[opendtv] Re: Multichannel News: Survey: Majority Want Net-Neutrality Rules
- From: Craig Birkmaier <brewmastercraig@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2017 22:50:02 -0400
On Jun 23, 2017, at 10:01 PM, Manfredi, Albert E <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Craig Birkmaier wrote:
But this is NOT TRUE. The Chairman is proposing a net neutrality
regime that does not depend on Title II Common Carrier regulation.
Where did you come up with that nonsense, Craig? Totally false. The best he
did was to suggest that the FTC worry about the "privacy" aspects, and that
the special interests "promise to be nice" to the consumers. You're dreaming.
No one can be gullible enough to call this a "neutrality regime."
This sounds like proof that you did not read the NPRM.
Privacy was not addressed in the Title II order, nor is it addressed in
FCC-17-60, the current NPRM. The FCC initiated a proceeding on privacy related
to ISPs under the expanded authority they claimed under Title II; this rule was
revoked by Congress and President Trump earlier this year.
From the background section of the NPRM:
13. In 2004, then-FCC Chairman Michael Powell announced four principles for
Internet freedom to further ensure that the Internet would remain a place for
free and open innovation with minimal regulation.36 These four “Internet
freedoms” include the freedom to access lawful content, the freedom to use
applications, the freedom to attach personal devices to the network, and the
freedom to obtain service plan information.37
This proposal was adopted by the FCC in 2005 (paragraph 15).
Although the FCC did not have legal authority they took action against Comcast
in 2008, using the adopted principles for Internet Freedom:
18. 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 the content and use
the applications of their choice.”50 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.51
19. 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.52 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.”53 In doing so, the Commission
distinguished between fixed and mobile broadband Internet access services,
reasoning that the latter “presents special considerations that suggest
differences in how and when open Internet protections should apply.”54
20. 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,55 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.56
So in 2014 the courts created a paradox, finding that the FCC was trying to
regulate Internet Access as common carriers, while the Congress in 1996 had
defined ISPs as an information service stated that the Internet should be
"unfettered by Federal or State regulation. Until 2014 the FCC had regulated
ISPs as an information service.
Bert likes to tell us that the Courts were INSTRUCTING the FCC to use Title II.
This is not correct. They simply said they could not impose no blocking and no
throttling rules under existing authority.
The rest is history...
The Comcast/Netflix case that Bert and other Title II fans claim was about
throttling was never litigated, as there was no violation. Netscape ultimately
took responsibility for their bits.
From Section III of the NPRM - ENDING PUBLIC-UTILITY REGULATION OF THE INTERNET:
42. Finally, the Title II Order deviated further from Commission precedent to
extend its authority to Internet traffic exchange or “interconnection,”111 an
area historically unregulated and beyond the Commission’s reach. We believe
Internet traffic exchange, premised on privately negotiated agreements or
case-by-case basis, is not a telecommunications service. Moreover, we find
nothing in the Act that would extend our jurisdiction as previously suggested
by the Title II Order. We further do not believe there exists any non-Title
II basis for the Commission to exercise ongoing regulatory oversight over
Internet traffic exchange. We accordingly propose to relinquish any authority
over Internet traffic exchange. We seek comment on the consequences and
implications of relinquishing the Commission’s regulatory authority in this
manner.
Yet here we are in 2017 debating the authority the FCC claimed under Title II
when it imposed the four rules that lie at the heart of the current debate:
In 2015 The Commission adopted no-blocking, no-throttling, and no-
paid-prioritization rules, as well as a general Internet conduct standard and
“enhancements” to the transparency rule.
No
The "no blocking" rule has never been a point of contention for legal content.
The NPRM tells us that all of the large ISPs committed to this a decade ago.
The "no throttling" rule is a bit more difficult to justify as an absolute.
Many ISP contracts and mobile data plans include provisions for throttling
after a subscriber reaches a data cap specified in the service contract. But
much more obvious is the fact that ISP service is sold primarily based on
theoretical speed, with variable data caps as the speed and cost increase. As
we saw with a recent post from Monty, many ISP services are unable to meet the
speed guarantee when there is network congestion. Throttling is even more
commonplace in mobile networks where congestion and service availability (i.e.
3G, 4G, LTE) impact performance - this is a ,major reason that most video
streaming services negotiate the QOS based on network availability.
Paid prioritization has always been part of the Internet, for some specific
services, and as an element of the service that an individual or business
contracts for. IF you pay for a faster service you are likely to get better
performance. I'll get to the zero rating issue in a moment.
There has been much written recently about the potential for a voluntary
agreement for ISPs to agree to no blocking and no throttling. This is
essentially what was in place prior to the Open Internet order. The FTC is
fully capable of litigating any violations of these principles. It is worth
noting that data caps are perfectly legal, and when a data cap is exceeded the
ISP can throttle the
There has also been a great deal of discussion about paid prioritization and
more recently Zero Rating, as reflected in the NPRM.
Yup. The paid prioritization issue is important.
Important to who? And who is doing the paying? Explain this better, and the
public might have a whole lot to say about that too.
Important to everyone. Why would you pay for a faster service if the guy paying
for the slowest service gets the same speed - i.e. priority?
As the NPRM clearly states, there are a number of issues with paid
prioritization and Zero Rating, starting with paragraph 85.
Zero Rating IS NOT paid prioritization - it is a form of barter, like the FOTA
TV service that relies on advertisers to pay for your entertainment fix. There
are numerous existing examples among the wireless telcos. In some cases a third
party pays for the bits to promote the use of their service; in others a
separate division of a large telco pays - e.g DirecTV pays for zero rating of
their bits for AT&T cellular customers. Bottom line zero rating is a
promotional tool, to encourage customers to use their service and related
services.
Give it up Bert. They ARE NOT common carriers. Never were.
Again, pure nonsense. The two-way telecom media people use have forever been
assumed to be common carriers and neutral.
And for the past four decades, Congress and the courts have been dismantling
Title II and common carrier regulation. The 1996 Telecommunications Act
specifically tells the FCC to treat broadband as an Information Service. The
NPRM is filled with information about this and the sudden decision at the
behest of President Obama to move to heavy handedTitle II regulation.
Your problem is that you've never been able to see beyond your fascination
with the cable TV walled garden model, so you see the Internet should be an
extension of that. As opposed to the Internet being an extension of the
global telephone system.
Pure crap.
Cable broadband may be enjoying a well deserved advantage at the moment - the
cable systems chose the right technology when they rebuilt their networks for
digital TV, and developed the DOCSIS standards that take full advantage of the
hybrid/fiber coax infrastructure. Title II regulation helps entrench this
advantage. Clearly, there are multiple technologies on the horizon that will
enable real competition with cable broadband.
The reality is that the global telephone system is rapidly becoming an
extension of the Internet.
You still have not answered a simple question I have asked several times. Why
have I been paying more than $40/mo for VOIP telephone service from Cox Cable
(regulated under Title II), including more than $17/mo in telcom taxes and
fees, but my new Magic Jack VOIP service, running over the same broadband
service cost only $40 YEAR?
Before attempting to abolish Title II neutrality rules, the FCC should be
proposing other neutrality guarantees. Craig doesn't get it, but millions out
there do.
There is a reason that the FCC has issued this NPRM Bert. They clearly ask a
ton of relevant questions and seek EVERYONE's comments. It is equally clear
that millions of comments do not attempt to answer these questions, choosing
instead to simply say that they oppose the change, whiteout even a sentence of
justification.
I have stated multiple times that IF bright line rules are needed, it is the
responsibility of Congress to LEGISLATE them, and determine who should enforce
them. If Congress does not choose to do this, then the path the FCC is taking
is appropriate.
There was scant justification for the Title II order - it was a political
decision driven by an administration intent on expanding government regulation,
with plentiful help from the Federal Courts that Obama packed after the Senate
eliminate the cloture rule on judge appointments in 2013.
I can see you're spiraling down into absurdities again, so
End of thread.
Tell you what Bert...
I won't keep tearing your arguments apart, if you will stop using this forum to
promote your love affair with Title II, and the misguided history behind
"natural monopolies. This regulatory regime has cost consumers in this country
a small fortune in taxes, fees, and salaries for the Federal and State
regulators, and these costs keep rising.
Finally someone is doing something about excessive regulation by Federal and
State bureaucracies that were told to keep their hands off of the Internet.
Regards
Craig
Other related posts:
