![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
The FCC has voted to kill off the Obama-era net neutrality rules. And this is one of those issues that makes me want to scream because everyone I know has taken a legit issue and boiled it down to opposing conspiracy theories in which (1) Corporate America or (2) The US Government is trying to take 100% control of the internet so they can censor it and control you. There seems to be no middle ground on this, and it’s insane.
This is why I try not to say anything about it because there’s no real common ground for a conversation about it.
But, you know, what the hell?
1. First things first: I’m in favor of net neutrality and an open internet.
2. I’m also in favor of telcos and ISPs having the ability to manage and prioritize bandwidth because they need that capability to make sure that video traffic from Netflix, Facebook, etc doesn’t overwhelm their network capacity. In the future, they’re going to need that ability to make sure that mission-critical real-time stuff like digital healthcare services and driverless cars don’t experience their equivalent of the buffer wheel. Don’t give me the “That’s no excuse, they can just add more capacity!” argument – I’ve covered the telecoms industry for over 20 years, and I can tell you it’s not that simple.
3. The first two points are not mutually exclusive – at least in terms of my definition of net neutrality.
4. My definition of net neutrality (and, I believe, the original definition of net neutrality before the conspiracy theorists took over) is where telcos have the ability to prioritize bandwidth for traffic management purposes, but they must be transparent about how they do it, and be neutral in terms of pricing. They must do this without favoring their own services over competing services. Also, they can’t block access to any service or site that isn’t illegal. And there has to be real consequences for violating that neutrality. Obviously this is a moot point since no one is describing net neutrality in these terms. But I think it’s the one that establishes the best compromise.
5. The Obama net neutrality rules were a nice but flawed idea – it made no sense to classify ISPs under Title II as telecoms utilities. It’s an outdated framework that has little to do with what an ISP does. The only reason the FCC implemented it is because ISPs were outside of its jurisdiction, and it had nothing else to work with to enforce net neutrality of any kind. What’s needed is new legislation that creates a realistic and modern framework for the FCC to regulate (and more importantly, enforce) net neutrality. But that requires an act of Congress, and as we know, the Obama-era Congress was in no mood to cooperate with Obama on pretty much anything. At all. So the Obama-era net neutrality rules were a workaround, not a proper solution to creating a pro-neutrality regulation regime.
For my money, if you REALLY want effective net neutrality, you need: (1) healthy and ubiquitous competition in the broadband access space, (2) a proper and modern legal framework that spells out how the FCC can effectively regulate net neutrality, and one that strikes the right balance between open access and traffic management, and (3) sufficient consumer protections (including a transparent and fair process).
6. So, for me, the real question (and the one that no one seems interested in asking) is: given that the 2015 net neutrality rules were at best a stopgap, does Ajit Pai’s new policy fix the problem?
7. IMO, the answer is a resounding “no”. Not only does it not fix the problem, it indicates Pai has a poor understanding of what the problem is, and apparently he figures it doesn’t matter because his political ideology dictates there’s no problem that free markets can’t fix.
Pai and telecoms lobby groups like USTelecom have argued that the Obama rules hurt telecoms investment in broadband, but that’s a dubious claim when you look at the actual numbers from USTelecom, which show a slight drop in investment between 2014 and 2015 from $77 billion to $76 billion. That’s still the highest level of investment since 2001, and relatively speaking that’s a small enough year-on-year drop that almost anything could account for it (and I’ve seen no evidence at all that net neutrality regs had anything to do with it).
So all up, the only “problem” Pai is proposing to fix is the problem of the FCC having a policy he’s ideologically opposed to. And his idea of fixing that is a policy that can basically be summed up as: “ISPs can do whatever they want as long as they tell you they’re doing it.” Pai is betting that whatever they do won't violate net neutrality because they won't be able to legally hide the fact that they’re doing it, and with something like 80% of the public in favor of net neutrality, why Comcast et al would be fools to do anything to violate that principle because they’d lose customers! Hurrah for The Invisible Hand!
Except that switching ISPs isn't like deciding between buying groceries at Wal-mart or Whole Foods because grocery stores generally don’t make you sign a two-year contract to shop only at their store. Also, there are still many places in the US where you only have one option for broadband connectivity – and with consolidation currently a thing, what choices do exist are narrowing considerably.
8. To be clear, I think the pro-neutrality groups pushing the line that Evil Corporate ISPs are going to charge you per website/app, censor anti-Trump sites and make Netflix unusable in favor of their own crappy video streaming service are going way overboard with the drama. It’s mostly paranoid worst-case scenarios fueled by the worldview that all corporations are run by cartoon villains. YES, it COULD technically happen. YES, a few ISPs have been caught throttling customers from time to time (for that matter, so has Netflix). What that tells me is that – given the FCC had no net neutrality policy to speak of until 2015 – the Big Evil ISPs could have legally staged all these worst-case scenarios ages ago. They haven't. So I don't see why the Pai policy is suddenly a green light for a Corporate Internet Takeover that ISPs have been able to do for 20 years.
That said, I’m sure we’ll see ISPs testing the waters to see what will fly and what won’t – and at least some of it will be ill-advised. I think a lot of it will be harmless, although pro-neutrality groups will probably depict them otherwise.
9. Then again, it all depends on to what point the transparency provision in the new policy actually works in terms of telcos being honest about it and responding to whatever negative publicity trends on Twitter. Which is why I recommend that pro-neutrality groups make the most of that transparency requirement and hold the ISPs’ collective feet to the fire. If that’s the only mechanism the current admin is willing to provide customers to ensure a free and open internet, then use it. Use the hell out of it.
10. Of course, none of this is a done deal anyway – the lawsuit challenges are already primed, and Congress might also step in if they feel enough pressure to do so, although this Congress is even worse than the one Obama had to deal with – and currently they seem to be only interested in passing bills that the majority of Americans are against, not for – so good luck getting anything worthwhile from them. So either way I’m not especially optimistic about the outcome. But it may mean that the telcos will hold off on any drastic changes in their service plans until judges start making decisions. We’ll see.
Neutralized,
This is dF
This is why I try not to say anything about it because there’s no real common ground for a conversation about it.
But, you know, what the hell?
1. First things first: I’m in favor of net neutrality and an open internet.
2. I’m also in favor of telcos and ISPs having the ability to manage and prioritize bandwidth because they need that capability to make sure that video traffic from Netflix, Facebook, etc doesn’t overwhelm their network capacity. In the future, they’re going to need that ability to make sure that mission-critical real-time stuff like digital healthcare services and driverless cars don’t experience their equivalent of the buffer wheel. Don’t give me the “That’s no excuse, they can just add more capacity!” argument – I’ve covered the telecoms industry for over 20 years, and I can tell you it’s not that simple.
3. The first two points are not mutually exclusive – at least in terms of my definition of net neutrality.
4. My definition of net neutrality (and, I believe, the original definition of net neutrality before the conspiracy theorists took over) is where telcos have the ability to prioritize bandwidth for traffic management purposes, but they must be transparent about how they do it, and be neutral in terms of pricing. They must do this without favoring their own services over competing services. Also, they can’t block access to any service or site that isn’t illegal. And there has to be real consequences for violating that neutrality. Obviously this is a moot point since no one is describing net neutrality in these terms. But I think it’s the one that establishes the best compromise.
5. The Obama net neutrality rules were a nice but flawed idea – it made no sense to classify ISPs under Title II as telecoms utilities. It’s an outdated framework that has little to do with what an ISP does. The only reason the FCC implemented it is because ISPs were outside of its jurisdiction, and it had nothing else to work with to enforce net neutrality of any kind. What’s needed is new legislation that creates a realistic and modern framework for the FCC to regulate (and more importantly, enforce) net neutrality. But that requires an act of Congress, and as we know, the Obama-era Congress was in no mood to cooperate with Obama on pretty much anything. At all. So the Obama-era net neutrality rules were a workaround, not a proper solution to creating a pro-neutrality regulation regime.
For my money, if you REALLY want effective net neutrality, you need: (1) healthy and ubiquitous competition in the broadband access space, (2) a proper and modern legal framework that spells out how the FCC can effectively regulate net neutrality, and one that strikes the right balance between open access and traffic management, and (3) sufficient consumer protections (including a transparent and fair process).
6. So, for me, the real question (and the one that no one seems interested in asking) is: given that the 2015 net neutrality rules were at best a stopgap, does Ajit Pai’s new policy fix the problem?
7. IMO, the answer is a resounding “no”. Not only does it not fix the problem, it indicates Pai has a poor understanding of what the problem is, and apparently he figures it doesn’t matter because his political ideology dictates there’s no problem that free markets can’t fix.
Pai and telecoms lobby groups like USTelecom have argued that the Obama rules hurt telecoms investment in broadband, but that’s a dubious claim when you look at the actual numbers from USTelecom, which show a slight drop in investment between 2014 and 2015 from $77 billion to $76 billion. That’s still the highest level of investment since 2001, and relatively speaking that’s a small enough year-on-year drop that almost anything could account for it (and I’ve seen no evidence at all that net neutrality regs had anything to do with it).
So all up, the only “problem” Pai is proposing to fix is the problem of the FCC having a policy he’s ideologically opposed to. And his idea of fixing that is a policy that can basically be summed up as: “ISPs can do whatever they want as long as they tell you they’re doing it.” Pai is betting that whatever they do won't violate net neutrality because they won't be able to legally hide the fact that they’re doing it, and with something like 80% of the public in favor of net neutrality, why Comcast et al would be fools to do anything to violate that principle because they’d lose customers! Hurrah for The Invisible Hand!
Except that switching ISPs isn't like deciding between buying groceries at Wal-mart or Whole Foods because grocery stores generally don’t make you sign a two-year contract to shop only at their store. Also, there are still many places in the US where you only have one option for broadband connectivity – and with consolidation currently a thing, what choices do exist are narrowing considerably.
8. To be clear, I think the pro-neutrality groups pushing the line that Evil Corporate ISPs are going to charge you per website/app, censor anti-Trump sites and make Netflix unusable in favor of their own crappy video streaming service are going way overboard with the drama. It’s mostly paranoid worst-case scenarios fueled by the worldview that all corporations are run by cartoon villains. YES, it COULD technically happen. YES, a few ISPs have been caught throttling customers from time to time (for that matter, so has Netflix). What that tells me is that – given the FCC had no net neutrality policy to speak of until 2015 – the Big Evil ISPs could have legally staged all these worst-case scenarios ages ago. They haven't. So I don't see why the Pai policy is suddenly a green light for a Corporate Internet Takeover that ISPs have been able to do for 20 years.
That said, I’m sure we’ll see ISPs testing the waters to see what will fly and what won’t – and at least some of it will be ill-advised. I think a lot of it will be harmless, although pro-neutrality groups will probably depict them otherwise.
9. Then again, it all depends on to what point the transparency provision in the new policy actually works in terms of telcos being honest about it and responding to whatever negative publicity trends on Twitter. Which is why I recommend that pro-neutrality groups make the most of that transparency requirement and hold the ISPs’ collective feet to the fire. If that’s the only mechanism the current admin is willing to provide customers to ensure a free and open internet, then use it. Use the hell out of it.
10. Of course, none of this is a done deal anyway – the lawsuit challenges are already primed, and Congress might also step in if they feel enough pressure to do so, although this Congress is even worse than the one Obama had to deal with – and currently they seem to be only interested in passing bills that the majority of Americans are against, not for – so good luck getting anything worthwhile from them. So either way I’m not especially optimistic about the outcome. But it may mean that the telcos will hold off on any drastic changes in their service plans until judges start making decisions. We’ll see.
Neutralized,
This is dF
