<story><title>FCC Releases Open Internet Order</title><url>http://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-releases-open-internet-order</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>smutticus</author><text>The opinions of the dissenting FCC commissioners are exactly what you expect. They claim the FCC is engaging in over reach.&lt;p&gt;I&amp;#x27;m curious to hear more about the &amp;#x27;15 &amp;quot;Broadband Subscriber Access Services&amp;quot; pages&amp;#x27; you mention. Where is this mentioned?&lt;p&gt;You might want to check out a recent talk @ NANOG from John Yoo.
&lt;a href=&quot;https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVJV1gWYPX8&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.youtube.com&amp;#x2F;watch?v=dVJV1gWYPX8&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;IMO the questions are more interesting than the actual preso.&lt;p&gt;What we got with this FCC ruling is an arrangement between the ISPs and the edge. Or you might call them the pipes and the content. It&amp;#x27;s striking to me how little discussions of the last-mile were framing the debate, or how little consumer choice was taken into consideration. According to Wheeler, my interests as a consumer end at me not having my traffic biased. When in fact, most consumers are more interested in having choice in last-mile providers, or just paying less for their Internet connectivity. In short, I&amp;#x27;m bummed we didn&amp;#x27;t get unbundling in the last-mile.&lt;p&gt;The pipes got a monopoly. Content got the right to offer services without having to pay the pipes for the privilege. Google got the right to access utility poles. Google is the interesting hybrid with a history in content, but quickly moving into pipes.&lt;p&gt;None of these interests really care if you or I have choice in our last-mile ISP, or how much we pay. So Comcast, TWC and Verizon get handed a monopoly by the FCC. Americans shouldn&amp;#x27;t have to clamor and beg Google to deliver fiber to their homes.&lt;p&gt;Also, what happens once Google is everywhere and they turn tyrannical? Do we need to have yet another last-mile provider invest billions to deliver service to our homes? How many Internet wires do I need running into my house to get competition? Imagine how stupid it would seem if I had multiple water pipes running into my house, or electricity wires.&lt;p&gt;The FCC missed an opportunity to reframe the debate away from net neutrality and towards monopoly in the last mile. If I had choice in last-mile providers net neutralty wouldn&amp;#x27;t be an issue. If my provider treated me like crap I could simply choose another one.</text></item><item><author>rektide</author><text>Are the dissenting opinions available?&lt;p&gt;The FCC delayed this release, declaring that they were obligated to respond to dissenters and that they were going to hold off releasing until dissenters had written up their opinions and they could prepare a rebuttal. (This strikes me as a surprisingly sensible, all-cards-on-the-table governance model, rather than an ongoing media-frenzy feeding blow-by-blow release.)&lt;p&gt;It pains me greatly knowing that Google worked hard to get a piece of this document dropped. Alas due to a lack of transparency and openness among the FCC and Google&amp;#x27;s discussion, we&amp;#x27;ll never have more than faint rumormongering to do here, but in tandem to &amp;quot;Broadband  Internet Access Services&amp;quot; it seemed like there was to be another leg of openness, &amp;quot;Broadband Subscriber Access Services.&amp;quot; Google not only got to know what was being proposed but got to get it dropped before the public had any idea what was under consideration here. 
&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/02/26/net_neutrality_rules/?mt=1426176998774&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.theregister.co.uk&amp;#x2F;2015&amp;#x2F;02&amp;#x2F;26&amp;#x2F;net_neutrality_rules...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;To me it comes off as a denigration of the public by the FCC and Google, and the scant evidence about is hard to interpret as anything but subterfuge and sabotage done at the very last minute. A more transparent process would have been appreciated- rather than this &amp;quot;Government as a Service&amp;quot; model of building regulations and applying them, I&amp;#x27;d like to have seen the FCC use some transparency and openness in their creation of these regulations to bootstrap regulations better meeting the public mandate.&lt;p&gt;I expect most registered, official dissent is going to focus on the FCC doing too much, and that no one is going to dissent saying these protections fail to address core points. But gee do I want to know what was in the 15 &amp;quot;Broadband Subscriber Access Services&amp;quot; pages the FCC dropped at the last minute, and why Google lobbied to drop them.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>rektide</author><text>&lt;i&gt;What we got with this FCC ruling is an arrangement between the ISPs and the edge. Or you might call them the pipes and the content. It&amp;#x27;s striking to me how little discussions of the last-mile were framing the debate, or how little consumer choice was taken into consideration. According to Wheeler, my interests as a consumer end at me not having my traffic biased. When in fact, most consumers are more interested in having choice in last-mile providers, or just paying less for their Internet connectivity. In short, I&amp;#x27;m bummed we didn&amp;#x27;t get unbundling in the last-mile.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;I agree 100%. I was agape that Wheeler at least twice used his old company NABU as an opening shtick- a story about trying to create a competitive cable provider, but not having unbundling to pull it off; for him to transition into regulation instead of competition was comedically dissonant.&lt;p&gt;As for actually undoing bundling, it&amp;#x27;s the courts. They decided that given that fiber investments were going to be costly, and given the threat that build-outs might not happen, the scales somehow tipped to allow them to overturn (on purely economic merits) the FCC&amp;#x27;s rules on local loop unbundling.&lt;p&gt;&lt;i&gt;Thus, we determine that, particularly in light of a competitive landscape in which competitive LECs are leading the deployment of FTTH, removing incumbent LEC unbundling obligations on FTTH loops will promote their deployment of the network infrastructure necessary to provide broadband services to the mass market.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-36A1.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;apps.fcc.gov&amp;#x2F;edocs_public&amp;#x2F;attachmatch&amp;#x2F;FCC-03-36A1.pd...&lt;/a&gt; , paragraph 278.&lt;p&gt;Truly one of the worst, least well-structured Court rulings to have occurred. And worse, here we are almost 15 years in, with fiber no longer rolling out, and there&amp;#x27;s no structure or hope to revise this court edict made at a particular time balancing particular economic factors to demand a reassesment- the FCC&amp;#x27;s Triennial Review.&lt;p&gt;On the bright side, I&amp;#x27;m very happy that on the same day that the FCC announced Open Access approval, they also announced they were going to move to block states and municipalities from legally obstructing community and municipal competitors.</text></comment>
<story><title>FCC Releases Open Internet Order</title><url>http://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-releases-open-internet-order</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>smutticus</author><text>The opinions of the dissenting FCC commissioners are exactly what you expect. They claim the FCC is engaging in over reach.&lt;p&gt;I&amp;#x27;m curious to hear more about the &amp;#x27;15 &amp;quot;Broadband Subscriber Access Services&amp;quot; pages&amp;#x27; you mention. Where is this mentioned?&lt;p&gt;You might want to check out a recent talk @ NANOG from John Yoo.
&lt;a href=&quot;https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVJV1gWYPX8&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.youtube.com&amp;#x2F;watch?v=dVJV1gWYPX8&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;IMO the questions are more interesting than the actual preso.&lt;p&gt;What we got with this FCC ruling is an arrangement between the ISPs and the edge. Or you might call them the pipes and the content. It&amp;#x27;s striking to me how little discussions of the last-mile were framing the debate, or how little consumer choice was taken into consideration. According to Wheeler, my interests as a consumer end at me not having my traffic biased. When in fact, most consumers are more interested in having choice in last-mile providers, or just paying less for their Internet connectivity. In short, I&amp;#x27;m bummed we didn&amp;#x27;t get unbundling in the last-mile.&lt;p&gt;The pipes got a monopoly. Content got the right to offer services without having to pay the pipes for the privilege. Google got the right to access utility poles. Google is the interesting hybrid with a history in content, but quickly moving into pipes.&lt;p&gt;None of these interests really care if you or I have choice in our last-mile ISP, or how much we pay. So Comcast, TWC and Verizon get handed a monopoly by the FCC. Americans shouldn&amp;#x27;t have to clamor and beg Google to deliver fiber to their homes.&lt;p&gt;Also, what happens once Google is everywhere and they turn tyrannical? Do we need to have yet another last-mile provider invest billions to deliver service to our homes? How many Internet wires do I need running into my house to get competition? Imagine how stupid it would seem if I had multiple water pipes running into my house, or electricity wires.&lt;p&gt;The FCC missed an opportunity to reframe the debate away from net neutrality and towards monopoly in the last mile. If I had choice in last-mile providers net neutralty wouldn&amp;#x27;t be an issue. If my provider treated me like crap I could simply choose another one.</text></item><item><author>rektide</author><text>Are the dissenting opinions available?&lt;p&gt;The FCC delayed this release, declaring that they were obligated to respond to dissenters and that they were going to hold off releasing until dissenters had written up their opinions and they could prepare a rebuttal. (This strikes me as a surprisingly sensible, all-cards-on-the-table governance model, rather than an ongoing media-frenzy feeding blow-by-blow release.)&lt;p&gt;It pains me greatly knowing that Google worked hard to get a piece of this document dropped. Alas due to a lack of transparency and openness among the FCC and Google&amp;#x27;s discussion, we&amp;#x27;ll never have more than faint rumormongering to do here, but in tandem to &amp;quot;Broadband  Internet Access Services&amp;quot; it seemed like there was to be another leg of openness, &amp;quot;Broadband Subscriber Access Services.&amp;quot; Google not only got to know what was being proposed but got to get it dropped before the public had any idea what was under consideration here. 
&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/02/26/net_neutrality_rules/?mt=1426176998774&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.theregister.co.uk&amp;#x2F;2015&amp;#x2F;02&amp;#x2F;26&amp;#x2F;net_neutrality_rules...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;To me it comes off as a denigration of the public by the FCC and Google, and the scant evidence about is hard to interpret as anything but subterfuge and sabotage done at the very last minute. A more transparent process would have been appreciated- rather than this &amp;quot;Government as a Service&amp;quot; model of building regulations and applying them, I&amp;#x27;d like to have seen the FCC use some transparency and openness in their creation of these regulations to bootstrap regulations better meeting the public mandate.&lt;p&gt;I expect most registered, official dissent is going to focus on the FCC doing too much, and that no one is going to dissent saying these protections fail to address core points. But gee do I want to know what was in the 15 &amp;quot;Broadband Subscriber Access Services&amp;quot; pages the FCC dropped at the last minute, and why Google lobbied to drop them.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>supergeek133</author><text>The general response I&amp;#x27;ve seen to that is they&amp;#x27;re encouraging more last-mile providers to be developed from Title II opening up the equipment poles&amp;#x2F;lines.&lt;p&gt;Basically, making it easier for the Google Fiber types to do their thing.&lt;p&gt;But then they have to live under the same rules as the big guys, and that was one of the rebuttal points. Valid or not.</text></comment>