The FCC is Cooking up 'Hybrid' Net Neutrality Rules A report in the Wall Street Journal states that the FCC is considering a "hybrid" approach to its upcoming net neutrality rules that would attempt to expand the FCC's authority, but would fall well short of consumer advocates demand to simply reclassify ISPs as utilities under Title II of the Communications Act. According to the report, Wheeler's shifted his thinking since his original proposal, the Journal stating this new "hybrid" effort would work as such: quote: The plan now under consideration would separate broadband into two distinct services: a retail one, in which consumers would pay broadband providers for Internet access; and a back-end one, in which broadband providers serve as the conduit for websites to distribute content. The FCC would then classify the back-end service as a common carrier, giving the agency the ability to police any deals between content companies and broadband providers. Also worth noting is this particular detail: quote: The proposal would leave the door open for broadband providers to offer specialized services for, say, videogamers or online video providers, which require a particularly large amount of bandwidth. That of course sounds a lot like the "Internet fast lanes" that have consumer advocates so up in arms. Also worth noting is this particular detail:That of course sounds a lot like the "Internet fast lanes" that have consumer advocates so up in arms. While the plan is unfinished and we're only glimpsing an outline, Wheeler's approach appears to be an effort to please everybody -- and quite frequently such efforts in this space wind up pleasing nobody. Carriers are still likely to file a lawsuit against the plan no matter what gets implemented, and consumer advocates already say this hybrid approach falls well short of fully protecting consumers from anti-competitive behavior, whether it's formally classified as a "neutrality" violation or not. "This Frankenstein proposal is no treat for Internet users, and they shouldn’t be tricked," complains Free Press CEO Craig Aaron. "No matter how you dress it up, any rules that don’t clearly restore the agency’s authority and prevent specialized fast lanes and paid prioritization aren’t real Net Neutrality. Such an untested, too-clever-by-half approach is bad law and a bad idea. It will not survive in court, and it is clearly inferior to reclassifying broadband under Title II of the Communications Act." The plan appears to mirror at least portions of some proposals offered up earlier this year by both Mozilla and the Center for Democracy and Technology. The FCC appears to believe that the hybrid approach prevents them from having to reverse a decade of deregulation of ISPs, and puts them on more secure legal footing. Whether this works in practice is something we'll find out next year when the FCC's new rules are formally unveiled, and based on what I'm hearing neutrality supporters are very sharply divided on Wheeler's idea. The plan appears to mirror at least portions of some proposals offered up earlier this year by both Mozilla and the Center for Democracy and Technology. The FCC appears to believe that the hybrid approach prevents them from having to reverse a decade of deregulation of ISPs, and puts them on more secure legal footing. Whether this works in practice is something we'll find out next year when the FCC's new rules are formally unveiled, and based on what I'm hearing neutrality supporters are very sharply divided on Wheeler's idea.







News Jump Comcast Shuts Off Internet for Subs Who Were Sold Service Illegally; AT&T, Verizon Team To Stop T-Mobile 5G; + more news California Defends Its Net Neutrality Law; AT&T's Traffic Up 20% Despite Data Traffic Actually Being Down; + more news Are The Comcast-Charter X1 Talks Dead In The Water?; AT&T May Offer Phone Plans With Ads For Discounts; + more news Europe's Top Court: Net Neutrality Rules Bar Zero Rating; ViacomCBS To Rebrand CBS All Access As Paramount+; + more news Verizon To Buy Reseller TracFone For $7B; 5G Not The Competitive Threat To Cable Many Thought It Would Be; + more news MS.Wants Records From AT&T On $300M Project; Google Fiber Outages In Austin, Houston, Other Texan Cities; + more news States With The Biggest Decreases In Speed; AT&T Hopes You'll Forget Its Fight Against Accurate Maps; + more news AT&T's CEO Has A Familiar $olution To US Broadband Woes; EarthLink Files Suit Against Charter; + more news 5G Doesn't Live Up To Hype, AT&T's 5G Slower Than Its 4G; Cord-Cutting Now In 37% of Broadband Households; + more news FCC Cited False Broadband Data Despite Warnings; ZTE, Huawei Replacement Cost Is $1.87B, But Only $1B Allocated; + more ---------------------- this week last week most discussed view:

topics flat nest elefante72

join:2010-12-03

East Amherst, NY elefante72 Member The politicians answer

immigration reform = neutrality reform... Nobody will be happy because nobody will be taking a stand.



The sole reason the FCC exists is to protect the consumers, not businesses. If they are pro-business they may as well just disband because then they are just a bunch of bums with their hands out.



And deregulation in a mono/oligopoly situation is worse than smart regulation or if they want to REALLY deregulate let last mile providers into the mix--easily--and then competition will take care of itself.

TestBoy

Premium Member

join:2009-10-13

Irmo, SC TestBoy Premium Member Re: The politicians answer Careful! cue the DSLR corporate shills in 3....2....1....



That deregulation needs to be reversed.... it was a mistake so they need to fix it.

batterup

I Can Not Tell A Lie.

Premium Member

join:2003-02-06

Netcong, NJ batterup Premium Member Re: The politicians answer said by TestBoy: Careful! cue the DSLR corporate shills in 3....2....1....



That deregulation needs to be reversed.... it was a mistake so they need to fix it.





Ma Bell is dead and yet the people weep. dfxmatt

join:2007-08-21

Crystal Lake, IL 1 recommendation dfxmatt to elefante72

Member to elefante72

Actually, separating classes of service between consumer and business is a big problem and a very clear threat to neutrality as a concept: there is none if this is occurring. wkm001

join:2009-12-14 wkm001 to elefante72

Member to elefante72

I wish that was the reason for their existence. Here is what they think they do. » www.fcc.gov/what-we-do

guppy_fish

Premium Member

join:2003-12-09

Palm Harbor, FL 1 recommendation guppy_fish Premium Member Never Happen The FCC has no legal standing to dictate peering agreements, which are company negotiating with each other for intercommunication's. These networks are not public, never were and not funded in any why with public money.



The only way this could happen is an act of congress, which would be challenged in the courts as unconstitutional, as its taking an asset without compensation, same would happen if the FCC tried to apply Title II masterbinky

join:2011-01-06

Carlsbad, NM masterbinky Member Re: Never Happen Wait.. WHAT?! Are you lying or do not genuinely know? They get Title II subsidies all the time for the physical infrastructure (IE the fiber optic cable that runs multiple services). They then say Title II doesn't apply to the non-telephone services that use that infrastructure. If you need documentation I can link the Title II funding applications easily.

fg8578

join:2009-04-26

San Antonio, TX fg8578 Member Re: Never Happen Guppyfish (to whom you were replying) referred to "peering agreements", and those involve backbone fiber, NOT the distribution fiber that you are referring to, which received (in some cases) public subsidy money.



Backbone fiber was indeed privately built without public subsidies. Be careful when accusing someone of lying (and please don't use the dodge that you were just asking a question).



If you have documentation that subsidies helped build the backbone fiber network, by all means let's see it. sonicmerlin

join:2009-05-24

Cleveland, OH 1 recommendation sonicmerlin Member Re: Never Happen said by fg8578: Guppyfish (to whom you were replying) referred to "peering agreements", and those involve backbone fiber, NOT the distribution fiber that you are referring to, which received (in some cases) public subsidy money.



Backbone fiber was indeed privately built without public subsidies. Be careful when accusing someone of lying (and please don't use the dodge that you were just asking a question).



If you have documentation that subsidies helped build the backbone fiber network, by all means let's see it. This is utter nonsense. The government has the right to police interstate commerce, whether the lines are privately or publicly built. It's stated in the constitution, ipheld numerous times by the Supreme Court.

fg8578

join:2009-04-26

San Antonio, TX fg8578 Member Re: Never Happen said by sonicmerlin: This is utter nonsense. The government has the right to police interstate commerce, whether the lines are privately or publicly built. It's stated in the constitution, ipheld numerous times by the Supreme Court.



I was replying to masterblinky's implication that the privately built and owned backbones were publicly subsidized.



They were not; if you have a link showing otherwise, then by all means let's see it. I never said the government couldn't regulate the backbone, so you can put that strawman away for another day.I was replying to masterblinky's implication that the privately built and owned backbones were publicly subsidized.They were not; if you have a link showing otherwise, then by all means let's see it.

guppy_fish

Premium Member

join:2003-12-09

Palm Harbor, FL guppy_fish to masterbinky

Premium Member to masterbinky

Title II only apply s to copper ( hence why the reform of 1996 created line sharing for DSL ) and Verizon would love an excuse to ditch the remaining legacy copper it inherited. FIOS and all VZ business & Wireless fiber was 100% private $$ in the build outs. There is no law on the books that allow the government to take private assets without compensation. sonicmerlin

join:2009-05-24

Cleveland, OH sonicmerlin Member Re: Never Happen said by guppy_fish: Title II only apply s to copper ( hence why the reform of 1996 created line sharing for DSL ) and Verizon would love an excuse to ditch the remaining legacy copper it inherited. FIOS and all VZ business & Wireless fiber was 100% private $$ in the build outs. There is no law on the books that allow the government to take private assets without compensation.



Every single line is built on someone else's property, whether government or private, and the government hands out special permission known as "right of way" so these private ISPs can build out. I always enjoy popping a neocon fantasy bubble. Title II a solution does not only apply to copper. Verizon regularly voluntarily accepts classification of their FTTH service. under Title II for tax benefits.Every single line is built on someone else's property, whether government or private, and the government hands out special permission known as "right of way" so these private ISPs can build out.

fg8578

join:2009-04-26

San Antonio, TX fg8578 Member Re: Never Happen said by sonicmerlin: Every single line is built on someone else's property, whether government or private, and the government hands out special permission known as "right of way" so these private ISPs can build out.



Some lines occupy public right-of-way. In those cases, the utility pays a fee to occupy that public right of way. In other words, public right of way is not free, as so many claim (but oddly can never produce any evidence supporting that claim).



Other lines occupy the private property of the end-user. In those cases, the property owner grants the utility an "implied easement" (free of charge) by requesting service from the utility. If the property owner will not grant the easement, the utility may refuse his request for service.



This makes sense, if you think about it. If a customer requests utility service, but is unwilling to grant an easement to serve, the utility is put in an impossible situation.



If the customer demands payment from the utility to provide the service, that is effectively asking for a discount on the service.



Since utility service is offered under tariff, the utility must charge everyone the same rate and is not allowed to make such special deals with those who demand such payment.



Where a line must cross a third-party's property to provide service to a utility customer who requests it, yes, the utility may condemn the property to get to its customer, but you seem to be under the mistaken impression that condemnation somehow results in free access.



I can assure you it does not. If the utility is successful in condemning the third-party's property, the utility must pay fair (i.e., market-based) compensation to the third party.



In almost case where the utility must occupy a public or private right of way, it must pay for that privilege. There is no special government "hand-out". It is true that every line is built on someone's property.Some lines occupy public right-of-way. In those cases, the utility pays a fee to occupy that public right of way. In other words, public right of way is not free, as so many claim (but oddly can never produce any evidence supporting that claim).Other lines occupy the private property of the end-user. In those cases, the property owner grants the utility an "implied easement" (free of charge) by requesting service from the utility. If the property owner will not grant the easement, the utility may refuse his request for service.This makes sense, if you think about it. If a customer requests utility service, but is unwilling to grant an easement to serve, the utility is put in an impossible situation.If the customer demands payment from the utility to provide the service, that is effectively asking for a discount on the service.Since utility service is offered under tariff, the utility must charge everyone the same rate and is not allowed to make such special deals with those who demand such payment.Where a line must cross a third-party's property to provide service to a utility customer who requests it, yes, the utility may condemn the property to get to its customer, but you seem to be under the mistaken impression that condemnation somehow results in free access.I can assure you it does not. If the utility is successful in condemning the third-party's property, the utility must pay fair (i.e., market-based) compensation to the third party.In almost case where the utility must occupy a public or private right of way, it must pay for that privilege. There is no special government "hand-out". elefante72

join:2010-12-03

East Amherst, NY elefante72 to guppy_fish

Member to guppy_fish

No but the FTC does. A lot is talked about on this forum over the FCC but there is rarely talk about the FTC and how they have a hand in this as well. There is an implicit powerplay going on between these orgs, and the question is who will flinch first. Skippy25

join:2000-09-13

Hazelwood, MO Skippy25 to guppy_fish

Member to guppy_fish

Nice scare tactic, but I am not sure who here you are trying to scare.



Maybe you are just trying to misinform, as industry shills typically do.



FYI, the government can do pretty much anything it wants up to forcing a company to go out of business. wispalord

join:2007-09-20

Farmington, MO wispalord to guppy_fish

Member to guppy_fish

yes you said it perfectly some one will be sued if this happens

tschmidt

MVM

join:2000-11-12

Milford, NH ·Hollis Hosting

·FirstLight Fiber

·Republic Wireless

tschmidt MVM Difference without a difference Without arguing the merits of of doing this what is the legal rationale of defining transit carriers as common carriers but not ISPs. What is the intrinsic difference between these services that justifies the distinction.



Seems to me if either fall under the umbrella of common carrier so should the other.



/tom asdfdfdfdfdf

Premium Member

join:2012-05-09 asdfdfdfdfdf Premium Member Re: Difference without a difference www.multichannel.com/new ··· h/385200



There is a blurb here on the legal wrangling going on in the wake of the dc circuit court decision.



"Mozilla has suggested that the FCC treat ISP's connection for an implied fee of a remote end point (remote edge provider, or REP) to an individual subscriber as a Title II telecommunications service, and its connection for a fee to end users of all those REP's as a Sec. 706 information service.



under that regime, it suggests, the FCC could prevent blocking or throttling in the relationship between ISP's and edge providers under Title II, and prevent anti-competitive paid priority on the last-mile, consumer facing side under Sec. 706 by presuming paid priority to be a violation of the anti-unreasonal discrimination rule, but making it a rebuttable presumption with a high bar.



The D.C. Circuits holding "that broadband providers 'furnish a service to edge providers' has provided that the opportunity for such a hybrid response by the FCC in recrafting the rules, the Center for Democracy and Technology has argued as well. "It is appropriate for the Commission to consider this edge-facing service as a distinct offering warranting distinct analysis," says CDT, which also says that gives the FCC new impetus for applying nondiscrimination the rules to mobile broadband, which it did not due in the previous Open Internet order."



We know that wheeler is very hesitant, even resistant, to full out title II reclassification. They feel that an approach like this, which doesn't force them to fully reverse themselves on their previous information service classification is on better legal ground.



I'm uneasy about the approach but hope title II supporters give them some breathing room because if the choice is between the full title II approach or nothing I'm afraid nothing is the more likely outcome, which would probably be worse. There is a blurb here on the legal wrangling going on in the wake of the dc circuit court decision."Mozilla has suggested that the FCC treat ISP's connection for an implied fee of a remote end point (remote edge provider, or REP) to an individual subscriber as a Title II telecommunications service, and its connection for a fee to end users of all those REP's as a Sec. 706 information service.under that regime, it suggests, the FCC could prevent blocking or throttling in the relationship between ISP's and edge providers under Title II, and prevent anti-competitive paid priority on the last-mile, consumer facing side under Sec. 706 by presuming paid priority to be a violation of the anti-unreasonal discrimination rule, but making it a rebuttable presumption with a high bar.The D.C. Circuits holding "that broadband providers 'furnish a service to edge providers' has provided that the opportunity for such a hybrid response by the FCC in recrafting the rules, the Center for Democracy and Technology has argued as well. "It is appropriate for the Commission to consider this edge-facing service as a distinct offering warranting distinct analysis," says CDT, which also says that gives the FCC new impetus for applying nondiscrimination the rules to mobile broadband, which it did not due in the previous Open Internet order."We know that wheeler is very hesitant, even resistant, to full out title II reclassification. They feel that an approach like this, which doesn't force them to fully reverse themselves on their previous information service classification is on better legal ground.I'm uneasy about the approach but hope title II supporters give them some breathing room because if the choice is between the full title II approach or nothing I'm afraid nothing is the more likely outcome, which would probably be worse.

fg8578

join:2009-04-26

San Antonio, TX 1 recommendation fg8578 to tschmidt

Member to tschmidt

said by tschmidt: what is the legal rationale of defining transit carriers as common carriers but not ISPs. What is the intrinsic difference between these services that justifies the distinction.



Retail ISPs (or at least some of them, like AT&T and VZ, but not Comcast or TWC) did receive public subsidies to build out their distribution networks. So that is one difference. Is it enough to justify different treatment? I don't know. But the Mozilla proposal to regulate is just the opposite of who received subsidy dollars (i.e., backbone ISP received no subsidy, but apply Title II; retail ISP received subsidy, but apply Title I).



To that extent, it makes absolutely no sense to me. Transit providers (e.g., Level 3 and Cogent) never received public subsidies to build out their backbone networks.Retail ISPs (or at least some of them, like AT&T and VZ, but not Comcast or TWC) did receive public subsidies to build out their distribution networks. So that is one difference. Is it enough to justify different treatment? I don't know. But the Mozilla proposal to regulate is just the opposite of who received subsidy dollars (i.e., backbone ISP received no subsidy, but apply Title II; retail ISP received subsidy, but apply Title I).To that extent, it makes absolutely no sense to me.

NYDude25

join:2007-08-23

Massapequa, NY NYDude25 Member Government hands off! Government meddling with internet is only going to lead to regulations and control.



Don't allow them to get their hands in it.

TechyDad

Premium Member

join:2001-07-13

USA TechyDad Premium Member Re: Government hands off! Sadly, the alternative is to let the big companies shape the Internet in such a way that makes them the most profit no matter what this does to other companies and users. If Comcast had their way, we'd all pay extra $50 a month extra to access Netflix so that Comcast's cable TV offering would seem inexpensive by comparison.

firephoto

We the people

Premium Member

join:2003-03-18

Brewster, WA firephoto Premium Member Re: Government hands off! But comcast will offer VHUHD++ Extreme for the clearest video ever known. wispalord

join:2007-09-20

Farmington, MO wispalord to TechyDad

Member to TechyDad

Ore allow a elected 3rd party to control it a whole new division with public oversight

NYDude25

join:2007-08-23

Massapequa, NY NYDude25 Member Re: Government hands off! There is nothing good that can come out of the government being involved with the internet. It's worked fine for decades with regulation, no need to mess it up now because we don't like how Netflix gets treated. masterbinky

join:2011-01-06

Carlsbad, NM masterbinky Member At least it makes sense They want to run the physical access like other highly regulated infrastructure. The major problem is that for the data side, exclusivity deals for any aspects of the data have to be strictly prohibited. Without that, a simple deal can negate all the benefits of injecting competition.

tshirt

Premium Member

join:2004-07-11

Snohomish, WA tshirt Premium Member I would hate to see .... ... us locked to such a half assed idea.

better they think about some more, rather than rush in to it.

firephoto

We the people

Premium Member

join:2003-03-18

Brewster, WA firephoto Premium Member Shell game Neutrality is about congestion that occurs by use or by manipulation. If you just push this aspect of it to the frontend service then the mega isp will just move their black boxes to the backend where the FCC will only be focusing on agreements and not the bits flowing here.



If they really want to solve it then just regulate the back-end so much to strip out the profit aspect of it, keep providing the federal handouts that currently exist for that back-end, and in turn this will eliminate the manipulation of deals for the purpose of power tripping executives. The customer side is where all the gravy is so this backend bs is just that.



If the customers have to suffer without dumb pipes then give all the ISPs in the country dumb pipes, or guarantee nearly that.

MichaelEvans

@71.212.54.x MichaelEvans Anon Exactly what part of Internet Service isn't 'backend' (backbone access)? Exactly what part of Internet Service isn't 'backend' (backbone access)? Skippy25

join:2000-09-13

Hazelwood, MO Skippy25 Member Ignores Biggest Issue How in this method would they address the single biggest issue in the US, competition?



Our biggest issue is simply that a vast majority of every place can only choose one broadband provider. You want to resolve backend deal problems, speed problems and price problems then you have to give the consumer choice in who they get service from and separate the backbone side from the retail side.



The only way to do that is forced line sharing in the last mile as it simply would not make sense, efficiently or financially, to require or even encourage multiple companies to run the infrastructure to get competition any other way.

batterup

I Can Not Tell A Lie.

Premium Member

join:2003-02-06

Netcong, NJ batterup Premium Member Re: Ignores Biggest Issue said by Skippy25: The only way to do that is forced line sharing in the last mile as it simply would not make sense, efficiently or financially, to require or even encourage multiple companies to run the infrastructure to get competition any other way.



That is what the Bell System was but free competition was better. Make it stop, this hurts my head. Brilliant, force all businesses to let other business operate out of their property. I would like to sell coffee in Starbucks, I know I can sell it cheaper.That is what the Bell System was but free competition was better. Make it stop, this hurts my head. Skippy25

join:2000-09-13

Hazelwood, MO 2 recommendations Skippy25 Member Re: Ignores Biggest Issue Your comparison doesn't even come close to being comparable. Try again. sonicmerlin

join:2009-05-24

Cleveland, OH sonicmerlin to batterup

Member to batterup

It's about 1000 times cheaper (literally) to open up a competing coffee shop than it is to build new lines in a market with a predatory incumbent. You have a knee jerk response to regulation and don't seem to care broadband infrastructure is a prime example of market failure.

batterup

I Can Not Tell A Lie.

Premium Member

join:2003-02-06

Netcong, NJ batterup Premium Member Re: Ignores Biggest Issue said by sonicmerlin: It's about 1000 times cheaper (literally) to open up a competing coffee shop than it is to build new lines in a market with a predatory incumbent. You have a knee jerk response to regulation and don't seem to care broadband infrastructure is a prime example of market failure. So you want to go communist and confiscate private business? I have an idea. How about a national regulated communication provider? It is quite obvious that wire-line is a natural monopoly.

alchav

join:2002-05-17

Saint George, UT alchav to Skippy25

Member to Skippy25

said by Skippy25: How in this method would they address the single biggest issue in the US, competition?



The only way to do that is forced line sharing in the last mile as it simply would not make sense, efficiently or financially, to require or even encourage multiple companies to run the infrastructure to get competition any other way. Skippy25, you finally have an idea here, but the only way this would work are for Communities or Cities to run their own Infrastructure...Should be Fiber. They wire themselves to Central Locations, where Providers could come in with their equipment and tie into their Network according to City or Community needs.

••••••••••••••••• show 17 replies

KrK

Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy

Premium Member

join:2000-01-17

Tulsa, OK Netgear WNDR3700v2

Zoom 5341J

KrK Premium Member This "Hybrid" response is a political move... ... It's a "Hybrid" in the terms it wants to APPEAR to address concerns and appease much of the public; while at the same time actually granted Corporate masters everything they want and endorse whole new ways of fleecing the public.



It's complete crap of course. Especially as any parts restricting activity to protect the public will be challenged in courts and likely watered down or stripped away entirely over time, while the pro-big telecom parts will become firmly codified into the rules and law. spdickey

join:2002-11-17

Pacific Palisades, CA spdickey Member Proposed FCC compromise will be a win for the industry But, in exchange will approve the Comcast / Time Warner Cable and AT&T / DirecTV mergers only with conditions that will bar them from engaging in paid prioritization.

DaveRickmers

join:2011-07-19

Canyon Country, CA DaveRickmers Member After Ed Snowden revelations what is internet good for? Certainly not the free discussion of ideas. The NSA has thrown a big wet blanket on the www. Zero tolerance for criminal copyright infringement (no fair use) requires that every packet be inspected; the new trade deals will make it much worse.



We need to start thinking about a new web. your comment..

