Net neutrality, as implemented, is really flawed in a lot of ways (there's a lot of practical uses for more limited types of Internet plans being available in world of IoT, especially), but this comment will be -4 shortly anyways. We shouldn't be regulating the Internet. We should be breaking up monopolies and fining companies for unfair business practices.
Ultimately in a perfect world if the agencies did as their mission statements said that would work. Monopolies need to be broken up and it can lead to good things, even just threatening Microsoft in the 90s led to Google, Apple, etc emergence.
The problem is there has been zero sign that anyone is willing to go after monopolies, especially after the Great Recession even though it would probably help us get out of the next one easier with more breakups.
The local ISP monopolies are really against net neutrality, Google isn't the monopoly we need to be worrying about yet. ISPs/broadband have local monopolies built on fake competition on purpose.
The vast majority US only has 0 or 1 valid ISP with decent speeds if that at 25-100 Mbps[1][2].
ISPs are the biggest monopoly threat regarding open internet as they control the levers, not a company that operates on top of the internet in the market.
[1] https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/08/us-br...
[2] https://consumerist.com/2014/03/07/heres-what-lack-of-broadb...
Regional/local monopolies are barely a concern worth mention in comparison. It's as if you're worried about the street dealer, and not worried about the head of the cartel.
Even so, Microsoft didn't get in trouble with the Justice Department for its Windows monopoly, it got in trouble for leveraging its monopoly to support its other, non-monopoly products. If you want to argue that Google should be constrained under anti-trust rules, you need to show how they're abusing a monopoly to compete unfairly with other products. People have made that argument but it's less cut-and-dry than it was in Microsoft's case.
As it is, your lack of understanding of the basic definition of 'monopoly' makes what you're saying somewhat nonsensical.
- Chrome will soon start directly blocking Google Ads' competitors based on standards Google invented through an organization it runs.
- Chrome pushes Google Search default, Search pesters you to get Chrome like three times.
- Android devices are required to ship with nearly all of Google's products pre-installed. Literally through a confidential contract almost every phone manufacturer on the planet save like... Apple and Amazon have signed on.
There are more, mind you, but this is kinda a taste. Microsoft did nothing this illegal, ever.
Talking about Google here is a distraction and a false equivalency as they control nothing in the lower level of your network like ISPs do.
Google is not a monopoly, they are a market leader with mind share. They were able to get the word "google" as a verb, that is through a good product and marketing.
It seems you really prefer companies that buy their monopolies via legislation and bribes like ISPs (Comcast/AT&T/etc) over companies that build market share in the actual market (Google/Apple/Facebook/Netflix/Amazon etc).
You need to read up on your Microsoft history, you are precluding lots of history, Microsoft is well known to do the "embrace, extend and extinguish"[1] technique back when they were essentially monopoly mind share level. Just one small thing in many that they did, they killed Quicktime, Real Player[2] when Windows player was created by making them not work on the OS level.
ISPs want to do the same thing with competitive products, it is a natural progression for a market leader, you can't blame them you have to prevent it with regulation/laws.
The only control Google has is to control technology via their browser, which Microsoft did with IE4 especially - and you can use others, and what kind of search results you can get. AMP is an overstep and their control but not monopoly level yet -- and they are overstepping on stomping internet standards in a new 'embrace, extend, and extinguish'. But even then, Google has less monopoly ability to control your network compared to ISPs that control everything you do on the internet and Microsoft could control OS level when Windows was 95% share and only desktop existed, which they pushed IE then as well and crushed competition, preinstalled and all that.
I like Google and Microsoft though, they earned their mind share through innovative products. ISPs just buy off legislators and create state assisted monopolies. The latter is very anti-business and anti-competitive much more than building support in an open market.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguis...
[2] https://www.cnet.com/news/real-hits-microsoft-with-1-billion...
I'm well aware of Microsoft's twenty-year-ago history, but it pales in comparison to Google's present. Your suggestion that Google earned it's place is horribly incorrect: It got it's power through buying off legislators (About half of all Congressmembers have received money from Google), working directly in the White House (During Obama's term, no company visited the executive more), and using secret agreements with other companies to pack in default apps, adware, and browser toolbars.
People make the misleading belief that everyone switched to Google because of how great it was (or used to be). I did. You probably did. Most people did not. Either a program they installed like Adobe Reader had Google Toolbar packed in which forced their default browser to switch, or they ended up on a device that comes preloaded with Chrome. Sundar Pichai's rise to stardom was the Google Toolbar, which gained penetration buy being one of those sleezy addons that came with nearly everything a Windows user wanted to install.
Now with Android, Google has every phone manufacturer doing their job for them: In order to get access to the Play Store, phone manufacturers have to ship Chrome as the default browser, Google Search as the default search engine, and include about twenty other Google apps.
It is a very important discussion, it should never happen and ISPs want to do it to have the ability to slow you down and throttle you. NN prevents packet level bias.
Even if you still want to beat the Google is a monopoly drum, I don't totally disagree that some of their tactics are that level, this is just a distraction from NN and local ISP monopolies using Google is a false equivalency to ISPs that are your entry to the internet, before Google can even get to you.
You are literally off topic at this point, this isn't a thread on Google monopoly level tactics, this is about NN which Google would be market leader with or without. Google issues for another day, today is ISP local monopolies which you continually distract from almost as if you are purposefully doing it. If you aren't being paid by the ISPs you should at this point.
If you had 0 or 1, 25Mbps-100Mbps option in your area is that sufficient? Google obsession aside, do you think there is ANY local monopoly issue regarding ISPs?
Current ISP talking points on ISP monopolies are to distract to Google, Facebook, Amazon etc just as the WSJ has been doing. You've joined the club in distracting from the real issue, NN, unrelated to whether Google is a monopoly.
You go and call out Google for lobbying, they have to the way ISPs and Comcast/AT&T etc buy off legislature. You seem to like the companies that buy off legislature and provide NO innovative benefits to them running the web today, at least with Google/Amazon/etc there are benefits not degradation of service like the ISPs of today.
Everything you are pitching is right out of their guidebook, Google has funded every net neutrality supporting organization out there today, and is behind every single move you see to defend it. Ask yourself why.
Google obsession aside, could care less about what they do in regards to NN really though I am glad that they and most companies and people in the country support NN, the ISPs matter on this policy.
ISPs/broadband/telcos/providers really are the ONLY ones that don't want it, ask yourself WHY they want it removed so badly...against most people's demands. They say it changes nothing, I don't want SLOW lanes, unless they are massively increasing infrastructure they will be SLOWING you down and INSPECTING packets. This is anti-internet behavior. If Google was actually using their monopoly about it they would crush NN because they will be top in mind share either way. When Netflix, who was affected by NN, stopped supporting NN for a while people flipped. Same with Google, people would be pissed if Google didn't support NN, this comes from PEOPLE's demands [1][2].
Why all the ISP love? You got some massive trust in them to both mostly have a monopoly control and to be able to control traffic (including speeds/data caps) AND have all your private info for every single connection you make.
Do you think there is ANY local monopoly issue regarding ISPs? Do you think ISP competition is good enough in the US?
Do you see the difference in the level of control ISPs have over ALL your traffic while Google has to have you USE them?
I have acknowledged some issues with Google but you have yet to acknowledge anything regarding ISP abuse and questions regarding broadband availability where ISPs are failing the US (Google Fiber was an awesome competitive boost we needed), nor that most people want NN [1][2]. Yes, your Google obsession is a distraction from the main NN point, the only people that want NN are ISPs/broadband/telcos/providers.
[1] https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2017/06/06/new-mozilla-poll-am...
[2] https://morningconsult.com/2017/11/29/strong-support-net-neu...
What about Android? Did you ever see an Android phone sold without the Google App ecosystem? Oh, and the GApps tracks you everytime, even with GPS off it constantly tracks you. the only way to disable it is to reinstall with AOSP or CAF-based build. That seems pretty abusive and anti-consumer.
And we're skipping Chrome/GoogleSearch combo, DoubleClick, Youtube...
Google not only has a very monopolistic position in certain services, but also has a lot of control over the most used web services on the world (without being in a monopoly situation), and uses it to actively track it's users and get revenue with it. Google is one of the companies I trust less.
You can, if you're willing to accept a second-rate experience. But avoiding that is the whole point of net neutrality enforcement.
ADSL is fundamentally unable to compete with DOCSIS or fiber; phone lines simply do not have sufficient bandwidth except over impractically short distances. Satellite can never offer acceptable latency. Cellular radio solutions exist on a spectrum where at one end they have broad coverage but horrible latency and throughput, and at the other end they can outperform DSL but only by deploying a dense enough wired backhaul network that you aren't saving much money over building out a pure wired network.
If you want 50+ MBps with low latency, there are only three viable technologies: DOCSIS over coax, short-range xDSL, or fiber. Only one of those three is currently widely deployed in the US. The latter two are available only where it is most convenient and profitable for ISPs to deploy.
Satellite internet can offer very competitive latency, even though nobody is doing it so far. Small cubesats make lower orbits viable than what's currently used for satellite internet. At a low earth orbit of 400km (about the height of the ISS) you have a round trip time of just 3ms.
I don't disagree with you though, we need solid fiber internet options available at reasonable prices.
Because there is competition they have competitively built up a better product within the market and on top of the internet. Google built up when Lycos, Excite, Yahoo, Alta Vista and others were there, they did it better up until now. There are still user choice and Google has no local/physical monopoly control.
People choose to use Google, most people can't choose their broadband provider.
ISPs could have invested in their own search engine or a third party one but they did not. Google built the best search engine but there are some up and coming competitors (DuckDuckGo mainly).
Companies that built up their market lead and or mind share monopolies did so in the open market, they did not lobby their way to a monopoly that controls your local area and blocks out competitors and innovations like muni networks. Google also isn't against NN.
If there is a monopoly do which you seem to think Google is, do you support companies building up their own product into a monopoly by choice or one that uses representatives and bribes to buy their way to control your internet from the moment you are on to the moment you are off.
Google is a destination on the web, built on top of it. Broadband is a lower level that we need to access a fair playing field of competitive products.
Do they? In that case let's get Chrome to default to DuckDuckGo.
If you are right then usage stats will hardly change.
On the other hand 90%+ of my internet usage goes over my phones data plan.
> Google also isn't against NN
Google discriminates more than the worst NN offenders.
Lots of mildly controversial youtubers have been deliberately de-monetized.
They are worried about Comcast, Cox, AT&T and the like that own ISPs/broadband, content and control your privacy on every site you go to with the ISP privacy bill they put through, which they moved to the FTC from the FCC so they could control it better.
You don't have to go to Google, you are stuck with your ISP and the other fake competitive ISP that they create fake competitive markets with.
Your points are literally the Jeff Flake [1] points he made about allowing ISPs to take your info and sell it / run ads on it stating that it is unfair for Google/Facebook to own that. Google and Facebook earned you going to their site to get that data, ISPs lobbied to get it and you can't not go to your ISP, they run all your online access. ISPs should innovate and make products to get your information to sell ads from, not bribe their way into another monopoly while the FTC let's them do it.
FTC move for privacy essentially away from FCC was the start to dismantling net neutrality with the same arguments even though it actually created ISP monopolies more heavily because now they get ad revs, content revs, and bandwidth/access revs.
How much more power do you want to give to the ISPs? You can choose to go to Google, you cannot choose your ISP on the fly and most likely you only have one good one in your area with fake ISP competition that was a cut deal in a backroom.
FTC will not enforce net neutrality, they have been against it from the beginning and it is a regulatory captured agency that loves the ISPs.
FTC probably can't enforce net neutrality, this came from one of their commissioners [2]:
> The Federal Trade Commission will not be able to fill the gap created by the FCC’s abdication of its authority and sector-specific mandate. After-the-fact antitrust and consumer protection enforcement by the FTC cannot substitute for clear upfront rules, especially given that vertically integrated broadband ISPs have both the incentive and ability to favor their own content or that of paid “partners” over the content of rivals.
Only thing the FTC can do is after the damage fines, which will be underwhelming. Rules/law needs to stop ISPs upfront, this is why they want it away from the FCC and on the FTC. ISPs would rather win in the marketplace, get their monopolies cutting out competition, then pay a fine rather than innovating to compete. Upfront rules about net neutrality are needed to help create the next Google/Apple/Netflix/Facebook that would be crushed without it.
[1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/settling-a-bureaucratic-turf-wa...
[2] https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_statements...
The ISPs suck, they are the most hated companies in the world and all. The suckage takes the form of “they don’t show up for the appointment on time” or “they raised my bill by $20” which produces a lot of negative sentiment in the average consumer.
Google and Facebook, by contrast, make money from selling attention, and their business depends on having good consumer sentiments. Turns out it’s a very lucrative business. ISPs want a taste of those tens of billions so they want a troll toll from Facebook and Google. They don’t care about some startups with no money.
This whole net neutrality thing is only such a big political issue because of the lobbying of the internet giants, who can take advantage of their positive brand sentiment to fight against the telecoms who are trying to get a piece of the action. If you think it’s about freedom of information or something, check out Facebook’s stance on net neutrality in India. Silicon Valley lost this round because someone who isn’t in their ring won the election. For the sake of our profession’s prevailing wage, let’s hope it goes the other way next time.
I've been trying for two years to switch isp. I can't because there's only one choice. Every time I ask the other isp who is even in the general area for how much it would cost to wire my house, I get a "don't know, sorry' answer from them.
With my current isp their local infrastructure craps out (5-10% packet loss all the time) every year or so and I have to file an average of ~3 support tickets and wait a month for them to fix it. I'm 1-2 miles away from downtown Seattle.
> The suckage takes the form of “they don’t show up for the appointment on time” or “they raised my bill by $20” which produces a lot of negative sentiment in the average consumer.
No the suckage comes from only one in many, many areas[1][2]. Data caps, charges on data caps, slow speeds, lack of competition after Google Fiber left many markets due to ISP thuggery. They also dislike the ISP privacy protections being removed and them now able to sell all your data. Say what you want about Google/Facebook but they innovated to get people to share their personal data, they didn't need to bribe congress to further their monopoly.
The vast majority US only has 0 or 1 valid ISP(s) with decent speeds if that at 25-100 Mbps[1][2].
> This whole net neutrality thing is only such a big political issue because of the lobbying of the internet giants
Comcast was throttling Netflix in 2015, they will throttle smaller players without abandon. Netflix had to create fast.com to test speeds because even the speed tests on ISP sites were fixed to report higher than they were to hide the nerfing of Netflix.
ISPs are much more of a threat to open internet than Google, Facebook or any company that has innovated on top of the internet in the market, not trying to control your entry point to the market by bribing Congress.
Nobody HAS to go to Google or Facebook, they HAVE TO use their ISP. They are the threat to open internet not the other way around. This shifting to companies that earned their position in the open market is strongly anti-business in favor of companies that pay off lawmakers.
[1] https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/08/us-br...
[2] https://consumerist.com/2014/03/07/heres-what-lack-of-broadb...
I'm sorry, but I'm really not getting your vibe here. If I remember correctly, Facebook tried to make sure Indian market never saw net neutrality, and repeatedly spread FUD through their platform.
Can't be a majority. 2/3 of all network traffic is netflix.
Google and Apple creating their own monopoly-like business in turn (locking you in their walled gardens as much as then can). It certainly looks like a pattern, with consumers not having much of a choice in the end.
Agreed but you can still choose those, you can't really choose your local ISP now they want to inspect packets, control which ones they slow down and have access to all your private data to sell. They lobbied for that and Google/Apple made innovative products to get you to come onboard and willingly give that away. I prefer at least my monopolies to get their market share by providing products people want and love.
The only major problem with capitalism is monopolies/big fish controlling everyone else.
There indeed has been a real failure to break up monopolies, especially ISP monopolies that control access to the internet.
You can still choose away from Google/Apple but there should eventually be breakups if competitors do not surface and Google keeps pulling stuff like AMP and Apple with ebook pricing manipulation and other areas. But net neutrality isn't about Google/Apple winning, they will win if NN is under FCC or FTC, it is about ISPs and them slowing competitors down because they have the levers.
Android or iOS are just OSs and there have always been a small amount of those that are market leaders. It is nice to have 2 instead of one that we had on desktop essentially for a while. There are lots of other mobile OSs (Windows, WebOS, linux phones) though but those two are the top. They don't have a location lock or local monopoly on anyone, they won their users through innovation and products people wanted. The exact opposite could be said of ISPs today even though they were innovators in the 90s'/00s when there were many.
I have zero choice of my ISP in my location I have Cox at 100Mbps which is decent and CenturyLink at 12Mbps which is not even comparable. Cox gigablast and CenturyLink fiber is two miles over but stopped installing new when Google Fiber left. Competition could easily get us to gigabit everywhere but their competition is fake and their efforts resides in their past local monopoly areas. I'd literally pay for my line to be ran to my house but they won't. They want to eek out every last revenue cent with degrading service (data caps, overage charges) while the cost goes up, no speed improvements. I'd gladly pay more for more product.
Lots of ISPs delay is they want people to have to switch to their content/tv systems again instead of cord cutting, they are doing this by removing unlimited, adding data caps, and slowing service. They are either going to get people to switch or drive up the costs to offset losses due to cord cutting. People are cord cutting because it is a better product elsewhere and cost is too much.
Broadband companies originally disrupted the telco dial-up internet companies. I sometimes think it will take satellite internet from like SpaceX or some new innovation and current ISPs will be dropped like a hot rock, like phone lines for cable internet back on the 90s/00s.
Do you think it is smart to only have 1 provider in most of the US for broadband? Would you want that in your area?
Removing NN will also increase revenues for ISPs that currently are already or on their way to monopolies, which will create even more fake ISP competition.
Everyone saw what happened when Google Fiber was threatening, suddenly competition...
[1] https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/08/us-br...
[2] https://consumerist.com/2014/03/07/heres-what-lack-of-broadb...
There are few places in the Boston-Cambridge-Brookline metro area where you can get more than one. FiOS rollouts are spotty and often don't even encompass entire neighborhoods, which leaves you either with RCN--who tend to be pretty okay, as ISPs go--or the ongoing garbage fire of Comcast.
I strongly doubt that most "large metro areas" have pervasive, meaningful competition in even most areas, let alone all.
Even areas in the big cities you mentioned most people only have 0-1 choices for 25Mbps-100Mbps.
I won't even go into the small amount that has access to gigabit which everyone should be on.
If you are ok with that, that is on you, we can do better and we need to, our ISPs are failing us and holding us back.
ISPs said only net neutrality was holding them back from investing in increasing speeds, availability and rolling out gigabit, so I fully expect speeds and gigabit to be to available to everyone soon. /s
Nothing has changed on ISP infrastructure/improvements since late '15/'16 other than maintenance. I see no sources on your point that it has changed and locally here just data caps have been added, no speed improvements or innovation. ISPs just worked with the FCC to LOWER the number that is rated 'broadband' to 10Mbps as broadband in their description. 10 Mbps is not acceptable for a more than a single person, 25-100 is barely acceptable -- everyone should be on gigabit -- lots of false 12Mbps competition which does not compare to 25/100 Mbps. ISPs have not expanded their networks enough at all by their own admission as they said NN was preventing that supposedly eventhough we know it is cord cutters cutting into investment because ISPs/providers got greedy.
2015-present the ISPs stopped expanding after Google Fiber pulled out of markets and they were being bratty about net neutrality passing, they put all their money in lobbying. They literally said in their lobbying that NN has hindered investment and did little '16-'18 just to stick to that talking point until their paid off lawmen killed NN.
Of course, now that net neutrality is gone, what they said was 'holding up' investment in their networks, I am sure they will be expanding at a rapid clip and we'll all have gigabit internet soon now right? /s
Good data, though these numbers still are pretty much the same. The data you linked rates 10/25 Mbps not 25/100 Mbps when rating competition in areas. Most people still only have 0 or 1 options at 25/100 Mbps.
There has been a small bump in 25 Mbps. But even then they are only are up a bit. However, 49% for 25Mbps is still pathetically sad, up under 20% only in 4 years as they did little '16-present to help push NN removal.
They fail to highlight that most places with 'multiple broadband providers', of over 10 Mbps which is not really broadband that is good for today, typically have one provider at 100Mbps or higher and the other false competition at 10-12 Mbps so they just barely rate at the low 10Mbps pathetic broadband classification. ISPs also still have great interest in their local monopolies, which still more than half the population are under at 25 Mbps, and more than 2/3rds under 100Mbps local monopolies, only 10% have gigabit available and those areas have no competitive option, not good enough for the US.
Much of the move to 100 Mbps, which the broadband cable companies could do more easily with DOCSIS anyday they like, was the result of areas that Google Fiber entered. Cox for instance was 25 Mbps down here until Google Fiber then suddenly they got 100/300 Mbps and started offering gigablast/gigabit but that quickly stopped after Google pulled out. REAL competition is good. Saying competition is one provider with 100Mbps and the competitor at 10Mbps is not real competition.
Most of the US is still under local monopolies for 25 Mbps service (0 or 1 option only), and nearly all of the US is under local monopoly for 100+ Mbps, unacceptable.
So now that ISPs have net neutrality removed I am sure we will see multiple 100 Mbps competitive products and gigabit service rapidly rolling out across the country right? /s
In other words: Protecting Net Neutrality through the FCC is not politically stable. We have clear proof of that. Google just wants that because it's protecting its own interests over that of the public at large.
"Don't be evil." -- Apparently that doesn't include self interest to the detriment of the public.
Being a publically traded company, they have a duty to make money for their shareholders (I think but am not sure that duty might even be legal).
If they were a Social Benefit Corp, then they wouldn't have such a duty, and so could choose to not make money when doing so would cause evil.
Big problem: that's not realistic.
If the government is failing to carry out essential functions, that suggests a radical change in government is likely to occur (or has already begun).
Can you clarify what you mean by this?
If they restricted the services you could access or their relative speeds, then you get into trouble.
Most in the ISP crowd agree with what you are agreeing with. But the net neutrality folks predominantly reject this approach.
I want surgery over IP. I don’t want surgical packets treated the same as a YouTube packet.
Do you really think these two statements are at all related?
Customer: Yay I'll buy a ${Brand} IoT device.
...
Customer: ISP, why isn't my {$Brand} IoT device working on your network?
ISP: Oh you need the $150 a month add-on to support your ${Brand} IoT device because ${Business Decision}.
The benefits of net neutrality still applies to IoT devices IMHO.
Fundamentally, ISPs are already charging the most money they can get away with at this point and time. The law doesn't change that, and net neutrality doesn't restrict that. They like money, so they set their prices as high as possible. The only thing net neutrality laws prevent is cheaper, limited internet plans BELOW that. For smaller things, low income families, etc.
Also, where has anybody argued that net neutrality would prevent the customer from choosing to block all but a specific host?
You've come down against net neutrality in every thread I've seen about it lately. Have you come across any arguments in favor that are persuasive to you?
Nobody could offer one because net neutrality would prohibit an ISP from intervening if you popped the SIM into another device to surf the web with it.
Google and Netflix are both against allowing such because streaming video, of which these companies own the largest providers of streaming video, would be the primary thing limited plans would all definitely restrict. Neither company wants ISPs selling Internet plans that can't use their video services.
Even if it'd be good for the customer.
No, the primary thing limited plans would all definitely restrict would be the quantity of data transferred. That's what all the cellular providers already have the infrastructure to monitor and control. And once you've created an IoT-oriented tier of service that is limited to eg. 100MB/month, there's no reason to expend further effort trying to identify and block video streaming services.
Net neutrality sounds consistent with this to me.
Net neutrality is essential for the internet to continue to thrive and flourish as it has done since 1996. But using Article 2 for that purpose is like using a sledgehammer on a finishing nail.
Article 2 was aimed at the true AT&T telecom behemoths of the world. But it is not the job of any federal agency to dictate what its own job is to Congress, i.e. in this case the FCC deciding it wants different public policy from what its charter statutes support. Congress sets public policy and determines how much leeway it will delegate to the agencies and the President. Federal agencies (of any stripe) arrogating power unto themselves is undemocratic, even if well-intentioned.
So the problem is that Congress has failed to act to block the new abusive behaviors of the ISPs, and we need Congress to write new laws. Personally I think that if sufficient leeway were granted to encourage local competition, all of this and a bunch of other abuses (exhibit A: Comcast customer support) would vanish in a puff of smoke.
Side note, I happily donate every month to the EFF, but I believe they are misguided in their support for lawsuits like those announced today.
Is it? I don't think it's unreasonable at all to define, what is often the only ISP in a whole region, as a common carrier. It's practically the definition.
> Article 2 was aimed at the true AT&T telecom behemoths of the world.
And here we are with new telecom behemoths!
Commissions like the FCC and FTC exist to create regulations so that Congress is not writing hundreds to thousands of laws at a level of detail that they cannot handle. You might correct that Congress can act in this matter I'm not sure it's inappropriate for the FCC to do so.
The issue is that peer to peer sharing of sharing of pirated entertainment media is not protected by antitrust or censorship legislation, so a 'third way' had to be found, some kind of overriding principle that even trumps copyright law but without mentioning it. That's net neutrality, which I think is redundant now because there are many legitimate and affordable ways to get entertainment media and the networks can easily handle multiple forms of high quality streaming media, but the political momentum behind network neutrality is still there and exploited by some content providers for their own gain.
But historically, the FCC has a long history of regulating all sort of communications, not just things with public RF. The Communications Act of 1934 made them the successor to the Federal Radio Commission, adding responsibility for telephone regulation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Act_of_1934
No, the FCC jurisdiction (even leaving aside broadband specifically) isn't predicated solely on a “physically limited resource”, otherwise it wouldn't have jurisdiction over telcos.
Further—while appeals have not been exhausted yet—AT&T v. FTC, if it holds up, will prevent any common carrier (e.g., any wireline telco) from being regulated in many activities by the FTC even in non-video-gaming activities (such as post-NN-repeal ISP services.)
[0] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/09/atts-throttling-...
Broadband cable/fiber are a physically limited resource to the installed lines, yes they can be expanded but they are not typically. They are using the same lines ran in the 90s just DOCSIS to get more throughput and duplexing.
Assuming the FTC isn't a regulatory capture agency, it is. FTC does very little here, it was in the FTC before 2015 it went Title II and the FCC.
The FTC also can't make it a utility, the FCC can via Title II, thus the reason it ended up there from the FTC in 2015.
FTC was fighting against net neutrality from 2007-2011 to today [1].
> In June 2007, the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) urged restraint with respect to new regulations proposed by net neutrality advocates, noting the "broadband industry is a relatively young and evolving one," and given no "significant market failure or demonstrated consumer harm from conduct by broadband providers" such regulations "may well have adverse effects on consumer welfare, despite the good intentions of their proponents." The FTC conclusions were questioned in Congress in September 2007, when Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., chairman of the Senate interstate commerce, trade and tourism subcommittee, told FTC Chairwoman Deborah Platt Majoras that he feared new services as groundbreaking as Google could not get started in a system with price discrimination.
The FTC is also a largely controlled agency by one party, I'll let you guess which one.
FTC's arguments up to 2011 were that no signs of abuse have emerged, that changed through 2015. One example is when Netflix/Comcast were already thottling them, Netflix even had to make fast.com because ISPs were 'fixing' their speed tests to lie.
FCC regulation, though I dislike the FCC as well, is the only place internet can be seen as a utility, which it is now and must be as so much is built on it.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality_in_the_United_S...
Defining ISPs as Common Carriers makes me more uneasy. Are there really no unintended consequences there? My understanding is that Common Carrier status connotes that there is a recognized definitive benefit to having the monopoly, as with railroads or telephone networks. It seems to enshrine as necessary the municipal and regional exclusivity contracts. Are you so sure there would be no potential risks to innovation and a bequeathing of great power to ISPs by having them declared utilities?
Responsive is not ok for a needed utility that many other companies run business on.
Scenario: 2025 Comcast is found to have hindered x amount of small to medium sized businesses, of which 1% may be big innovations/companies that could have provided jobs and advancement. For this they have to pay a double digit million dollar fine ($25m let's say) from the FTC in after-the-damage fines. Small beans for controlling competitive threats which we know is where every large fish goes in capitalism as a natural course. Monopolies need to be checked upfront when it comes to a utility that the entire country runs off of now. ISPs are hindering innovation currently, companies built on top of the network are not.
> Are you so sure there would be no potential risks to innovation and a bequeathing of great power to ISPs by having them declared utilities?
Eventually we will go to Open-access networks/muni broadband[1] where lines will be upgradable and commonly owned, municipal maybe because of the ISPs greed overreach. When the lines are utilities owned by the cities/localities like water, power lines then companies that improve the services get benefits and there can be multiple actual competitive companies competing for your customers through customer service, pricing and improvements to the networks.
I think that making it Title II, common carrier as well as taking ownership of the lines allowing companies to service them will lead to a more solid internet foundation.
In the 90s, cable/broadband companies were innovative and improving speeds. Getting on cable internet in '96 and the leap from 56k was revolutionary, it innovated and changed everything. Currently we should be getting gigabit and higher, but the ISPs are greedily bleeding us dry and stealing markets that could be. They are not the innovative companies that brought broadband speeds in the late 90s/00s, they are actively a weight on American innovation. Google Fiber competition changed everything for a year or two, Cox here even came out with gigabit which they can easily provide removing some channels as well. But they stopped expanding it when Google Fiber left due to ISP thuggery.
ISPs are our gateway to the internet, we need that to be innovative and how you do that is competition, there is no true competition. We want innovative companies running networks like the companies they were in the 90s.
The vast majority US only has 0 or 1 valid ISP with decent speeds if that at 25-100 Mbps[2][3].
ISPs are the biggest monopoly threat regarding open internet as they control the levers, not a company that operates on top of the internet in the market.
It can't get worse in terms of our ISPs.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Municipal_broadband
[2] https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/08/us-br...
[3] https://consumerist.com/2014/03/07/heres-what-lack-of-broadb...
Democrats largely want to keep net neutrality under FCC, Republicans want it under FTC.
The FTC Chairman is Republican Maureen K. Ohlhausen that went to Antonin Scalia Law School.
> fit their censorship approach they have started to take on since the 2016 election
Net neutrality has nothing to do with censorship, though censorship it is usually always bad. If you remember, Republicans used the FCC after the Janet Jackson Superbowl exposure event.
The right does want to make NN about censorship for some reason which I do not understand how equal access to every packet is censorship. Without net neutrality there will be more censorship because you'll only see what Comcast/Disney wants you to see. They want the right to inspect packets and slow down certain packets, this will lead to other bad surveillance encroachments as well without NN.