A Public (Policy) Service Announcement

Nob Akimoto

Nob Akimoto is a policy analyst and part-time dungeon master. When not talking endlessly about matters of public policy, he is a dungeon master on the NWN World of Avlis

Related Post Roulette

6 Responses

  1. Michael Cain says:

    Random thoughts… It’s not official until it appears in the Federal Register. Given that there were two dissenting commissioners, that means it could be days, or months, depending on whether the Chair is interested in trying to address any of the concerns expressed by those two. I’ve skimmed through both of their dissents, and the common threads seem to be: (1) internet access service is just fine, nothing needs to be changed, this is just regulation for the sake of regulation; (2) under Title II everyone will stop investing in the local distribution network instantly; and (3) this “light touch” stuff sounds good, but no one knows what will happen once the lawsuits start.

    In previous guest posts I supported the bill the Republicans were discussing last month because it addressed my concern — doing away with traffic shaping — immediately, and didn’t open the can of worms that Title II can be. Like the dissenting commissioners, I anticipate a number of lawsuits. Probably not over the traffic shaping issue, but over things like local-loop unbundling (or its equivalent in the cable TV hybrid-fiber-coax networks) and collocation of content servers.Report

    • Mike Schilling in reply to Michael Cain says:

      I expect lawsuits whose main purpose is to push enforcement out past 2017 in the hope of commissioners who will rescind this.Report

      • Kolohe in reply to Mike Schilling says:

        Or reasonable commissioners who will reasonably define reasonable network management.Report

      • James Pearce in reply to Mike Schilling says:

        The danger of pushing things out into the future like that is that people will come to love the thing being negotiated.

        Net neutrality is going to have to be awful in order to get a full reversal in two years time. Me, I think people are going to like not being throttled.Report

      • The companies that want enforcement delayed are the big ISPs, and I don’t see where they come up with grounds for a case here. The FCC has a court decision in hand that at least implies reclassification of internet access service as a Title II communication service is okay; they’ve indicated they’re willing to do that, admitting they made a mistake 20 years ago thinking that the AOL model was the right one; other than “no traffic shaping for pay” the big ISPs got everything they wanted. No local loop unbundling. No tariffs or rate regulations. Even the Republicans have admitted that “no traffic shaping” has to happen. There’s no one left to provide political cover for the big ISPs.

        No, I expect lawsuits from companies that want to be ISPs but don’t/can’t build their own billion-dollar network. From companies like Netflix, who want to collocate content servers in Comcast’s head ends and Verizon’s central offices because that’s cheaper than paying for transport.Report

    • Probably not over the traffic shaping issue, but over things like local-loop unbundling (or its equivalent in the cable TV hybrid-fiber-coax networks) and collocation of content servers.

      I think you’re probably right about this, but I also think this is an area where the US is hopelessly behind and catering to what is, essentially, regional oligopolies constructed out of misguided cable policies in the 80s and 90s. Unbundling and collocation are important solutions to increasing competition and entrants into the market. I mean the US has shown plenty of that itself when local loop unbundling for copper lines was used as the basis to force it for DSL providers in the early 2000s.Report