Does The FCC Really Not Get It About The Internet?

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
The people making decisions at the FCC have their heads so far up their ass, I don't think they can get internet in there. I think that's probably why they don't "get it." ;)

The key to an open Internet is nondiscrimination and in particular, a prohibition on discrimination or prioritization based on the identity of the user (sender/receiver) or use (application/content). I explain why at length in my book, Infrastructure: The Social Value of Shared Resources (2012). Unfortunately, the rules now being considered by the FCC don’t come close to implementing this simple and important benchmark.
 
Last edited:
Never, ever trust the government to do things properly. They always do it poorly. The management is so preoccupied with their own lust for a little bit of power, they don't make sure anything is done right, and the low level people are just in it for a job where they can do as little as possible without getting fired. Nothing is ever done properly when the government is involved.
 
What I think should be done as a protest by websites and services is to throttle the IP addresses associated with the FCC down to the old 28.8 baud speeds. Give them a taste of their own medicine
 
Never, ever trust the government to do things properly. They always do it poorly. The management is so preoccupied with their own lust for a little bit of power, they don't make sure anything is done right, and the low level people are just in it for a job where they can do as little as possible without getting fired. Nothing is ever done properly when the government is involved.


huh?, there is a difference, we got corrupt government.. right now lots of it.
 
They certainly get it.

The root of the problem is that that all regulatory agencies recruit from the industry they regulate, creating inherent bias towards industry, not towards the people. Exacerbating this is the fact that once their stint in government is over, people still need to find work, so they are very reticent to do ANYTHING to piss off the industry they regulate.

The FCC is no different in this regard, but it applies to all regulatory agencies.

The current chair of the FCC is Tom Wheeler, was formerly a venture capitalist and lobbyist for the cable and wireless industry, with positions including President of the National Cable & Telecommunications Association (NCTA) and CEO of the Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association (CTIA).

Having him head the FCC and protect consumers against the telecom industry is the biggest farce ever. It's like intentionally hiring the head of ISIS to be the presidents bodyguard.

The fact that he was appointed by Obama goes a long way to underscore how Obama is nowhere near the "socialist" the extreme right paints him to be. His policies and appointments more resemble those of a moderate republican, with corporate leanings.

The appointment of Tom Wheeler to head the FCC can't have been anything but a deliberate intent to make the FCC ineffective. No one who reaches the presidency (no, not even Bush) is that naive.
 
Of course they get it. The head of the FCC is a former CEO of Comcast. They're going to change the rules to make the most profit. Where's the surprise?
 
huh?, there is a difference, we got corrupt government.. right now lots of it.

When has the government not been corrupt? I think the last people we had in charge who really were not in it for power was around 1800 or so.
 
Never, ever trust the government to do things properly. They always do it poorly. The management is so preoccupied with their own lust for a little bit of power, they don't make sure anything is done right, and the low level people are just in it for a job where they can do as little as possible without getting fired. Nothing is ever done properly when the government is involved.

The funny part is that the FCC is compromised of political appointees, and the post is almost completely ceremonial. The FCC cannot legislate--pass laws, enforce regulations, etc. That's the job of the legislative and executive branches, with the judicial branch trying to keep them "honest" (Constitutional.) Anytime we read about a "position" being taken by the FCC you can bet the coverage is politically inspired. No matter what "the FCC" says about a particular issue, if Congress or the Courts say "No" that's the end of it...;)
 
Never, ever trust the government to do things properly. They always do it poorly. The management is so preoccupied with their own lust for a little bit of power, they don't make sure anything is done right, and the low level people are just in it for a job where they can do as little as possible without getting fired. Nothing is ever done properly when the government is involved.

It's not a question of government per se, it's a question of corruption, and we have lots of it. Because of this we cannot solve problems in a similar fashion to many other 1st world nations, anything we do will take twice as long, cost twice as much, and work half as well if lucky.

Fix corruption then a "democratic" government will work for YOU (the people). Leave it as is and the highest bidder gets his way.
 
huh?, there is a difference, we got corrupt government.. right now lots of it.

Government is inherently corrupt. Regardless of how many rules ones puts into place on conflict of interest people are inclined to help those closest to them more than others.
 
You're asking if a commission run by a bunch of former corporate lobbyists and shills doesn't get it about regulating the internet for their corporate masters?

Really?

Really?
 
It's not a question of government per se, it's a question of corruption, and we have lots of it. Because of this we cannot solve problems in a similar fashion to many other 1st world nations, anything we do will take twice as long, cost twice as much, and work half as well if lucky.

Fix corruption then a "democratic" government will work for YOU (the people). Leave it as is and the highest bidder gets his way.

I would actually argue the US has far less direct corruption than many other Western nations. We have issues of revolving doors more so than the textbook version of corruption in the sense of straight up bribes. Sure we have those but for the most part it is the same people working both sides of the fence because they have actually worked on both sides of the fence.
 
I think the FCC is well aware of how the internet works, the thing is how big corporate ISP giants jingle their pocket books
 
yes they get it...
at least they get it to the point that if they put in pro-competitive rules, pro-consumer rules and anti-corporate profitability rules that they will not get the cushy consulting gig later.

they very well get it.
 
I would argue that a complete ban on anyone who has worked in industry, and a complete ban to ever work in industry again should be required for anyone who wants to work for any regulatory agency.

The argument against this has been that you limit the competence of those who get into regulatory work, but there are plenty of competent people - say - in academia who would be up for the task.

And even so, I would rather have less competent people working FOR me, than highly competent people working AGAINST me.
 
I'm not sure if it's the absolute latest version, but here are the FCC's proposed net neutrality rules. Keep reading until you find something you disagree with.
 
When has the government not been corrupt? I think the last people we had in charge who really were not in it for power was around 1800 or so.

Don't kid yourself. A few hints were that the revolutionary war was started by the premier businessmen at the time; they wanted the profits of expansion for themselves, rather than the english crown. Every government is at least a little corrupt, just because of the lying that every candidate does to get elected. I don't for a minute believe that any politician was ever an entirely honest man. Yes, some did great things, but about 99.999% of them made money on the process while doing it, setting up long term contracts that would benefit themselves, or by gaining favors to be cashed in on after they left office.
 
Never, ever trust the government to do things properly. They always do it poorly. The management is so preoccupied with their own lust for a little bit of power, they don't make sure anything is done right, and the low level people are just in it for a job where they can do as little as possible without getting fired. Nothing is ever done properly when the government is involved.

HEY! you just publicly listed the Australian Government's swearing in policy! We resemble that remark! *cries*
 
At the end of the proposed legislation is this "dissenting statement" by commissioner michael o'reilly. At first glance it seems supportive to being neutral, but then he gets into a whole bit about needing prioritization, that ISP having been innovating to the benefit of the consumer for years and people saying otherwise have no evidence (dismissing evidence outside the US due to it being a different market).

So personally I'm reading this as us still being screwed with the next rewrite (and subsequent ones) as they're just BS'ing between one another with the same agenda.

DISSENTING STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER MICHAEL O’RIELLY
Re:
Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet, GN Docket No. 14-28.


It should come as no surprise that I cannot support today’s Notice. As I’ve said before, the
premise for imposing net neutrality rules is fundamentally flawed and rests on a faulty foundation of
make-believe statutory authority. I have serious concerns that this ill-advised item will create damaging
uncertainty and head the Commission down a slippery slope of regulation.
As anticipated, the Notice proposes to ground the net neutrality rules in section 706 of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996. I have already expressed my views that Congress never intended
section 706 to be an affirmative grant of authority to the Commission to regulate the Internet. At most, it
could be used to trigger deregulation.
But the Notice doesn’t stop there. It seeks comment on ways to construe additional language in
section 706 and even suggests using section 230(b) to broaden the scope of the Commission’s usurped
authority. This is absurd. I was worried enough that the Commission’s current reading of section 706
could be used to justify any number of regulatory interventions and could ultimately impact not just
broadband providers, but also edge providers. Now that the Commission is trying to cast an even wider
net of authority, I fear that other services and providers could become ensnared in the future.
And just in case section 706 proves to be inadequate for this regulatory boondoggle, the Notice
explores upending years of precedent and investment by reclassifying broadband Internet access as a Title
II service. That is, the Commission examines applying monopoly era telephone rules to modern
broadband services solely to impose unnecessary and defective net neutrality regulations. I cannot
support such a backward-looking, ends-driven approach—not in a Notice and certainly not in final rules.
While courts can recognize that an agency may legally reverse course as long as it adequately
explains the reasons for changing its position, I am concerned about the real world impact that such a
decision could have on the communications industry and the economy as a whole. The current
framework has provided a climate of certainty and stability for broadband investment and Internet
innovation. Upending that framework could disrupt the tremendous progress that has been made over the
last decade. I also worry about the credibility of an agency that consistently fails to meet statutory
deadlines to review and eliminate old rules, but is supposedly open to reapplying obsolete provisions.
The Notice suggests that reclassification could be accompanied by substantial forbearance from
the Title II requirements. But the need to forbear from a significant number of provisions in Title II
proves the point that Title II is an inappropriate framework for today’s dynamic technologies. Indeed,
Title II includes a host of arcane provisions on topics like interlocking directorates, valuation of carrier
property, uniform system of accounts and depreciation charges, telephone operator services,
telemessaging service, Bell Operating Company entry into interLATA services, manufacturing of
telecommunications equipment and customer premises equipment, and electronic publishing. Even if the
Commission granted forbearance from all of the provisions that it has eliminated for incumbent telephone
companies—and then some—advocates are ignoring that broadband providers and services would still be
subject to a host of unnecessary rules. The idea that the Commission can magically impose or sprinkle
just the right amount of Title II on broadband providers is giving the Commission more credit than it ever
deserves.
Additionally, before taking any action on any issue, the Commission should have specific and
verifiable evidence that there is a market failure. The Notice does not examine the broadband market
much less identify any failures. A true and accurate review of the U.S. broadband market—which must
include wireless broadband—would show how dynamic it is. The Notice does acknowledge that
innovation and investment have flourished, although it implausibly ascribes those successes to the vacated
net neutrality rules.
Moreover, the Notice fails to make the case that there’s an actual problem resulting in real harm
to consumers. The Notice identifies, at most, two additional examples of alleged harm. And in one
instance, the Commission concedes it did not find a violation. The Notice tries to explain away the
absence of net neutrality complaints, but the unpersuasive excuses cannot mask a lack of evidence. In a
last ditch attempt to find problems, the Notice points to supposed bad conduct occurring outside of the
United States without explaining how that is relevant to a very different U.S. broadband market and
regulatory structure.
Having come up empty handed, the Notice proceeds to explore hypothetical concerns. At the top
of the list is prioritization. But even ardent supporters of net neutrality recognize that some amount of
traffic differentiation or “prioritization” must be allowed or even encouraged. Voice must be prioritized
over email; video over plain data. Prioritization is not a bad word. It is a necessary component of
reasonable network management.
The Notice is particularly skeptical of paid prioritization and contemplates banning some or all
such arrangements outright. Yet companies that do business over the Internet, including some of the
strongest supporters of net neutrality, routinely pay for a variety of services to ensure the best possible
experience for their consumers. They’ve been doing it for years. And certain arrangements have even
been viewed as “good for the Internet.” In short, fears that paid prioritization will automatically degrade
service for other users, relegating them to a so-called “slow lane,” have been disproven by years of
experience.
Because there’s no evidence of actual harm that could help inform the proposed rules, they are
not narrowly tailored but hopelessly vague and unclear. We are left to puzzle over what it means to
provide a “minimum level of access” or what constitutes a “commercially unreasonable” practice,
especially in the absence of contractual relationships. The Notice suggests that providers could seek non-
binding staff guidance or prospective reviews of their practices. But it is very troubling when legitimate
companies are put in the position of having to ask the government for its blessing every time they need to
make a business decision in order to avoid costly enforcement or litigation.
It is even more telling that the
Commission is suggesting new layers of enforcement options for which it has no experience. For
instance, where are ombudsmen mentioned in the statute and what are they to do exactly?
Finally, to say the cost-benefit “analysis” is woefully inadequate is an understatement. The
Notice devotes several pages to a wish list of disclosures, reporting requirements, and certifications that
will impose new burdens and carry real costs, but may not even be meaningful to end users. For example,
what will the average consumer do with information on packet corruption and jitter? However, there is
no attempt to quantify and compare the costs of the proposed new requirements against the supposed
benefits—just a single paragraph seeking comment on ways to reduce the burdens. Proposed rules should
be accompanied by a fulsome cost-benefit analysis that includes a detailed and extensive review of
current law, especially as it applies to other federal agencies that we seek to imitate. The Commission’s
short-shrift approach to cost-benefit analysis cannot continue, and I intend to spend time improving this
important function.
In sum, the proposed net neutrality rules and legal theories will stifle innovation and investment
by the private sector, provide no help to consumers, and thrust the Commission into a place it shouldn’t
be. I respectfully dissent.
 
Never, ever trust the private sector to do things properly. They always do it poorly. The management is so preoccupied with their own lust for money, they don't make sure anything is done right, and the low level people are just in it for a job where they can do as little as possible without getting fired. Nothing is ever done properly when the private sector is involved.

FTFY
 
That's the problem when you put people in charge who have no clue about the subject they are making policy for. (And a problem for politics in general) Politicians need to stop acting like gods.

It's like putting a czar in charge of ebola containment when he has no emergency management or medical experience. *hits head*
 
DISSENTING STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER MICHAEL O’RIELLY
Re:
Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet, GN Docket No. 14-28.
[/QUOTE]

Moreover, the Notice fails to make the case that there’s an actual problem resulting in real harm
to consumers. The Notice identifies, at most, two additional examples of alleged harm. And in one
instance, the Commission concedes it did not find a violation. The Notice tries to explain away the
absence of net neutrality complaints, but the unpersuasive excuses cannot mask a lack of evidence. In a
last ditch attempt to find problems, the Notice points to supposed bad conduct occurring outside of the
United States without explaining how that is relevant to a very different U.S. broadband market and
regulatory structure.
Having come up empty handed, the Notice proceeds to explore hypothetical concerns. At the top
of the list is prioritization. But even ardent supporters of net neutrality recognize that some amount of
traffic differentiation or “prioritization” must be allowed or even encouraged. Voice must be prioritized
over email; video over plain data. Prioritization is not a bad word. It is a necessary component of
reasonable network management.
The Notice is particularly skeptical of paid prioritization and contemplates banning some or all
such arrangements outright. Yet companies that do business over the Internet, including some of the
strongest supporters of net neutrality, routinely pay for a variety of services to ensure the best possible
experience for their consumers. They’ve been doing it for years. And certain arrangements have even
been viewed as “good for the Internet.” In short, fears that paid prioritization will automatically degrade
service for other users, relegating them to a so-called “slow lane,” have been disproven by years of
experience.

Not that Comcast purposely reset torrent packets years ago.
Or that every major player is blackmailing every outside provider for premium lane access.

Here's the deal,
If I'm costing the cable companies money, put that on my bill. By charging the 3rd party providers (ie: Amazon, Netflix, Hulu, etc...) you are in essence finding a backdoor to charging me more money through higher subscription fees to those 3rd party services. And thus, forcing out competition when that cost becomes too high for reliable service. That is a monopoly pure and simple.

Don't be bastards about it telecoms & cable companies. Make my bill directly higher to cover the bandwidth and let me choose the services I want freely.
 
The only prioritization I am in favor of is to give packets of real-time applications like video chat, VoIP and gaming and near real time (audio/video streaming) priority during high traffic times.

This has to be done across the board for all real time and near real time uses - however - competing companies, open source software or not, and should be done as general Quality of Service practice to keep a network operating smoothly, not as a fee based service for a fast lane...
 
Zarathustra[H];1041207624 said:
The only prioritization I am in favor of is to give packets of real-time applications like video chat, VoIP and gaming and near real time (audio/video streaming) priority during high traffic times.

This has to be done across the board for all real time and near real time uses - however - competing companies, open source software or not, and should be done as general Quality of Service practice to keep a network operating smoothly, not as a fee based service for a fast lane...

No!

This creates a dangerous precedent as to what could be considered "important" data. Then is becomes highly subjective.

It's up to the cable services to make sure there is enough bandwidth or to throttle customers if they consume too much of it with a given cap limit.

The best way to solve this would be to allow everyone to have a consumption cap in bandwidth limited areas and have everyone's cap on the same trunk to be set to a random day in the month. This would distribute peak bandwidth across the month for individual users and help even out the peak/non peak usage.
 
No!

This creates a dangerous precedent as to what could be considered "important" data. Then is becomes highly subjective.

It's up to the cable services to make sure there is enough bandwidth or to throttle customers if they consume too much of it with a given cap limit.

The best way to solve this would be to allow everyone to have a consumption cap in bandwidth limited areas and have everyone's cap on the same trunk to be set to a random day in the month. This would distribute peak bandwidth across the month for individual users and help even out the peak/non peak usage.

Not talking about "important data". It would have to be very specifically worded to deal with " time sensitive" data.

This is not setting a precedent. It is basic QOS traffic shaping stuff that every network admin does to make their networks operate smoothly.

I'd imagine something like this:

VOIP, Video Conferencing & Gaming packets > Audio & Video Streaming packets > Everything else.

The problem with bandwidth is that there is never "enough". Demand always grows to fill supply, especially during high use times. If some level of QoS and traffic shaping is not done, you are always going to have issues with real time low latency stuff.

The rules also need to be very specific about treating ALL prioritized packet types the same regardless of where they originate, are headed or whose service they are using.
 
Zarathustra[H];1041207738 said:
Not talking about "important data". It would have to be very specifically worded to deal with " time sensitive" data.

This is not setting a precedent. It is basic QOS traffic shaping stuff that every network admin does to make their networks operate smoothly.

I'd imagine something like this:

VOIP, Video Conferencing & Gaming packets > Audio & Video Streaming packets > Everything else.

The problem with bandwidth is that there is never "enough". Demand always grows to fill supply, especially during high use times. If some level of QoS and traffic shaping is not done, you are always going to have issues with real time low latency stuff.

The rules also need to be very specific about treating ALL prioritized packet types the same regardless of where they originate, are headed or whose service they are using.

With your scenario Comcast could come back and say

"We need to reserve bandwidth for our VOIP, and our Video Conferencing, and VOD."

This is why you can't prioritize this way.

Remember this is the same service provider who tried to stop torrent. They can not be trusted to uphold the standards. (And this from a guy who doesn't torrent)
 
With your scenario Comcast could come back and say

"We need to reserve bandwidth for our VOIP, and our Video Conferencing, and VOD."

This is why you can't prioritize this way.

Remember this is the same service provider who tried to stop torrent. They can not be trusted to uphold the standards. (And this from a guy who doesn't torrent)

Oh I agree, there are risks of misuse, that's why it would require some very careful wording, and probably several revisions to get it right, as well as revisiting it to account for technology changes.

A completely unmanaged network could be a problem too though.
 
The problem is not bandwidth. The problem is these companies don't want to pay for the infrastructure upgrades to meet demands. They are making BILLIONS off of old technology. Cable has been delivering Mbs of data for decades. I had 5 Mbs from Time Warner in Columbus in 1998. They could all be offering 1Gb to the home now if they kept up the infrastructure and offering it cheaply and still making billions. Instead Big Corps want to control the content and make money on both ends and only offer their highest tier of service at a premium price. Look at the wireless companies. They were all charging overages, data was metered, you had to pay so much per megabyte over. Now they are all fighting for our data, doubling data allowed while reducing prices.
 
Back
Top