Re:FCC chair: An Internet fast lane would be ‘commercially u...
by tzs on Wednesday May 21, 2014 @02:10PM
(#7779784)
> Seriously, it seems like the FCC just can't be clear about what it is they actually plan to implement
Briefly, they HAD regulations that were working. These regulations were based on FCC authority under a particular section of law, which I'll call Law X. Verizon and Comcast separately challenged different parts of the regulations and won in court. The court said Law X did not authorize the FCC to do all that had been doing. In particular, the banning of what people are now calling "fast lanes" was not allowed.
There is another law, law Y, that the FCC currently uses to regulate telephone service. This law is strong enough to ban fast lanes, but the consequences of using this more powerful weapon are unknown--for 30+ years data networks have been regulated under law X, not law Y. It is informally called "the nuclear option" because of this.
What Wheeler would like to do is restore the regulations that the court struck down, and would like to avoid having to use the nuclear option for this. For the "fast lanes", he cannot outright ban them without going nuclear, so instead he's proposing regulating them. For example, if an ISP gives a video service it or some related corporate entity owns a "fast lane", it would have to offer similar service on "commercially reasonable terms" to outside video services. Also, demand for "fast lanes" could not be boosted by slowing people down--if your ISP sells you a service they claim is 20 mbit/second, for instance, they will be required to deliver that. They will not be allowed to slow you down to 10 mbit/second to make you complain to, say, Netflix, to encourage Netflix to pay for a "fast lane" on your ISP.
The tech press has done a terrible reporting job on this for the most part (Ars Technica seems to be the most accurate, and has published some accurate stories). They like to report it as Wheeler proposing to allow "fast lanes", in a way that implies "fast lanes" are new. In fact, under the regulations in effect now that the court struck down the earlier regulations, "fast lanes" are allowed, with no restrictions at all. Wheeler's "commercially reasonable terms" proposal is an attempt to put some limits on the "fast lanes".
Wheeler has always said that other options are on the table. That's why the proposal came with a bunch of questions about whether this was the right approach, and whether the nuclear option should be pursued. It is very common for proposed regulations to change significantly as a result of the feedback during the comment period. There is no reason to think that will not happen here.
Briefly, they HAD regulations that were working. These regulations were based on FCC authority under a particular section of law, which I'll call Law X. Verizon and Comcast separately challenged different parts of the regulations and won in court. The court said Law X did not authorize the FCC to do all that had been doing. In particular, the banning of what people are now calling "fast lanes" was not allowed.
There is another law, law Y, that the FCC currently uses to regulate telephone service. This law is strong enough to ban fast lanes, but the consequences of using this more powerful weapon are unknown--for 30+ years data networks have been regulated under law X, not law Y. It is informally called "the nuclear option" because of this.
What Wheeler would like to do is restore the regulations that the court struck down, and would like to avoid having to use the nuclear option for this. For the "fast lanes", he cannot outright ban them without going nuclear, so instead he's proposing regulating them. For example, if an ISP gives a video service it or some related corporate entity owns a "fast lane", it would have to offer similar service on "commercially reasonable terms" to outside video services. Also, demand for "fast lanes" could not be boosted by slowing people down--if your ISP sells you a service they claim is 20 mbit/second, for instance, they will be required to deliver that. They will not be allowed to slow you down to 10 mbit/second to make you complain to, say, Netflix, to encourage Netflix to pay for a "fast lane" on your ISP.
The tech press has done a terrible reporting job on this for the most part (Ars Technica seems to be the most accurate, and has published some accurate stories). They like to report it as Wheeler proposing to allow "fast lanes", in a way that implies "fast lanes" are new. In fact, under the regulations in effect now that the court struck down the earlier regulations, "fast lanes" are allowed, with no restrictions at all. Wheeler's "commercially reasonable terms" proposal is an attempt to put some limits on the "fast lanes".
Wheeler has always said that other options are on the table. That's why the proposal came with a bunch of questions about whether this was the right approach, and whether the nuclear option should be pursued. It is very common for proposed regulations to change significantly as a result of the feedback during the comment period. There is no reason to think that will not happen here.