“In an explainer document, the FCC said that it “tentatively concludes that priority service offered exclusively by a broadband provider to an affiliate should be considered illegal until proven otherwise.” This could mean agreements are allowed as long as each third-party service is offered similar, commercially reasonable terms. (Ars Technica)

“The fact sheet says the FCC is going to “Enhance the transparency rules to provide increased and specific information about broadband providers’ practices for edge providers, consumers.” This could include disclosing information on network practices, performance characteristics like upload and download speeds, latency and packet loss, and data caps. But the important thing regarding fast lanes is that the FCC said it has “tentatively” concluded that disclosures to the public should include “congestion that may adversely impact the experience of end users, including at interconnection points, and information about new practices, like any paid prioritization, to the extent that it is otherwise permitted.” (Ars Technica)

“What he did say is that broadband providers will not be able to block services, and they will have to give consumers access to services at the level of quality they pay for. I literally this weekend just dealt with my broadband provider to make sure that I had sufficient capacity,” Wheeler said. “I buy a pipe. I buy a pathway. Nobody can mess with that. They can’t degrade it, they can’t tell me I can’t access something, they can’t tell somebody you can only get on to Tom’s pathway if you pay me a price. They can’t block.” (Ars Technica)

“Companies will be allowed to create fast lanes so long as they do so in a “commercially reasonable” manner, but what exactly defines a commercially reasonable manner isn’t clear yet…” (The Verge)

Real technical problems related to guaranteeing a specific speed

“But Wheeler is saying that although his plan allows a tiered Internet with faster lanes, the floor will be set at whatever service a customer has bought.

“This potentially puts you in control of the speed of your own slow lane. Your experience of the Internet will still be powerfully shaped by what plans your broadband provider offers, and what their network policies are (e.g., whether they decide to speed up video traffic faster than e-mail, for instance). But if you buy, say, a 35 Mbps broadband plan, your ISP will be required to deliver all content to you at at least that speed. Astute Internet users will point out that speeds on some broadband services—particularly cable providers—varies depending on network load and time of day; sometimes that speed might dip below a company’s advertised speeds. The question is whether this would be a violation of the FCC’s proposed rules, or whether ISPs could write it off as simply a function of the business.” (Washington Post)

“[R]egulating the terms of interconnection on the internet is even more complex than regulating classic network neutrality. It’s relatively straightforward to say that a network provider can’t prioritize one type of traffic over another on its network. But writing rules to govern when two networks must connect with each other and how much they can charge is really difficult. So FCC policymakers may have decided to tackle the easier problem first.” (Vox)

Rotten roots: Carriers (Access Service Providers) behaving as Content Service Providers

All are named as ISPs… but… are they all equal? Is this the mother of all troubles?

“...big ISPs can cause traffic congestion, demand tribute to fix it, and get away with it.” (Wired)

“...to deter broadband providers that might otherwise be tempted to abuse their control of the last-mile Internetnetwork.” (CNET)

Messages straight from horse’s mouth: what Telcos/Carriers say.

AT&T: “Going backwards 80 years to the world of utility regulation would represent a tragic step in the wrong direction. Utility regulation would strangle investment, hobble innovation, and put government regulators in charge of nearly every aspect of Internet-based services. It would deprive America of the world’s most robust broadband infrastructure, and place a cloud over every application or website that delivers products and content to consumers. In short, it would place government in control of the Internet at the expense of private companies, inventors and entrepreneurs, and ultimately at the expense of the American people.

“Such an approach would also send an alarming message to the rest of the world-a message that says the United States believes it is appropriate for governments to place onerous regulations on the Internet. This could encourage other countries to pursue their own goals, whether to suppress ‘dangerous’ speech or extract economic value from American Internet and content companies.”

Verizon: “But one thing is clear: For the FCC to impose 1930s utility regulation on the Internet would lead to years of legal and regulatory uncertainty and would jeopardize investment and innovation in broadband.”

Comcast: “As strongly as we believe in the propriety of legally enforceable open Internet rules, however, we have an equally strong belief that any proposal to reclassify broadband Internet access as a telecommunications service subject to Title II of the Communications Act would spark massive instability, create investor and marketplace uncertainty, derail planned investments, slow broadband adoption, and kill jobs in America.”

ISPs have argued that common carrier rules would force them to spend less on network upgrades and be less innovative. (Ars Technica)

Saints and Demons… the blurred line

“... Google, one of the 100 or so companies signing a pro-Net Neutrality letter to the FCC, caused some of this mess by cutting a deal with Verizon… Google has a big business in YouTube, which streams video. They don’t want to pay the Wheeler Tax, so now all of a sudden, they are back in the fold. The same goes for Amazon, which wants to be a streaming competitor…Microsoft and Yahoo! were early supporters of Net Neutrality, but bailed when the fight got serious in Congress eight years ago. Now they are signing anti-FCC letters…” (Wired)

How it should have been. A lesson and a recipe for today’s problems

“...every… Web site is carried over high-speed connections, wired or wireless. It’s those connections that are the service.” http://www.wired.com/2014/05/fcc-proves-yet-again-that-its-out-to-kill-net-neutrality/

“Wired, Amazon, Netflix and on and on are the content that is the Internet.” (Wired)

“As Internet access continues to skyrocket all around the world, governments will face increasing pressures to provide the kinds of protections that the Marco Civil already intends to guarantee.” (CSIS)

Consumer advocates say that common carrier status is needed for the FCC to impose strong network neutrality rules that would force ISPs to treat all traffic equally, not degrading competing services or speeding up Web services in exchange for payment. (Ars Technica)

Other stakeholders show up

“A five-member panel at the FCC should not be dictating how Internet services will be provided to millions of Americans,” Cruz said in a Wednesday afternoon statement. I will be introducing legislation that would remove the claimed authority for the FCC to take such actions, specifically the Commission’s nebulous Sec. 706 authority. (Infowars)

Aftermath. Outcome of the battle.

“The proposal has sparked a massive fight between two of the most powerful industries in the country—on one side, Silicon Valley, and on the other, companies such as Verizon and AT&T that built the pipes delivering Web content to consumers’ homes. The telecom companies argue that without being able to charge tech firms for higher-speed connections, they will be unable to invest in faster connections for consumers.” (Washington Post)

“The lack of a clear signal from the White House means the agency is likely to stick to its guns on using Section 706, unless public sentiment rallies so far in favor of Title II that Congress or the president push for a change in tactics. If that happens, expect an epic battle behind the scenes as ISPs and web giants fight to carve out Title II to meet everyone’s needs.” (Gigaom)

“But the reality is that banning one kind of fast lane without banning the other isn’t going to accomplish very much. If net neutrality supporters want to preserve a level playing field online, they’re going to have to go back to the drawing board.” (Vox)