an interesting analysis, I read about it in Science News. It "feels" like something was done when it wasn't. I applaud your active participation.
I met one of the FCC lawyers at a conference two years ago and asked him to include some of Sam's and others very cogent talking points into the "debate." And I continue to work on my conceptual 'the last mile is a municipal infrastructure problem, not a private sector problem' pitch to local government.
You mean, the cable companies that (along with the telephone companies) keep suing the FCC because it keeps issuing pro-neutrality regulations that those companies oppose?
I think that the FCC wants to implement some form of net neutrality but feels hamstrung by legislation and court precedent. So collecting a ton of comments is their way to demonstrate that there is huge demand for a rule. This will either back them up in court after they issue the new rule, or it help them to persuade Congress to update the 1996 Act.
I agree, but the problem is that we're fighting multi-billion dollar companies with their future profit increase on the line, and they're already bribing politicians. Can we out-spend them?
Not enough people care, and even if they do care they probably don't have enough money, even when combined together. With some products, it might be possible to inflict economic damage against our enemies by boycotting and hopefully reducing the amount of money they have to lobby, but that's nearly impossible with the monopolies that the ISPs have built.
We have to try, though-- if only to save ourselves from hypocrisy.
There's multi-billion dollar companies with their future profit increases on the line on both sides of this debate. Sure, there's the cable/telcos on one side -- but there's (among others) the Internet Association companies on the other.
"I know! Generate a bunch of fake comments in favor of the change, and it will look like we made a hard decision instead of blatantly spurning the public!"
"Great idea! But it will take a couple days to generate them and comments close tomorrow, so we'll have to fake an outage as well to give ourselves time."
[1]: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment_search/execute?proceeding=1...
Because these agreements are so common place, the best the FCC can really do is put a regulatory structure in place to ensure they're consistently (and legally) applied.
They could add provisions saying something like "the amount of data carried over paid direct interconnects with content owners cannot exceed the amount of data carried through traditional peering arrangements" that would take care of many people's concerns about a "slow lane".
But saying "net neutrality or nothing" requires adopting an idealized, revisionist history of the Internet. The Internet has always been run by large ISPs; it's just that they're large consumer ISPs now so the commercial guys like Level3 are crying about it. Paid data carriage is a fact about the business of the Internet, and if you remove it, capacity will disappear with it until someone figures out another way to make money transmitting data (which will likely involve the consumer paying more).
When you try to save the other party money and they ask you to pay them even more, that's fishy. If anti-competitive, anti-consumer behavior has been going on for years and is only now being revealed, that doesn't make it any less bad. Fortunately the FCC is already being motivated to create transparency in this area.
That's not what this is about.
Tom Wheeler, former lobbyist for National Cable Television Association, and the Cellular Telephone & Internet Association; genuinely cares what I think? You can't be serious.
>Don't get cynical, your words matter and enough voices coming together on an issue has worked in the past (SOPA) and will work in the future.
What are you talking about COPPA/DOPA/COICA/SOPA/CISPA/CIPA/PIPA keeps getting resurrected, time after time, they've tried everything. Anybody who has been paying attention is right to be cynical.
Sam Altman - http://blog.samaltman.com/net-neutrality
As for Wheeler, he was a lobbyist before he had this job, and will likely return to lobbying after his tenure as director ends. Wheeler also proposed the fast-lane, aka the death of net neutrality, which passed a vote. In summary: a lobbyist who lobbied for the cable companies he is now "regulating" and who is now pushing a proposal against net neutrality. Where do you think his allegiances really are? He's acting strongly and specifically against our collective interests regardless of anyone's personal judgments.
Our voices matter only in the sense that we can use our voices to organize with each other and effect change as a bloc by raising money and threatening the status quo.
The FCC Chairman -- as part of the 3-2 majority of the commission that keeps adopting pro-neutrality regulations -- has taken a pro-neutrality side repeatedly. The current anger from some neutrality proponents is that the particular approach the majority of the commission has taken to rescue some neutrality provisions from the most recent court decision isn't the mechanism that those proponents prefer (for those that actually are objecting based on the real legal situation) or doesn't just reinstate what the court struck down (for those that are reacting to the content without considering the context).
The former is a real and meaningful objection -- but its simply not the case that the FCC Chair hasn't taken a side.
Well, lots of conservatives (including 2/5 of the FCC) are entirely opposed to any regulation toward neutrality, whether under Title I or Title II or any other basis (and, in fact, many support Congress acting to eliminate any potential basis under which the FCC might adopt pro-neutrality regulations), so, sure, the proposed conservative opposition is not controversial at all (OTOH, its not much a basis for opposing any particular approach if you support the goal of neutrality regulation, since there is strong conservative opposition to the idea of pro-neutrality regulation, independent of the specific authority or mechanism.)
Nothing, I picked a random different agency that started with "federal".
When the other party dumps their nice, CDN-backed delivery service in favor of cheap transit from a provider long known to have ~20% packet loss at peak hours, then complains loudly about it, THAT is fishy.
Many people seem to think of the Internet as a big hole that you can throw data into and it magically gets where it's going. Once you start pushing enough traffic, it's YOUR responsibility to ensure you traffic gets where its going, which means spending money on delivery.
That's not nothing, but is Altman merely being diplomatic and trying to appeal to Wheeler's good nature, or could he be a dupe? Either could be the case.
I met a few well connected political types myself, and my impression is that many of them are very good at being likeable. As an example, James Clapper, Keith Alexander, and George W. Bush; all three are strongly controversial public figures who have been reported as being likeable people even by staunch critics who have met them.
Wheeler's long and profitable career investing in and advancing the interests (as a lobbyist) of wireless and cable companies excludes him from the list of people who I would expect to advocate for my personal interests in any case other than when his and my interests intersect, which are few if any.