[TriLUG] Dear FCC

Sat May 17 19:46:08 EDT 2014

I am sending the following to my Congress Critters after a bit of proof
reading feed back:

On May 15, 2014 the FCC issued their proposed rules for “Protecting and
Promoting the Open Internet Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Notice”.  The
document is almost 200 pages long.  If the true aim of the rules were to
guarantee an Open Internet it would take only the following two sentences:

The FCC declares that Internet Service Providers (ISPs) are Common
Carriers.  All Internet packets must be treated the same.

So let us boil down the 200 pages to just the establishment that the FCC
can implement rules for ISPs, the rules, their implementation, enforcement
and foreseeable consequences.

*Establishment of FCC Authority*

At this time the FCC does not have the authority to regulate the ISPs.
This was established by the D.C. Circuit in its decision in Verizon v.
FCC.  I see two ways around this decision.  The best would be for congress
and the president to pass and sign a bill that establishes the FCC's right
and duty to regulate the Internet and ISPs.  The second would be for the
FCC to declare that ISPs are “Common Carriers”.  I prefer the former to the
later, as it would be less of an issue for the courts.  Unfortunately with
our overly partisan congress I do not see how this could happen.  The FCC
has some other ideas that would allow them to regulate the Internet.  The
problem with their other ideas is that they will end up in court for
years.  In any case, the FCC needs to establish a legal way for regulating
the ISPs before any rule making will make a difference.  This should come
be for anything else that the FCC is proposing.

*The Rules*

The No-Blocking rule is very basic.  ISPs cannot block lawful content,
applications, services, or non-harmful devices, subject to reasonable
network management.  This applies to all network traffic even if it
competes with the ISP's own services, such as video or telephone.

The No-Discrimination rule, is just the No-Blocking rule, applied to
discrimination of data packets instead of blocking the packets.

*Implementation*

I have no problem with the text of the No-Blocking and No-Discrimination
rules.  The proposed implementation leaves a lot to be desired.  The FCC
intends to make clear that No-Blocking and No-Discrimination does not mean
that ISPs cannot contract with content providers to offer preferred access
to the ISP's customers.

*Enforcement*

Enforcement of these proposed rules implemented with the ability to
contract with content providers will require a new bureaucratic oversight
group.  The oversight group would have to go over every contract between
ISP and content provider.  That is the only way to guarantee that the ISP's
customers and other content providers are protected.  If the simple all
packets are equal rule was adopted, there would not be a need for more
oversight.

*Foreseeable Consequences*

Following are four examples of what the ISP's legal departments will be
working on if the FCC's proposed rules go into effect:

A land based ISP that also is a major content provider (say Comcast with
NBC, Telemundo and Universal Pictures) may look at the new rules and take
advantage of being able to provide faster or better service for their
content.  This could happen two ways.  First Comcast content could be
routed at a higher speed than the customer pays for.  The customer could
still get to all Internet content, but the Comcast content would be
faster.  Second, if the customer's Internet plan has a data cap, the
Comcast content could be provided without counting towards the cap or even
worse, it would be provided at high speed after the customer reached their
cap.

A land base ISP that provides no or minimal content (Time Warner Cable
(TWC) for example) could contract high speed access to their low speed
customers.  For example TWC offers low cost Internet at 2 and 3 Mbps, which
is not fast enough for Netflix HD video.  Under the proposed rules TWC
could contract with Netflix for providing faster access to those slow
customers.  The customers would get the speed they paid for, and Netflix.
The problem would be that any new service would also have to pay for access
to those customers.  In effect start ups would be priced out of some
markets and there would be two Internets.

Cell phone providers could offer content providers a contract that would
not count their content against a customer's data cap.  This would again
limit new service companies ability to roll out new services for mobile
customers.  Innovation would take a big hit.

Super high speed ISPs would be disadvantaged.  They (example Google)
already provide enough speed to run any service and would find it hard to
squeeze more money from the Netflixes of the world.  I doubt that Nexflix
would offer a discount to their customers that use a true Net Neutrality
ISP.  Therefore the content providers customer's would be subsidizing the
non-Net Neutrality ISP's services.

I am sure the ISP's legal departments will come up with better ways to take
advantage of the not really Net Neutrality proposed rules.  After all I am
just a computer geek that thought of these while on a short walk.

*Why the ISPs Fight Net Neutrality*

The ISPs fight Net Neutrality, because they see a way to make more money.
That is their job.  The ISPs claim that forcing Net Neutrality on them is
“Taking”.  I disagree.  The Internet content providers provide what the
ISP's customers wants.  Without content ISPs would have nothing to sell
(OK, e-mail).  Now because of the success in a company like Netflix driving
the demand for high speed Internet, the ISPs want a slice of Netflix's
pie.  Charging the content providers would be like the cable companies
charging their customers and ESPN for their transmission service.  ISPs
should only be charging the content consumer.  If the ISPs have problems
with data hogs, they need to figure out how to manage their networks and/or
pricing better.

*What I Want Congress to Do*

Please pass a law that is very simple.  State that all Internet data
packets must be treated the same and that the FCC has legal authority to
regulate the Internet and ISPs.

Thanks,
Charles Fischer

On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 1:01 PM, Sean Alexandre <sean at alexan.org> wrote:

> I just filled out this form, to tell the FCC what I think about net
> neutrality:
> https://www.dearfcc.org/
>
> Part of the custom text I added was:
>
> "Content providers already pay for bandwidth to access the Internet.
> Similarly,
> I as an ISP consumer already pay for bandwidth to access the Internet. How
> that
> bandwidth is used by content providers or consumers should not be dictated
> by
> ISPs, especially since ISPs have what is effectively monopoly access in
> most
> markets."
>
> This seems like pretty sound and simple logic. ISPs have what is
> effectively
> a monopoly and so now they're trying to tighten the screws, by restricting
> access for something others have already paid for [1,2].
>
> Anything I'm missing?
>
> Here's an interesting article, comparing the artificial scarcity Enron
> created
> to drive up electricity prices to what ISPs are doing with bandwidth:
>
> Yes, Your Internet Is Getting Slower: "Yes, Your Internet Is Getting Slower
> Your provider likes it that way. And the government doesn’t care."
>
> http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2014/05/network_neutrality_dinosaurs_like_time_warner_and_at_t_have_nothing_to_worry.html
>
> And here's a recent article with some evidence of this:
>
> Level 3 claims six ISPs dropping packets every day over money disputes:
> Network provider doesn't name and shame ISPs guilty of "permanent
> congestion."
>
> http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/05/level-3-claims-six-isps-dropping-packets-every-day-over-money-disputes/
>
> --
> This message was sent to: Charles Fischer <cfischer at modernferrotype.com>
> To unsubscribe, send a blank message to trilug-leave at trilug.org from that
> address.
> TriLUG mailing list : http://www.trilug.org/mailman/listinfo/trilug
> Unsubscribe or edit options on the web  :
> http://www.trilug.org/mailman/options/trilug/cfischer%40modernferrotype.com
> Welcome to TriLUG: http://trilug.org/welcome