dslreports logo
 story category
The EFF Isn't a Fan of FCC's 'Hybrid' Net Neutrality Approach

Last week the Wall Street Journal leaked word that instead of reclassifying ISPs as utilities under Title II as most consumer advocates would like, the FCC was pondering a "hybrid" approach to net neutrality rules. Though no firm proposal has been released, the leaks suggest such an approach would keep last mile retail broadband access classified the same, but classify the relationships between ISPs and edge providers like Netflix under common carrier rules (aka title II).

That way, FCC logic apparently goes, the FCC doesn't have to reverse a decade of decisions to deregulate ISPs and the inevitable ugly legal challenge that entails.

Consumer advocates have been split on this concept, but most oppose the idea and doubt this approach would survive legal challenge (read: a huge waste of time that brings us back full circle). Large carriers like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast, whose support or opposition generally tells you how screwed you're going to wind up being when it comes to telecom policy, have been silent on the proposal. They'll likely sue no matter what -- short of the FCC doing nothing.

The EFF today came out squarely against the hybrid approach stating that they too doubt such a "split the baby" approach would survive legal challenge.

The EFF originally opposed the FCC trying to enforce net neutrality, but changed their tune back in July, stating that over-turning the 2002 FCC decision to classify ISPs as information services -- and reclassifying them under Title with forbearance -- is the only reasonable way to protect consumers from both aggressive, anti-competitive ISPs, and FCC over-reach.

This new hybrid approach may wind up doing neither, argues the group:
quote:
Third, a hybrid approach, while seemingly limited, could actually be a vehicle for future FCC overreach. In fact, it seems to replicate exactly the kind of confused legal theories that has long made us fearful that the FCC would abuse its power. With respect to net neutrality, the FCC started out by claiming a broad “ancillary” authority to regulate the Internet – a claim that, if accepted, could have been a Trojan horse for ever-expanding regulation.
Again, nobody has seen an actual copy of the proposed rules yet, so there's a lot of speculation going on until the full proposal is released. What is clear is the FCC appears to be doing everything in its power to avoid pulling the trigger on Title II. But if the agency is going to have a protracted fight with the mega-ISPs, most consumer advocates argue, it may as well be over something that's worth it.
view:
topics flat nest 

batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium Member
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ

batterup

Premium Member

Why would Verizon sue?

Verizon is selling private dedicated 24/7 bandwidth to business for their exclusive use. That is business the way it was for 100 years.

TechyDad
Premium Member
join:2001-07-13
USA

TechyDad

Premium Member

Re: Why would Verizon sue?

Verizon sued the FCC over their old Network Neutrality rules. Rules which Verizon helped craft and which were much weaker. (Weak to the point of being useless, some might argue.)
rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO

1 recommendation

rradina to batterup

Member

to batterup
If Verizon believes the new rules make it harder for them to make money, they have an obligation to sue.

We may not like that and we might all hope they would lose such a suit but if regulations change the business climate to the point of impacting shareholder return, not bringing a suit would be negligent to shareholder interests.

It's the same with any regulation. If you owned a restaurant and because of public health risk the government forced some new cleaning procedure that might cost profits, you can be an advocate against such regulation and if warranted, use the court system to challenge the regulation even though it might be for the good of the many.

batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium Member
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ

batterup

Premium Member

Re: Why would Verizon sue?

Verizon and others are getting exactally what they want the way I see it. They give the last mile subscriber's loop total neutrality, he gets what he wants when he wants it up to the bandwidth he pays for.

With middle mile they can provide 24/7 private lines with exclusive bandwidth not unlike a single party line as opposed to a party line. I don't see them cannibalizing the existing party line because the Netflixes will demand always availability bandwidth so new loops will have to be built and maintained. If anything this will free up the party line loop.

KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium Member
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
Netgear WNDR3700v2
Zoom 5341J

KrK to rradina

Premium Member

to rradina
And the same could be said that Regulators have an obligation to regulate,

Business may not like that and might hope they won't but if industry actions and lack of competition continue to damage the business climate to the point of impacting the Internet economy and consumers economic well being, not regulating would be negligent to the citizens of the USA's interests.

Government should respond to the will of the people, not the demands of powerful Corporations to make still more profits.

batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium Member
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ

batterup

Premium Member

Re: Why would Verizon sue?

said by KrK:

And the same could be said that Regulators have an obligation to regulate,

You can regulate a horse to water but you can't make him drink. You can't regulate that they build a new network without guarantying a return. Why is that so difficult to understand. You people tried that with FiOS; Seidenberg tried and it cost him his job.

Now tell me how the network should be confiscated for the good of the nation.

KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium Member
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
Netgear WNDR3700v2
Zoom 5341J

KrK

Premium Member

Re: Why would Verizon sue?

That is true. You can't stop them from cutting off their own noses to spite their faces.... however, we shouldn't fold to economic blackmail, either.

These companies want it both ways. They want the Government to leave them alone and let them abuse their position at will, yet the also want the Government to step in and prevent competition and protect their profits for them.

They are getting it, too. It needs to stop.
KrK

KrK

Premium Member

That's exactly what will happen....

.... any parts allowing "revenue enhancing" moves traffic discrimination and pay to bypass saturation will instantly be adopted by the industry and become the norm.

Any parts that protect consumers or place non-discriminatory requirements on providers will be challenged endlessly in court until struck down or made effectively unenforceable (Much like TA1996) and in the end big Telecom will get everything they want and everyone else will get screwed.

cst
@162.119.128.x

cst

Anon

Control

What government agency has ever voluntarily avoided expanding its power and control over anything?

tschmidt
MVM
join:2000-11-12
Milford, NH
·Consolidated Com..
·Republic Wireless
·Hollis Hosting

tschmidt

MVM

Re: Control

said by cst :

What government agency has ever voluntarily avoided expanding its power and control over anything?

Actually quite a few. Are you unaware of all the deregulation that has happened in the last 30 years?

/tom