FCC Gets Hands Slapped

[Gaspar]

This is good.  The administration has to go back to the drawing board on their plans to impose taxation and regulation on internet usage and commerce.  We get to keep our free internets for a while longer.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A federal appeals court has ruled that the Federal Communications Commission lacks the authority to require broadband providers to give equal treatment to all Internet traffic flowing over their networks.

It marks a serious setback for the FCC, which needs authority to regulate the Internet in order to push ahead with key parts of its massive national broadband plan.

[swake]

This is good.  The administration has to go back to the drawing board on their plans to impose taxation and regulation on internet usage and commerce.  We get to keep our free internets for a while longer.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A federal appeals court has ruled that the Federal Communications Commission lacks the authority to require broadband providers to give equal treatment to all Internet traffic flowing over their networks.

It marks a serious setback for the FCC, which needs authority to regulate the Internet in order to push ahead with key parts of its massive national broadband plan.

Wow,

I work in a related industry, and I have to tell you that your understanding of this issue is WAY off base and this is a very bad, very anti-competitive (anti-capitalistic) ruling.

Let's say an Internet provider, let's say AT&T, doesn't like you using Vonage for phone service. Done, Vonage can't be used on AT&T's network. You would have to buy phone service from AT&T. Let's say they sign an exclusive deal with Bing to provide search on their network. Boom, Google and Yahoo are gone.

[JeffM]

The campaign promise......
October 29, 2007 2:29 PM PDT
Obama pledges Net neutrality laws if elected president
http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9806707-7.html

The campaign promise fulfilled....
FCC Backs Net Neutrality — And Then Some
By Ryan Singel  September 21, 2009
http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/09/net-neutrality-announcement/#ixzz0kKyKjOoZ

[Nik]

Wow,

I work in a related industry, and I have to tell you that your understanding of this issue is WAY off base and this is a very bad, very anti-competitive (anti-capitalistic) ruling.

Let's say an Internet provider, let's say AT&T, doesn't like you using Vonage for phone service. Done, Vonage can't be used on AT&T's network. You would have to buy phone service from AT&T. Let's say they sign an exclusive deal with Bing to provide search on their network. Boom, Google and Yahoo are gone.

I was just going to point this out. Gaspar seems to be glad the FCC lost the judgment, but then says "We get to keep our free internets for a while longer." The opposite is true. While swake's examples are extreme, they are the worst case scenario for what the ruling entails.

[Conan71]

"The Internet's creators didn't want the network architecture — or any single entity — to pick winners and losers," Genachowski said,

Read More http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/09/net-neutrality-announcement/#ixzz0kL4yg4JZ

I didn't hear Algore chime in on this 

From the second article JeffM cited:

So-called "Net neutrality" is shorthand for the idea that the government should mandate that ISPs should largely act as dumb pipes that transmit data across the net without regards to what is in the data packets. Today's announcement marks a huge win for advocates say the rules are necessary to keep ISPs from stifling innovation by erecting tollbooths and created tiered access plans.

But others argue that consumer pressure will keep the net open and the rules will stifle attempts at innovation, such as finding ways to prioritize video calls over less urgent traffic such as photo uploads. ISPs balk at the rules, since they have grown envious of the profits of companies like Yahoo and Google, who they see as free riders on their infrastructure.

The current rules, which never went through an official rule-making process and are being contested in court by Comcast, give broadband consumers the right use whatever services, applications and devices they like, so long as they don't harm the network.

Genachowski proposes adding two more principles:

broadband providers cannot discriminate against services or applications by slowing them down
broadband providers must tell customers how its engineers manage the network when it gets congested
The first new rule seeks to prevent cable ISPs from slowing down online video services and 3G providers from messing with internet calling services like Skype.

Those rules are necessary because there is little competition in the broadband market, Genachowski added. "The net result is that broadband providers' rational bottom-line interests may diverge from the broad interests of consumers in competition and choice," Genachowski said.

The second new rule is intended to prevent a repeat of Comcast's blocking of peer-to-peer traffic, which was discovered by an engineer having trouble sharing public-domain barbershop-quartet songs on the net. Comcast denied for months that it was blocking the traffic, and only after a year of substantial pressure from the FCC did the company explain what it was doing.

Read More http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/09/net-neutrality-announcement/#ixzz0kL5NMklc

At least from this angle, I'm not seeing terrible harm with net neutrality, but this is not an area of expertise to me.

[we vs us]

The campaign promise......
October 29, 2007 2:29 PM PDT
Obama pledges Net neutrality laws if elected president
http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9806707-7.html

The campaign promise fulfilled....
FCC Backs Net Neutrality — And Then Some
By Ryan Singel  September 21, 2009
http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/09/net-neutrality-announcement/#ixzz0kKyKjOoZ

Interesting.  In this throwaway article at PC World about the decision, it says:

"The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, in an order Tuesday, overturned the FCC's August 2008 ruling forcing Comcast to abandon its network management efforts aimed at users of the BitTorrent p-to-p service and other applications. The FCC lacked "any statutorily mandated responsibility" to enforce network neutrality rules, wrote Judge David Tatel."

If the FCC can't enforce Net Neutrality, who can?  

[swake]

Interesting.  In this throwaway article at PC World about the decision, it says:

"The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, in an order Tuesday, overturned the FCC's August 2008 ruling forcing Comcast to abandon its network management efforts aimed at users of the BitTorrent p-to-p service and other applications. The FCC lacked "any statutorily mandated responsibility" to enforce network neutrality rules, wrote Judge David Tatel."

If the FCC can't enforce Net Neutrality, who can?  

Well, if the FCC can't, then congress needs to change the law so that they can.

[swake]

I was just going to point this out. Gaspar seems to be glad the FCC lost the judgment, but then says "We get to keep our free internets for a while longer." The opposite is true. While swake's examples are extreme, they are the worst case scenario for what the ruling entails.

My examples are not extreme, they are likely outcomes.

You only have to look at Apple and AT&T to see where this is going. The iPhone doesn't allow Google Voice in competition with AT&T voice services, doesn't allow other browsers other than Apple's Safari, doesn't allow Porn apps at all, doesn't support Flash, doesn't allow downloads except through Apple's approved store where they get a 30% cut of everything sold.

Competition won't solve this either, there is very little competition in the ISP arena. There are really only two broadband providers in Tulsa, and that isn't likely to change any time in the near future. In many rural areas there's only one, or none.

[Gaspar]

Funny.  Yes the proposal uses great words like "equality" and "neutrality,"  but at the heart of the purpose is section 4.20 where they want to establish a guideline for the taxation of internet use and commerce. 

This small provision has more meaning than anything else in the proposal.  It grants new powers to the FCC, and therefore the administration to impose a tax structure on the Net.  Once this door is open, I think even those of us most susceptible to lib-speak understand the overall goal.  Trillions of dollars in untapped taxes become available to government.

Sure, there is a lot of bate hiding this hook.  It's been a goal of the FCC for a long time and with this admin they see their chance.

[sgrizzle]

Another problem with blocking net neutrality is amazon could pay a fee to a few large telecom entities and suddenly video streaming from any site other than amazon is slow and unwatchable.

What the telecom companies are trying to do is the same thing as if Chevy or Toyota suddenly said "You're only allowed in the right lane, and not allowed to ride on turnpikes or highways, unless you pay us $100/month. You also are not allowed to drive to downtown anytime between 7am and 9am on weekdays unless you pay us another $50/month."

Yes, it's added government regulation but ours is the only government willing to let telecom companies decided what kind of internet you get.

The examples are not extreme. More than once ABC and Comcast were arguing over pricing so comcast shut off all ABC-owned networks to all viewers until they got a better deal.

[fotd]

Jeebus, with the convergence of television and the computer coming this decade this appears to be posturing on a major level.

[cannon_fodder]

I can see both sides of the argument:  its my network let me do as I please/government stay away from my internets  AND networks are fixed infrastructure that don't make sense to duplicate/have high barriers to entry. 

However, looking at other industrualized countries, they have faster internet for cheaper available to more people.  Likewise, when phone lines were opened up by regulation prices dropped and services increase along with innovation.  Thew result seems to be better for the consumer... if it is implemented in a way that is not a taking from the network providers.

Then balance that with keeping government from taxing the internet, restricting content, and limiting innovation.

Glad I don't have to make the decision.

[swake]

Funny.  Yes the proposal uses great words like "equality" and "neutrality,"  but at the heart of the purpose is section 4.20 where they want to establish a guideline for the taxation of internet use and commerce.  

This small provision has more meaning than anything else in the proposal.  It grants new powers to the FCC, and therefore the administration to impose a tax structure on the Net.  Once this door is open, I think even those of us most susceptible to lib-speak understand the overall goal.  Trillions of dollars in untapped taxes become available to government.

Sure, there is a lot of bate hiding this hook.  It's been a goal of the FCC for a long time and with this admin they see their chance.

I have no idea (Glen Beck) where you got this, but it's just plain false, not just wrong, false. You have been lied to.

I looked it up and was frankly shocked at what I saw. section 4.2 is titled "Devices" and deals with cable cards and cable set top boxes.

I have proprietary knowledge regarding this section and I will not, in fact cannot, comment on this section. But it has nothing to do with taxation or commerce except to encourage the availability of retail access devices.

4.2 DEVICES
Innovative devices fundamentally change how people use broadband. Smartphones have allowed millions of Americans to use mobile e-mail, browse the Internet on-the-go, and—more recently—to use hundreds of thousands of mobile applications that did not exist a few years ago. Before smartphones, personal computers with graphical user interfaces and growing process¬ing power enabled the emergence of the Web browser, which led to the widespread adoption of the Internet.
Competition, often from companies that were not market leaders, has driven innovation and investment in devices in the past and must continue to do so in the future. When one exam¬ines the three main types of devices that connect to broadband service provider networks—mobile devices, computing devices and set-top boxes—one finds that there are many mobile and computing device manufacturers offering hundreds of devices with a dizzying assortment of brands, features and price levels. Whole new device classes, such as tablets, e-book readers and netbooks continue to emerge, shifting firms' market posi¬tions and enabling entrants to capture market share. Mobile devices are rapidly incorporating technology such as Global Positioning System, accelerometers, Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, en¬hanced graphics and multi-touch screens. By any measure, innovation is thriving in mobile and computing devices.  The same is not true for set-top boxes, which are becoming increasingly important for broadband as video drives more broadband usage (see Chapter 3).96 Further innovation in set-top boxes could lead to:
hGreater choice, lower prices and more capability in the boxes, including applications.97
hMore competition among companies offering video content (MVPDs).98
hUnlimited choice in the content available—whether from traditional television (TV) or the Internet—through an integrated user interface.99
hMore video and broadband applications for the TV, possibly in conjunction with other devices, such as mobile phones and personal computers (PCs).100
hHigher broadband utilization.101
Congress wanted to stimulate competition and innovation in set-top boxes and other video navigation devices in 1996 when it added Section 629 to the Communications Act. Section 629 directed the FCC to ensure that consumers could use commercially available navigation devices to access services from MVPDs.102 Lawmakers pointed to innovative uses of the telephone network, related to new phones, faxes and other equipment, and said they wanted to create a similarly vigorous retail market for devices used with MVPD services.103
The FCC adopted its First Report and Order to implement the provisions of Section 629 in 1998.104 The order established rules requiring MVPDs to separate the system that customers use to gain access to video programming, called the conditional element, from the device customers use to navigate the pro¬gramming. Section 629 nominally applies to all MVPDs. The FCC, however, has applied its rules only to cable operators. It either directly exempted other MVPDs, such as satellite TV operators, or implicitly excluded them by taking "no action" against an operator.105
Operators and other stakeholders agreed on a proposed solution for cable—called CableCARD—to separate the con¬ditional access element. The CableCARD is about the size of a credit card and roughly similar in function to the Subscriber Identity Module (SIM) card used in mobile phones. Cable operators supply the CableCARD, which is inserted into a set-top box or television set that a consumer buys at a store to authenticate the subscriber. To ensure adequate support for CableCARDs, the FCC required cable operators to use CableCARDs for set-top boxes leased to consumers.
The first devices from third-party manufacturers using CableCARDs hit the retail market in August 2004, six years after the FCC's First Report and Order. Three years later, in July 2007, cable operators began using CableCARDs in their leased set-top boxes.106Despite Congressional and FCC in¬tentions, CableCARDs have failed to stimulate a competitive retail market for set-top boxes. The top two cable set-top box manufacturers in North America, Motorola and Cisco, together captured a 95% share of unit shipments over the first three quarters of 2009. That's up from 87% in 2006.107 A national or global market with relatively low costs of entry, like that for many consumer electronics markets, should support more than two competitors over time.108The two companies continue to control both the hardware and the security on the cable set-top box through their proprietary conditional access systems. By contrast, the top two cable set-top box manufacturers in Europe, the Middle East and Asia (EMEA) where open stan¬dards are used for conditional access accounted for a market share of approximately 39% between 2006 and the third quarter of 2009.109 There are 0.5 million CableCARDs deployed in retail devices today,110 which represents roughly 1% of all set-top boxes deployed in cable homes.111 Only two manufacturers, TiVo and Moxi, continue to sell CableCARD-enabled set-top boxes through retail outlets.
Other alternatives are starting to emerge. For example, several innovators are attempting to bring Internet video to the TV.112 Their devices often cannot access traditional TV content that consumers value—content that is not available or difficult to access online. Without the ability to seamlessly integrate Internet video with traditional TV viewing, Internet video de¬vices like Apple TV and Roku have struggled to gain a foothold in U.S. homes.113
Retail set-top boxes have been competing on an uneven playing field. The barriers have been well-documented in mul¬tiple proceedings114 and have prompted some companies not to enter the market at all.115 To level the field, the FCC should adopt the recommendation that follows. To maximize the likelihood that the recommendation will succeed, it should ap¬ply to all MVPDs. Extending the rule to all MVPDs will enable consumer electronics manufacturers to develop products for a larger customer base and allow consumers to purchase retail devices that will continue to function even if the consumer changes providers. Today, four out of the top 10 MVPDs are not cable companies and represent 41% of MVPD subscribers.116

[nathanm]

This is good. 

You must inhabit an entirely different reality than I do. Vertical monopolies are bad, mmkay?

There's almost no regulation on ISPs at the present time, which I like just fine. I also think the net neutrality folks are generally off base because they refuse to distinguish between prioritizing interactive traffic over bulk downloads and an ISP prioritizing traffic exchanged with their own VoIP (or whatever, it's an example) server over VoIP destined to or originating from their own service.

At this point, reasonable choices in broadband service is limited to the usual duopoly now that the FCC decided to ignore the 1996 Telecom Act and cease requiring line sharing. In most locales, including Tulsa, there is not enough competition to keep ISPs from doing anticompetitive things, at least in the residential market. (things are quite different in the large business market)

That's why I support limited regulation preventing ISPs from prioritizing their own services over those of competitors. I do not support a blanket ban on traffic prioritization of any sort, however.

[Gaspar]

Would probably not be of as much concern under any other administration, but we know that the push in this proposal is not the neutrality issue, but the tax issue.  

I have no problem with companies doing battle over bandwidth.  Those that engage in ruthless tactics will ultimately pay the price.  Internet commerce and the battle for bandwidth has worked this way for years.  Yes leveraging can be ugly, but ultimately the consumer votes with dollars, and vile practices are rewarded with disdain from the ultimate consumer.  We have provisions to fight monopolistic practices.  

Again, this is a hook covered with tasty bait.