https://www.fcc.gov/document/restoring-internet-freedom-notice-proposed-rulemaking
Here is where this FCC misunderstands what's at stake, right up front in
Section II:
"Starting in 1966, the Commission initiated the Computer Inquiries, which
created a dichotomy between basic and enhanced services. Basic services
offered 'pure transmission capability over a communications path that is
virtually transparent in terms of its interaction with customer supplied
information' and were 'regulated under Title II of the [Communications] Act.'"
Exactly. And that should also apply to the broadband ISP serviced people have
come to expect.
"Enhanced services were 'any offering over the telecommunications network which
is more than a basic transmission service. In an enhanced service, for
example, computer processing applications are used to act on the content, code,
protocol, and other aspects of the subscriber's information.'"
And this applies to sites which operate on the Internet, not to the Internet
itself. You might extend this also to non-neutral ISP services such as the
original AOL, which, thanks only to the large amount of competition for ISP
services during the dialup era (over stricly neutral telephone lines), the
people **soundly rejected**.
"Unlike basic services, the Commission found that 'enhanced services should not
be regulated under the Act.'"
So, FCC, get your terminology straight. Let's not confuse matters with vague
rhetoric. People do NOT WANT any sort of "enhancement" from their ISP, for
content they are seeking on the Internet. They want to have access to any
content, unaltered. The web sites may "enhance" to their hearts' content,
because that is how they compete against one another, and users will respond
accordingly. But the broadband service must remain neutral. Do you think, FCC,
that people would want their telephone service to "enhance" their telephone
conversations? Of course not. Same applies here. Just ask them, for heaven's
sake. They have made this extremely clear to you, by the millions.
"The Modification of Final Judgment (MFJ) of 1982 distinguished between
'telecommunications services,' which Bell Operating Companies could offer when
'actually regulated by tariff,' and 'information services,' including 'data
processing and other computer-related services' and 'electronic publishing
services,' which Bell Operating Companies were prohibited from offering
entirely."
And the same should apply here, **on the Internet broadband service** offered
by these companies! This does not preclude the MVPD/ISPs from having their own
cable TV service, independenty of their broadband service. Or even hosting
their own web sites, competing on an equal footing with other web sites, on the
neutral Internet.
And it gets worse:
"They also found that the 'Internet and other interactive computer services
have flourished, to the benefit of all Americans, with a minimum of government
regulation and declared it the policy of the United States to 'promote the
continued development of the Internet and other interactive computer services
and other interactive media' and 'to preserve the vibrant and competitive free
market that presently exists for the Internet and other interactive computer
services, unfettered by Federal or State regulation.'"
And this part is frustratingly disingenuous. Either this FCC doesn't understand
how the Internet works, or they are trying to deliberately confuse the woefully
clueless. Back in 1996, during the dialup era, the "information services" they
are talking about are WEB SITES, or perhaps FTP sites, or even something like
AOL or Compuserve. They all competed over what, FCC? How were people able to
access all these different sites?
What's at stake now is the service dialup lines provided in 1996. Not what the
web sites provided. And guess what? When the content being carried over the
Internet started eating into the profits of the broadband MVPD/ISPs, that's
when we started to see funny business happening.
"In the 2002 Cable Modem Order, the Commission classified broadband Internet
access service over cable systems as an 'interstate information service.' The
Commission did so based on the 'functions that cable modem service makes
available to its end users,' on the fact that the 'telecommunications component
is not, however, separable from the data-processing capabilities of the
service,' and is an information service 'regardless of whether subscribers use
all of the functions provided as part of the service, such as e-mail or
web-hosting, and regardless of whether every cable modem service provider
offers each function that could be included in the service.' The Commission was
also guided by its belief that 'broadband services should exist in a minimal
regulatory environment that promotes investment and innovation in a competitive
market,' and the knowledge that regulatory uncertainty 'may discourage
investment and innovation.'"
And this misunderstanding has to be corrected now, because things have changed
from the very early broadband era. In fact, what the FCC *should* have done, in
2002, is acknowledge that "cable modems" for broadband service provided
precisely the same functions as Title II telephone lines did, with dialup
access, plus the packet routing. That "plus the packet routing" aspect was the
job of the very highly competitive ISPs of the dialup era. And by the way, the
ISPs which were successful were the neutral ones. Not AOL.
It was that double standard, created by the FCC then, that led to telcos
dragging their heels on deploying DSL. Perhaps at the time the effect on
content per se wasn't yet obvious, but it became obvious at a critical time.
So, now we know. And to prove this point:
"'In the 2008 Comcast-BitTorrent Order, the Commission sought to directly
enforce federal Internet policy consistent with the Internet Policy Statement,
finding Comcast's actions "contravene[d] . . . federal policy' by
'significantly imped[ing] consumers' ability to access thecontent and use the
applications of their choice.' In 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
D.C. Circuit rejected the Commission's action, holding that the Commission had
not justified its action as a valid exercise of ancillary authority."
Ironically, the FCC had it right back then. Only problem being, broadband
service had been classified wrongly, so they had no authority.
"In response, the Commission adopted the 2010 Open Internet Order, where once
again the Commission specifically rejected more heavy-handed regulation of
broadband Internet access service. Instead, the Open Internet Order relied on,
among other things, newly-claimed regulatory authority under section 706 of the
Telecommunications Act to establish no-blocking and
no-unreasonable-discrimination rules as well as a requirement that broadband
Internet access service providers 'publicly disclose accurate information
regarding the network management practices, performance, and commercial terms
of its broadband Internet access services.'"
A half-measure, by Tom Wheeler, that also proved inadequate. As we now know.
"In 2014, the D.C. Circuit vacated the no-blocking and
no-unreasonable-discrimination rules adopted in the Open Internet Order,
finding that the rules impermissibly regulated broadband Internet access
service providers as common carriers, in conflict with the Commission's prior
determination that broadband Internet access service was not a
telecommunications service and that mobile broadband Internet access service
was not a commercial mobile service. The D.C. Circuit nonetheless upheld the
transparency rule, claimed the Commission had authority to regulate broadband
Internet access service providers under section 706 of the Telecommunications
Act, and suggested that no-blocking and no-unreasonable-discrimination rules
might be permissible if Internet service providers could engage in
individualized bargaining."
Bla bla bla, FCC. We all know what the courts said back then. It wasn't so long
ago. The courts urged the FCC to first reclassify broadband service, and then
we'll discuss this further. And they upheld the reclassificaton and its
neutrality mandate. Now, the extremist yahoos like to pretend it was "President
Obama" that mandated reclassificaton. Horrors. If Obama even suggested such a
thing, it must mean communism.
This is the long and the short of it. Misleading rhetoric from ideological
yahoos, sorry to say, deliberately misrepresenting what was going on. But the
people have seen through this. There is no reason to pretend that what happened
wrt net neutrality already, say the BitTorrent or Netflix incidents, no longer
matters to people. There's absolutely NOTHING to show that people think their
"Internet freedoms" have been abridged, by the neutrality mandate. Quite the
opposite. This is pure demagoguery.
Bert
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at
FreeLists.org
- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
unsubscribe in the subject line.