Firefox/Mozilla claims to be pro Net Neutrality, yet they pull this stunt running a promotion for a Comcast owned TV show, one of the biggest anti-NN lobbyists.
Sorry, I don't remember this magical time pre-2005 where there were line-sharing requirements on cable networks and I could get more than one cable provider over the same line.
>which operated over phone lines... which meant they were covered by Title II.
Do you have a source on this??
I've seen this claim made a few times in this thread and have been unable to find anything to back it up. I was under the impression that the Telecommunications Act of 1996 dictated that all ISP's were information services and exempted them from common-carrier and the like.
The phone services themselves were of course under title II but I've not found anything that indicates the ISP's that created a network on top of the phone network were.
In 1996, "ISP" usually meant a third-party information service that used the phone company's lines. In the mid-2000s, the FCC reclassified DSL and cable lines as information services. That probably wasn't what Congress intended in 1996, but the Supreme Court ruled that the law was ambiguous.[1] That all but eliminated competition, so now "ISP" usually means a company that operates its own last-mile infrastructure, and talking about how things used to be gets confusing.
If we could actually get back to that model, having last-mile networking be a regulated title 2 neutral telecommunications entity (even municipal fiber, just maybe) and "ISP" be whatever service we connected to reach the wider internet, that'd be amazing.
ISPs could go back to being "information services", zero-rate, throttle, fast-lane, and generally do whatever they want, new ISPs could easily compete by popping up and connecting to the neutral backbone, and customers would have the ability to easily switch providers (just not the backbone).
IIUC, this is pretty much how the electrical utilities in Texas work, one local monopoly "distribution company" and a plethora of generating companies that consumers are free to choose from.
I readily acknowledge I'm attacking your metaphor and not your argument here, but I'm curious about your perspective because I don't understand it.
You really think that if the government decided to stop regulating car safety tomorrow that car manufactures would STOP putting seatbelts and safety features in cars?
You realize that seatbelts were invented by the industry right? You know all those cool new driver assist saftey features that are poping up in cars? Those don't exist because they were regulated into existence. They are there because the market wants them people want them and will pay money for them so the industry is responding to it.
Regulations are for addressing tragedies of the commons, externalities, and market failures. Your smoking metaphor is a GOOD example because there are externalities that can't be addressed by the market. But this belief that companies whole purpose isn't to give it's customers what they want (yes so they can make a profit) is bonkers to me.
Now if you want to talk about how a lot of ISP's have a quasi-monopoly, then hell yes let's have that discussion. I'm right there with you, and those companies have done a lot to try and prevent creative solutions to the last mile problem(municipal fiber). Those are the sorts of things the FCC should be working to straiten out.
> Those are the sorts of things the FCC should be working to straiten out.
I'm in full agreement with you. I don't think anybody wants these companies to maintain their regional monopolies. From my point of view, removing NN is like gifting the ISPs the chance to further reward themselves for maintaining their monopoly. Make a few extra bucks while the rest of us work very, very hard to try and get rid of their monopolies. That doesn't make sense to me. I'd rather put NN into place now, force them to do the right thing in terms of traffic, AND work to dismantle this awful monopoly that they have.
Let's not pretend that forcing NN on them is like giving up on competition, because it's not. Even with them handling traffic in the most neutral way possible, we still have: shitty infrastructure, high prices, data caps, hidden fees, awful speeds, shitty customer service, predatory advertising, over-billing, etc. It's not like NN is gonna stay and suddenly everyone is okay with only having one viable ISP as an option.
>removing NN is like gifting the ISPs the chance to further reward themselves for maintaining their monopoly
This is one of those things that seems to stick in the craw of some, as if when you "stick it to the man" you'll benefit some how. Notice how you used the word "force?" That is authoritarianism by definition. I think all technical people can agree that the goal is for our ISPs to behave in a way that conforms with the principles of net neutrality. Where we differ is how to reach that end. I am one that does not believe the end justifies the means, and that patience is a virtue.
Yes, the government forces companies to do things. How awful. Here are some of the many awful things the government forces companies to do:
- ADA
- Non-discrimination
- Antitrust
- Health regulations
How authoritarian! I'm glad that the spooky A-word is scaring you into letting ISPs continue their money-grubbing practices. I'm done with that business. I hope NN sticks around and their lobbying efforts go down the drain (AKA into politician's pockets apparently).
If that is the extent of your understanding of authoritarianism vs. liberty, that's your prerogative. I believe there is more nuance involved than your comment indicates. If your goal is to create more trump voters, you are off to a good start.
But he's making the same argument that you say he was making on his podcast.
Regulation has a cost.
The article literally states:
"To believe that Chairman Pai is right is not to be against net neutrality; rather, it is to believe that the FCC’s 2015 approach was mistaken."
The FCC doesn't have the authority to regulate ISP's as the law is written. To get around this in 2015 they "reclassified" ISP's from information services to telecommunications services. This allowed them expansive authority over ISP's. It also applies a bunch of archaic rules that were meant for ma-bell and in no way apply to modern internet services.
If network neutrality is important to you then call your congressmen and tell them to pass a law that actually codifies it.
If you think your ISP is being a bad actor, then send a report to the FTC. You know the agency that's tasked with preventing and punishing anti-competitive behavior....
>To get around this in 2015 they "reclassified" ISP's from information services to telecommunications services.
telecommunication: Any transmission, emission or reception of signs, signals,
writings, images and sounds or intelligence of any nature by wire, radio, optical or other
electromagnetic systems (CS). [1]
It sure sounds like ISP's should in fact be classified as telecommunications services to me.
The FCC is exempting the ISPs from those archaic rules. Who is going to challenge the FCC on that?
So this guy is arguing that NN is bad under Title II so we should pass a different law to regulate it? So new regulations without a long history of case law? And that’s less burdensome?
Yes exactly. Then we have a properly written law to address the issue, not shoehorn in the issue into an old unrelated law. And that is much less burdensome.
The FCC is right now exempting the ISPs, but that could change under a new administration, and that should be greatly feared.
Want to know how these things are done normally when actual legislative reform is contemplated?
First you draft a bill. Then you have a bunch of people debate the bill. Then you have the bill have a section which describes how it comes into force, listing deadlines, target dates for various provisions, etc. That way you can phase the Title II -> Legislation transfer smoothly.
That isn't what's happening here. There is no discussion about amending legislation, nor has the FCC discussed implementing non-Title II forms of Open Internet Style regulation.
Then pass the law. Title II is the only solution until then per the courts. If the ISPs are exempt from the archaic rules, then there’s literally nothing but imaginary future harm. As where we’ve seen real abuses by ISPs. Pai is not acting in the public interest.
