Obama's Plan to Regulate the Internet is 332 Pages. The Public Can't Read It!

[OptimusPrime]

You know Google is a private company right?

You know they lobbied for the FCC takeover of the internet, right? When a company successfully lobbies the government for benefits, it is no longer a private company.

 

[OptimusPrime]

Well how bout that. What are the odds that the regulations aren't 332 pages after all? What are the odds that Commissioner Pai selectively chose words in order to wind up credulous low information media types who are less interested in the truth than slamming the president and the government overall? What's that? The regulations are only 8 pages, with the rest being responses to public comment?

Whew, luckily that can't ever change. Oh, shit, never mind.

And the FCC issued a press release describing the regulations (.pdf)?

No Blocking - broadband providers may not block access to legal content, applications, services,or non-harmful devices.

No Throttling - broadband providers may not impair or degrade lawful Internet traffic on the basis of content, applications, services, or non- harmful devices.

No Paid Prioritization - broadband providers may not favor some lawful Internet traffic over other lawful traffic in exchange for consideration of any kind - in other words, no “fast lanes."​

I don't think anyone ever thought they would censor "lawful" content. Now that they get to define "lawful", what it is?

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Well how bout that. What are the odds that the regulations aren't 332 pages after all? What are the odds that Commissioner Pai selectively chose words in order to wind up credulous low information media types who are less interested in the truth than slamming the president and the government overall? What's that? The regulations are only 8 pages, with the rest being responses to public comment?

Comments and responses are relevant to the interpretation of the regulations, often fleshing out things that the regulations themselves don't mention.

And the publishing of the full text is being held up by Commissioners Pai and O'Rielly? Hmm.

No "hmm". The point was to publish the drafts before the vote. After the vote, refusing to submit edits is just a way to delay their implementation for a bit.

No Paid Prioritization - broadband providers may not favor some lawful Internet traffic over other lawful traffic in exchange for consideration of any kind - in other words, no “fast lanes.”
​

Yeah, that's part of why it is so bad.

 

[spydy13]

You know they lobbied for the FCC takeover of the internet, right? When a company successfully lobbies the government for benefits, it is no longer a private company.

Actually they lobbied, alongside the vast majority of internet companies and consumers, to not let the cable companies take over the internet. The internet is staying the same.

Google provides a search service that they are allowed to change/improve in ways they deem fit. The Google search service does not belong to the general public. If you don't like what they are doing then start using Bing.

I mean, I get that you are a libertarian, but do you really believe that the government shouldn't make sure our meats don't have dirt and human body parts? That's the shit that used to happen before government regulation of the meat packing industry occurred.

Or should the government not make sure that drugs won't kill people before they hit the market?

 

[spydy13]

Yeah, that's part of why it is so bad.

Why's that bad?

 

[OptimusPrime]

Actually they lobbied, alongside the vast majority of internet companies and consumers, to not let the cable companies take over the internet. The internet is staying the same.

Google provides a search service that they are allowed to change/improve in ways they deem fit. The Google search service does not belong to the general public. If you don't like what they are doing then start using Bing.

I mean, I get that you are a libertarian, but do you really believe that the government shouldn't make sure our meats don't have dirt and human body parts? That's the shit that used to happen before government regulation of the meat packing industry occurred.

Or should the government not make sure that drugs won't kill people before they hit the market?

I already avoid Google for the most part. I was just answering your question about if they are a private company. No.

And are you suggesting that our meats are perfectly safe since the government is in control of their quality? They aren't. So are you going to hold them to the same standard you would if the private sector were in charge of meat quality? This is almost a joke, but the sad thing is that most people think the way you do so I have to respond. Meat quality was a lot better before the government got involved in 1891 than it is today.

http://www.independent.org/publications/article.asp?id=190

And are you really suggesting that pharmaceutical drugs are safe?

 

[NasstyNate]

Whew, luckily that can't ever change. Oh, shit, never mind.

What does this even mean? You started a reactionary thread based on misleading information suggesting the rules are 332 pages long. In fact, they are only 8 pages.

I don't think anyone ever thought they would censor "lawful" content. Now that they get to define "lawful", what it is?

I'm not aware of Congress transferring its power to define criminal law to an independent Executive agency. In fact, if it did, I highly suspect the Supreme Court would quickly find that unconstitutional. Do you have any evidence suggesting this has happened?

 

[NasstyNate]

Comments and responses are relevant to the interpretation of the regulations, often fleshing out things that the regulations themselves don't mention.

Are you asserting that this is something contemplated by the OP, you, or anyone else taking a position against the FCC in this thread? Because there's plenty of posts indicating otherwise.

No "hmm". The point was to publish the drafts before the vote. After the vote, refusing to submit edits is just a way to delay their implementation for a bit.

I agree that they should have made the 8 pages of regulations public before voting. I also do not think this situation is different from many other independent agency rule-making decisions which do not make their deliberations public. I also do not think the President had any role or power in this process.

Yeah, that's part of why it is so bad.

Why say this without explaining why?

 

[OptimusPrime]

What does this even mean? You started a reactionary thread based on misleading information suggesting the rules are 332 pages long. In fact, they are only 8 pages.

I didn't base anything on 332 pages. I would have opposed it if it was one sentence. I based it on what they are doing.

I'm not aware of Congress transferring its power to define criminal law to an independent Executive agency. In fact, if it did, I highly suspect the Supreme Court would quickly find that unconstitutional. Do you have any evidence suggesting this has happened?

First of all, nothing I quoted up there said anything about criminal law. It just said "unlawful". Congress, the president, an unelected bureaucrats all make laws over there. And surely you don't believe the Supreme Court would find that or almost anything unconstitutional.

 

[NasstyNate]

First of all, nothing I quoted up there said anything about criminal law. It just said "unlawful". Congress, the president, an unelected bureaucrats all make laws over there. And surely you don't believe the Supreme Court would find that or almost anything unconstitutional.

No, you said the FCC gets to define what is unlawful. I am asking what evidence do you have showing that is the case?

 

[OptimusPrime]

No, you said the FCC gets to define what is unlawful. I am asking what evidence do you have showing that is the case?

I said "they", meaning the federal government. I should have been more clear.

 

[NasstyNate]

I said "they", meaning the federal government. I should have been more clear.

Reacting to an FCC decision saying they now have the ability to decide what is unlawful does not suggest that you are talking about the federal government considering it has always had that power, but fair enough. No disagreements there.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Why say this without explaining why?

Because I thought that argument has been hashed out elsewhere and I didn't have anything to really add. But okay.

Because I don't understand why they shouldn't be able to charge more for a higher level of service. In most cases, you're talking about businesses that are willing to pay a premium. That ability to charge more make it easier to generate more revenue from a given network, making investment in additional service/improvements more likely. Those who are willing to pay a premium often are what enable (financially) investments that benefit all of us.

So if Progressive Insurance is willing to pay a huge premium for faster service, they're making it more likely that the providers will spend more to improve those lines, which is something that likely will benefit the rest of us who aren't willing to pay those premiums. Conversely, if you have to charge everyone the same and provide the same level of service, they're not going to be able to milk extra revenue from those businesses. That makes the lines generate less overall revenue, which makes expansion/investment less likely.

It's just one of those populist issues, where equality is a higher value for some people than is quality of service. It's like the old Russian joke about the farmer who has only one cow, and watches with envy his slightly richer neighbor, who has two. He complains bitterly about this unfairness, until one day, his Fairy Godmother pops down, tells him she has seen his sadness and only having one cow, and offers to grant him a wish to put him on equal footing with his neighbor. He thanks her, thinks about it, then says with a smile "okay -- kill one of his cows".

 

[spydy13]

Because I thought that argument has been hashed out elsewhere and I didn't have anything to really add. But okay.

Because I don't understand why they shouldn't be able to charge more for a higher level of service. In most cases, you're talking about businesses that are willing to pay a premium. That ability to charge more make it easier to generate more revenue from a given network, making investment in additional service/improvements more likely. Those who are willing to pay a premium often are what enable (financially) investments that benefit all of us.

So if Progressive Insurance is willing to pay a huge premium for faster service, they're making it more likely that the providers will spend more to improve those lines, which is something that likely will benefit the rest of us who aren't willing to pay those premiums. Conversely, if you have to charge everyone the same and provide the same level of service, they're not going to be able to milk extra revenue from those businesses. That makes the lines generate less overall revenue, which makes expansion/investment less likely.

It's just one of those populist issues, where equality is a higher value for some people than is quality of service. It's like the old Russian joke about the farmer who has only one cow, and watches with envy his slightly richer neighbor, who has two. He complains bitterly about this unfairness, until one day, his Fairy Godmother pops down, tells him she has seen his sadness and only having one cow, and offers to grant him a wish to put him on equal footing with his neighbor. He thanks her, thinks about it, then says with a smile "okay -- kill one of his cows".

But if Progressive pays that "huge" premium, they aren't going to eat that cost. It will directly get passed down to the consumer. There is also no guarantee that they would actually improve the lines. They could have simply downthrottled everyone else, and thus the standard speed now would suddenly become the "fast lane."

There is also the way bigger problem of what happens if some startup insurance company comes along and provides better service than Progressive but don't have the money to pay "huge" premiums, thus making it harder or less desirable for consumers to use that service?

 

[NasstyNate]

Because I thought that argument has been hashed out elsewhere and I didn't have anything to really add. But okay.

Because I don't understand why they shouldn't be able to charge more for a higher level of service. In most cases, you're talking about businesses that are willing to pay a premium. That ability to charge more make it easier to generate more revenue from a given network, making investment in additional service/improvements more likely. Those who are willing to pay a premium often are what enable (financially) investments that benefit all of us.

So if Progressive Insurance is willing to pay a huge premium for faster service, they're making it more likely that the providers will spend more to improve those lines, which is something that likely will benefit the rest of us who aren't willing to pay those premiums. Conversely, if you have to charge everyone the same and provide the same level of service, they're not going to be able to milk extra revenue from those businesses. That makes the lines generate less overall revenue, which makes expansion/investment less likely.

Thanks for taking the time.

I do not think this is an accurate summation of what happens when an ISP can charge different rates, though I agree that customer benefit should be the lens through which we view these issues. Charging more is not necessarily an incentive to improve service for users, though I agree it might have that result far down the line. However, that result is ancillary at best to the real reason for charging disparate rates - anti-competitive behavior.

Currently, we have a situation where ISPs are in competition with companies they service. You have framed the issue as paying for a higher level of service, but it is more accurately viewed as ISPs charging more in order to harm their competitors and reduce their competition. That practice keeps new competitors out of the market, which harms consumers much more than the distant benefits of improved service. If left to the status quo, Comcast could only provide Netflix streamable speeds, thereby only giving consumers the choice between its services and Netflix's. Then Netflix could just pass its costs to the customer and never lower prices due to not facing any other competition. Classic duopoly.

The FCC actually had the same concerns as you and addressed the issue in its new regulations:

The Order forbears from applying utility-style rate regulation, including rate regulation or tariffs, last-mile unbundling, and burdensome administrative filing requirements or accounting standards.​

The last-mile unbundling issue is the one ISPs claimed would continue to incentivize service improvements. They asked for it and got it (my guess is over the President's wishes), so hopefully that addresses your concerns.