|
Hey, just like I predicted in the other thread, the FCC realized that it was the actual winner of the DC Circuit net neutrality decision and will be reinstituting the rules the Court struck down with slightly different justifications that the Court suggested in their opinion. Three judges struck down some rules, but they upheld net neutrality as a concept and said the FCC 100% does have the ability to implement it.
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2014 20:44
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 18:46 |
|
|
BlueBlazer posted:I've had to watch the Olympics on pirated streams because NBC won't stream them on non-Comcast internet for free like the rest of the civilized world. I'm surprised more people aren't complaining about it... Sure they will, as long as you subscribe to a cable provider they support (which is a lot more than just Comcast). The reason other countries do free online streaming is because, unlike the US, their respective government-sponsored (and therefore prepaid by taxes) broadcasting organizations bought Olympic rights.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2014 03:25
|
|
|
The possibility of legal liability for this sort of situation (or of being forced to offer every minor website the same terms as Netflix) is one reason why the carriers challenged the net neutrality rules as written. They're certainly not the good guys, but they has reasons for the challenge beyond the mustache-twirling caricature that's sometimes presented.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2014 05:51
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:Eh? They do offer the same terms to all comers as they did to Netflix, on the Comcast for Business website you can sign up to direct peer with Comcast just as Netflix is doing. The terms of this is that any company wanting to do this has to be prepared to pay Comcast proportionate fees for the traffic load they'll bring in. Except that "being able to sign up for the same service" doesn't mean paying the same amount - Netflix likely negotiated a discount for the consistent volume and commercial appeal of their service, while Comcast would probably expect MyBob.com to pay more for it And peering absolutely is a concern, even if the FCC hasn't historically targeted it - direct peering agreements pretty much definitionally require treating traffic from one source differently than traffic from another, which is enough to violate at least the letter of the anti discrimination rule, if not the current applications of it. As a risk averse outside lawyer for a large corporation (which I frequently am), I would tell my client to be concerned in that situation too. If the "commercially reasonable" language goes into the new one, that concern basically goes away.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2014 20:26
|
|
|
Right, but total payment and payment per bit are totally different metrics - Netflix will beat MyBob on one and be behind on the other. Is that unreasonable discrimination? It's enough to get taken to court on, at least. Further, the rules as written essentially forced Comcast to direct peer with MyBob upon MyBobs request, even if that makes no sense for Comcast to do. While a footnote in the rules suggested that peering arrangements wouldn't violate the antidiscrimination provision, the language of the rule and other comments suggests otherwise. I'm not saying that the providers aren't interested in making money as well, but it's not as simple as the tech press makes it out to be - there really are buried legal risks for providers in the rules. You can be okay with that - I mostly am - but they're still there.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2014 21:33
|
|
|
The fact that it hasn't happened isn't really that important given that the rules are relatively recent and were in litigation from day one (no one is going to bring an expensive lawsuit when the rules you're relying on to bring it are already being challenged). The possibility is there - at least to a lawyer whose job is to assess risks to the telcos - which is part of why they brought the cases in the first place. (Also, the reasons you're saying Amazon gets better rates are plausibly mapped to similar practices that would be barred as unreasonably discriminatory, because now Amazon is paying less to get the same services as someone else. The word "commercial" not being in there means that commercially reasonable practices can still be considered unreasonable discrimination.)
|
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2014 22:22
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:What specific rules have recently changed on direct peering? The 2010 Open Internet Order. Commonly known as "net neutrality." There's language in there that purports to exclude direct peering from enforcement, but it's not 100% clear how wide that exclusion runs. You're saying "anyone who does what Amazon does gets the same discounts", but that's the point - the language of the rules and comments suggests that actually, that's not okay - everyone needs to get the same discounts. No discrimination. Amazon can't presort to get better access to Comcast's network than someone else who doesn't presort. If litigated, would that argument win? Maybe not, but it's enough of an open question that it could trigger litigation, which is one reason (not the only reason, I would guess, but one reason) that they litigated against the rule as written.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2014 00:02
|
|
|
Then why did the FCC feel the need to provide a footnote in OIO saying that traditional peering arrangements wouldn't fall within it, but pay-for-play by edge providers would be pretty much per se barred? Are you saying they added those even though they weren't intending to regulate edge provider contracts? The Open Internet Order absolutely had the power to reach peering arrangements, as does the FCC in general. Edit: "A commercial arrangement between a broadband provider and a third party to directly or indirectly favor some traffic over other traffic in the broadband Internet access service connection to a subscriber ... would raise significant cause for concern. ... It is unlikely that pay for priority would satisfy the "no unreasonable discrimination" standard." That's the FCC's own words on the matter. Kalman fucked around with this message at 01:17 on Feb 27, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2014 01:10
|
|
|
"We use 'edge provider' to refer to content, application, service, and device providers because they generally operate at the edge rather than the core of the network." So, yeah, you're wrong on all of that, but hey, I've read the order, so I think I'll go ahead and drop it. (unless you aren't referring to a Netflix-like arrangement by 'direct peering'.)
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2014 01:31
|
|
|
Okay, so we're using the same terms the same way. What I am telling you is that the FCC stated that the Netflix deal is at least suspect if not per se barred under their antidiscrimination rule.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2014 01:47
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:They said it might be suspect, but they have never called Microsoft's, Facebook's, or Google's into question yet, nor any of the other prior existing ones. I too love relying on prosecutorial discretion when tens or hundreds of millions of dollars are at stake. Which has been my entire point - it's not that these arrangements would for sure have been challenged, or even that they'd have lost. It's that they didn't want to have the risk hanging over their heads. Hence, challenging the regulations. It wasn't some JRPG villain sitting in a room, twirling their mustache and saying "Now I can charge the plebes for every site they want to access!", it was a bunch of boring rear end lawyers like me in a room saying "well, if they decided to change their minds, you'd be at risk of losing, so we maybe ought to challenge the regulations."
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2014 02:06
|
|
|
mezoth posted:So based on this interpretation of the ruling, an "edge provider" could never actually sell direct access to their network to anybody that actually sent content to the other customers on that network? Because that is what you are saying, and edge providers include anybody that actually sells internet access to non-ISPs (which is every player that I know of in the business). The ISP community isn't the FCC and wouldn't be enforcing it, and if they think the FCC thought pay for priority couldn't include direct access, they are most certainly wrong. The FCCs interpretation comes uncomfortably close to the "you can't sell direct access" rule you mocked. And yes, real lawyers who deal with telco regulation think that the OIO was absolutely capable of being interpreted as "you can't sell direct access." For example, three judges on the DC Circuit thought that. DC Circuit Decision posted:If the Commission will likely bar broadband providers from charging edge providers for using their service, this forcing them to sell this service to all who ask at a price of $0 ... The example they use? Verizon charging Netflix for high priority access to Verizon's network. It doesn't matter to the court if that data is peered through Level 3 or sent directly via Netflix - in their eyes, if Verizon charged Netflix, it violates the OIO.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2014 13:22
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:We'll have to we what the new rules actually are. Netflix and all can already negotiate directly, and could even under any proposed net neutrality. From what's leaked so far, it's pretty much what I predicted in the SCOTUS thread - they took the open invitation issued for "commercially reasonable" language and ran with it.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2014 00:07
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Isn't the main issue that companies could start charging extra to use certain sites now! That's exactly what the FCC is doing, though... They're fixing the current ones in the way the court told them to. They have to do it by issuing a new NPRM as a procedural issue, but fundamentally everything made public so far suggests they're taking the approach they were told to take.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2014 19:53
|
|
|
The NPRM may be voted on in May, but if so, it would just be a vote on whether to propose that as the rule - the FCC can't make a rule without opening it to public comment for a reasonable period, which is usually interpreted to mean at least 60 days. (Everything else in the prior post is probably wrong too.) Using preferential treatment of one provider to artificially slow down others would effectively violate the anti-blocking rules, so it'll be a no go anyway, even if it's commercially reasonable to provide higher speeds to their traffic under the anti-discrimination rule. You can pay for positive treatment, but in doing so, you can't reduce others below where they would otherwise have been without running afoul of the rewritten rules (read the Circuit's decision again, since the FCC seems to have adopted exactly what the court told them to.) Basically, a bunch of people who freaked out (incorrectly) about the court decision are now freaking out over a rule they haven't seen which likely doesn't say what they think it says.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2014 19:33
|
|
|
Read the DC Circuit decision - they basically said that the existing anti blocking rule was fine in substance but the FCC hadn't properly justified it until they were already in court. So, it's technically been struck down but there's basically zero chance the FCC won't reinstate it with the NPRM. People really misunderstood the DC Circuit decision. They think Verizon won. It was a Pyrrhic victory at best. Edit: basics of administrative rule making procedures 101. 1) Agency issues an NPRM. NPRM must contain the text or the substance of the proposed rule. If they don't contain enough substance for people to effectively comment on it, final rule can be struck down. 2) Comment period. Public comments. 3) Review period. Agency reviews comments. Agency decides what the final rule should look like (or puts out a new NPRM for further comment.) 4) Final Rule issues. Contains the rule as well as responses to the comments received. At the May meeting, the FCC will meet to discuss issuing an open Internet NPRM. That means the final text for even the proposed rule won't be set until then, and any approved text is a long way away. Kalman fucked around with this message at 22:52 on Apr 25, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2014 22:45
|
|
|
They'll all move on to jobs in those industries because that's literally the thing they are best qualified for. The revolving door isn't just about rewarding people - Wheeler isn't really qualified to work outside of the telecom/regulatory field. So his options are basically work for a telco, work for a telco industry association, or work for a public interest group. (The latter doesn't pay nearly as well, which is why it's a far less common approach.). Or I guess go be a CEO but that kind of raises the same revolving door concerns. The door revolves because the people you deal with also happen to be the people you're best qualified to work for when politics change and you have to leave government. If you want to know how the FCC didn't justify the rule, read the DC Circuit opinion which explains exactly how they failed to justify the rule. And Ajit Pai couldn't have helped the FCC be more prepared because the rule was enacted before he became a Commissioner (2012). The failures in justification occurred in 2010, when the rule was enacted, and 2011, when the rule was challenged and briefing began. The FCC properly justified anti-blocking in front of the DC Circuit, but you generally can't raise new arguments on appeal - which is exactly what the DC Circuit told them.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2014 02:31
|
|
|
Title II means "we treat you like you were a copper telephone carrier and you have to obey all those rules." That's good in some ways (FCC can impose stronger net neutrality), and bad in others (significantly increased requirements re expansion planning and similar slowdowns.) (As I said in another thread, careful what you wish for - one of those rules is CALEA compliance, which would force net companies to provide all necessary assistance to the FBI to tap your communications. Yeah, they may or may not already do that, but at least there's no legal obligation to make it as easy as possible.)
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2014 05:54
|
|
|
Aeka 2.0 posted:They knew, and were given federal money for massive upgrades. They pocketed it instead. No, this is not actually going to be legal under the new rules. It'll be legal if they don't adopt the new rules though!
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2014 06:15
|
|
|
Just out of curiosity - people who call Tom Wheeler a former cable lobbyist rarely know when it was. Do you know when he lobbied on behalf of the cable industry?
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2014 13:17
|
|
|
So he was a cable lobbyist 20 years ago. Does anyone think that the cable industry might have changed a bit since then and his "lobbied for the cable industry" past might not actually be as relevant as his being a tech VC for the past ten years, or is it just me?
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2014 13:31
|
|
|
computer parts posted:30 years ago. gently caress me I cannot do math anymore.
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2014 13:43
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:CTIA is also a lobbying gimmick. Most CTIA-The Wireless Association members weren't subject to net neutrality anyway because the Open Internet Order didn't apply in the same way to wireless companies as it did to wireline. Also, after CTIA ended for him in 2004 he worked as a tech VC. Do you think his most recent experience of small companies that benefit from net neutrality might inform his views at all, or is it only his lobbying history that could possibly affect things? As to the deregulation point - cable in the 70s and 80s was a completely different regulatory structure given that the 1984 cable act didn't exist yet. Prior to the 1984 act, one big lobbying priority for cable operators was forcing telcos to give them access to their telephone poles so they could lay cable. So, actually, Wheeler was lobbying for net neutrality back then, too.
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2014 01:01
|
|
|
Lawyers always personally believe everything they argue. I mean, defense lawyers believe their clients are great people, right? (Also, Willkie Farr is one of the better communications law groups out there - there's a reason Willkie attorney's transit back and forth from the FCC, they're exactly the people you'd want arguing on behalf of net neutrality - or against it.)
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2014 22:01
|
|
|
Legislators are underpaid for their qualifications. I make more than anyone in Congress and I am considered a relatively junior lawyer.
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2014 00:28
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:Considering the landscape of public finance, and median wages in America, "only making $150,000" is not a good hand-wavey excuse for the kind of corruption you are implicitly accepting. That wasn't my point. My point was that "congressmen make 10x as much when they leave office!" is one of those facts that sounds bad until you realize that if they had never been in office many of them would still be making that kind of money. Is it corruption when an IRS lawyer goes to a firm to practice tax law and gets their pay tripled? quote:You might also want to self-examine a bit regarding your views on the "impartiality of lawyers" (studies show that personal political affiliation is a strong predictor of Judicial practice ... unless this has changed substantially since I lost access to journals * ), and the (underinformed, and/or self-defensive) idea that people do not have their behavior changed by large piles of money. The only people who are surprised by this are idiots who think that legal issues have a single correct outcome. They don't, which is why judges appointed by Democrats (who generally subscribe to more liberal judicial philosophies) tend to vote that way, while judges appointed by Republicans (conservative legal philosophies, oddly enough) vote that way. Is that because they aren't impartial, or because they believe that the law should be interpreted differently? (It's the latter, fyi.). Do people vote the same way as their donors want because they got bought or because people donate money to those with an existing inclination to vote that way? (More the latter than people think.) Lobbying isn't about money, or revolving doors. It's about personal relationships. If I, as a Senator, never vote the way you want me to, I will still find someone who liked the way I voted who will hire me for the relationships I have because that's how I can be effective as a lobbyist. Same goes for staff. All of that is totally separate from the issue of whether lawyers adopt their clients's views. (They don't, though sometimes they are inclined to take clients whose views match their own. I disagree with a number of my clients views as to what's the best direction for law. Doesn't matter, I represent them, not myself.) End of the day Wheeler is still going to implement stronger net neutrality than if he tried to do common carrier because it will actually go through quickly and not be struck down, whereas common carrier would take a decade before they could even start defending against the lawsuits. But yeah, it's because he lobbied for the cable and wireless industries once upon a time, not because it's the right way to implement net neutrality given the court decisions.
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2014 02:21
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:Right, but the question is, "will it?" It has been illegal until very recently for the ISPs to discriminate over the last mile and they recently won a court case, This is incorrect. From roughly 1996 to 2005 (brand x), it was believed legal. 2005-2008 (wireline policy order), it was explicitly legal for cable companies and believed legal for DSL. From 2008-2010, there were unenforceable principles that suggested the FCC didn't like the idea of discrimination but didn't create a general way to do anything about it. In 2010, Comcast successfully challenged the principles from the 2008 order. Then the FCC issued the open Internet order. That was basically immediately challenged by Verizon (and others) and effectively treated as a dead letter while being challenged. At no point in the past 20 years has there been anything resembling network discrimination being illegal in an enforceable way.
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2014 19:26
|
|
|
Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:Is there an overview of what would happen if ISPs were classified as Title II providers? Nothing useful (because as it turns out Title II providers are allowed to discriminate in a number of ways) and a lot of things harmful (primarily to do with regulation of rates and physical plant in a fashion that makes no sense for ISPs because it's designed for telcos.). That's the overview. Edit: AT&T's filing from today isn't a bad summary, if obviously biased. You can start at page 4, everything before that is "business people would hate it." Kalman fucked around with this message at 02:20 on May 13, 2014 |
|
#
¿
May 13, 2014 02:01
|
|
|
The vote to open a rule making happened, not the vote on a final rule.
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2014 19:33
|
|
|
If he redefined under Title II there won't be any net neutrality in force for a decade, at which point they'd probably lose in court. ( also, common carriers can still discriminate, they just have to do so in a reasonable fashion, so I hope you like paying a tariff for IP video because it consumes a disproportionate amount of their interconnect and they have to make sure there's room for email.) The 706 option gets net neutrality rules back in a short time frame in an essentially court-approved fashion.
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2014 22:20
|
|
|
lampey posted:Can you explain what option 706 is? Option 706 is justifying the "commercially unreasonable" anti-discrimination rule under section 706 of the Telecommunications Act.
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2014 00:25
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:They could make it a restricted market wherein there was a legally mandated profit cap and the remaining funds must be used for infrastructure and ratio-mandated wages. No, actually, the FCC couldn't. They have absolutely zero authority for those things.
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2014 00:46
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:I am very aware of who can do what. Just as I am aware that you have no ability to parse language like a normal person. Must be all that tv. What's extra-fun is that what you want isn't really achievable via legislation, either, and if you think there's support for a constitutional amendment for it, well, you'd be proving fishmech's point.
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2014 06:34
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:If they went on a nationalization warpath, they could certainly construct a fixed-profit model that included mandates for the use of remaining income. Well, yes, they could do that, but they'd run into the Takings Clause, meaning they would quite possibly have to pay the carriers for all the things they mandated. Which kind of ruins the whole point of nationalization, doesn't it? And, again, you're an insane person if you think there's a single chance of the US nationalizing existing private enterprises long-term; the only nationalization that's been done has been with an eye to spin it back to private control sooner than later. I mean, the US government is literally more likely to buy every single inhabitant of the US a laptop than they are to nationalize telcos.
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2014 06:49
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:You and your buddy are so cute. So why are you talking about something that is unconstitutional (unless we pay the carriers just as much as they make already, except now they get it for doing nothing) and has a near-zero chance of passing?
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2014 06:57
|
|
|
karthun posted:Changing the subject back to things that are possible. Would title 2 classification require that sender party pays system, similar to telephone calls, be implemented? Arguably yes, though possibly no, since the sender pays system is an LEC requirement, not a general telecommunications service requirement. Of course, the LEC definition is pretty broad and probably broad enough to cover telcos, especially telcos that offer VOIP services. Even if it did, the FCC would have the authority to forebear applying the requirement if they chose to - of course, the default would still be that the common carrier sender pays system applies if it's foreborn. FRINGE posted:Why are you so desperate to create distracting bullshit fights? Says the person advocating for nationalization of the telcos. (Psst. Look into the WW1 railway nationalization and how they were promised their existing profits for the duration of nationalization. That's the closest comparable example to what you propose. Takings for non-physical assets aren't at all ill-defined in the way you suggest, especially when what's being taken is quite literally their economic use of their profits, one of the per se examples of a regulatory taking for which recompense is required. And the fair market value of a dollar of profit is a dollar. So...)
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2014 07:44
|
|
|
Kaal posted:You can't seriously believe that the Fifth Amendment would stand in the way of a telco nationalization effort. That's ridiculous. There's like a hundred ways around that issue other than defining "Just Compensation for Private Property" as exorbitantly as possible. Most notably, the government could simply cancel all private licenses to the public airways, which it never relinquished its rights to in the first place. Interpreting the Fifth Amendment as being some constitutional pillar of corporate America is a conservative trope and intellectually lazy. Given that the telcos paid for their spectrum licenses in the first place in many cases, canceling the licenses absolutely would present a takings issue (absent, of course, compensation.) And for wired broadband, canceling spectrum licenses would be irrelevant. Nationalization of an industry absolutely presents a Fifth Amendment issue. That's not a conservative trope - it's part of the core of the Fifth Amendment takings prohibition. It's not exorbitant to say that completely removing any economic use for profit above some margin is a taking - there's solid case law that economic interests can be taken (check out 449 US 155), so the proposed "force the telcos into being unable to take profits from their investment" (which is a core case of violating DIBE, which is a key indicator for regulatory takings issues) is targeting a recognized interest in a way that has indicators of takings. Is it guaranteed? No, but I'd bet on the telcos winning that case long before I'd bet on them losing, and it wouldn't be a 5-4 win.
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2014 09:34
|
|
|
Kaal posted:ITT We learn that the FCC can't make businesses apply for broadcast licenses or regulate anything because the internet is magic. The FCC cannot make wireline providers apply for broadcast licenses.
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2014 18:03
|
|
|
Kaal posted:It's debateable whether the Fifth Amendment should even apply to corporate entities - the entire amendment is talking about the rights and protections of an individual who is accused of a crime. It was debateable. But it is absolutely settled law that the takings clause applies to corporate entities. You are misrepresenting or misunderstanding the state of Takings Clause law in the interest of trying to twist it to fit what you want.
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2014 18:53
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 18:46 |
|
|
FRINGE posted:Sure. And that physical good(s) has a value. The takings clause addresses that value. (It would be relatively little.) It does not address "the potential profits on services and future services in perpetuity as an eternal free handout" that Kalman is inventing. The value of the required right of way and an actual physical connection to every home in a metropolitan area is "relatively little?" So why exactly is it so hard to start a competitor up? (It isn't franchise agreements. Digging up everything is expensive and hard.) It's not an eternal free handout. You're only obligated to recompense the profits for so long as you control the use of the profits but don't operate the company yourself. You only get a full payout of FMV if they actually take your property; in your hypothetical, where the profits are taken by regulation but the company still operates itself, the taken property is the profits. So long as the regulation persists, then the appropriate FMV would be lost profit, or alternately, the diminution in value due to a profit cap (which, uh, kinda severe). To be very, very clear: I cited SCOTUS precedent saying non-physical assets are within the scope of the Takings Clause. Put up countervailing law or shut the gently caress up.
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2014 21:17
|
|
