Re FreePress is suing the FCC. Here's how the process works.

["Dave Farber" <farber () gmail com>]

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Brett Glass <brett () lariat net>
> Date: December 29, 2017 at 9:10:29 PM EST
> To: dave () farber net
> Subject: Re: Fwd: Fwd: [IP] FreePress is suing the FCC. Here's how the process works.
>
> At 05:28 PM 12/29/2017, Cory Doctorow wrote:
>
> > When I get into a taxi and ask it to take me to a store, that's the
> > store I want to go to, not the store that has paid the cabbie for
> > "premium delivery."
>
> Not analogous. Customers subscribe to ISPs - they do not "get into" them
> for a single ride as they would a cab. And they will very quickly switch,
> costing the ISP thousands of dollars, if the ISP does anything that they
> do not like... or if they even THINK that it is doing so.
>
> I know. I'm in the business. We have customers who blame us for problems,
> and switch, even when we are not the cause... for example, when their own
> devices or apps are messing up their connections and/or their own local
> networks. More than 80% of the US population has a choice of 3 or more
> broadband providers... and more would if the 2015 regulations did not
> so strongly deter investment in building out more choices to the rest.
>
> It is monopoly edge providers, such as Google and Facebook, which Internet
> users find unavoidable and which track them whether or not they know about
> it or consent to it.
>
> > I don't want the cab to delay me by circling the
> > block a few times because I have chosen a store that makes the cabbie
> > less money.
>
> Again, no ISP would do that or ever has done that. If it did, it would find
> itself without customers.
>
> > The fact that the store is making choices about what they sell and how
> > they display it does not justify the cab driver slowing me down to
> > increase the attractiveness of a store that paid him to do so.
> >
> > The fact that taxis are expensive and speculative and require
> > substantial capex and labor inputs and maintenance does not justify the
> > cab driver slowing me down to increase the attractiveness of a store
> > that paid him to do so.
>
> ISPs' networks are expensive and labor-intensive, but they are hardly
> speculative. We build our networks for the long term. But we won't if
> we are subject to Draconian regulations that drive capital away and/or
> which favor other businesses. The largest ISPs, in fact, have diverted
> capital to the lines of business which regulators have unfairly and
> inappropriately favored - for example, AT&T has bought DirecTV and Verizon
> has bought Yahoo!. Comcast - the first to be attacked for its network
> policies - was also the first to recognize the trend and invest in content
> and edge providers by buying NBCU.
>
> > The fact that the store treats its suppliers poorly, or manipulates its
> > customers with clever retail psychology to entice me into making
> > purchases I later regret does not justify the cab driver slowing me down
> > to increase the attractiveness of a store that paid him to do so.
>
> It is edge providers such as Facebook and Google which manipulate both
> their users (which are not their customers but their product) and their
> actual customers (their advertisers, who are subjected to opaque pricing
> and click fraud). ISPs have never done this.
>
> > The fact that the taxi company wants to become a retailer does not
> > justify the cab driver slowing me down to increase the attractiveness of
> > a store that paid him to do so.
>
> Again, a false analogy. The large ISPs that have been driven to become
> content providers have done so simply because, as large corporations with
> liquid capital, they have recognized that they can obtain better returns
> by investing in an industry that is unfairly favored by regulators than one
> which those regulators unfairly discriminate against. Smaller ISPs - whose
> growth benefits consumers because it provides them with greater choice -
> generally CANNOT do this, and bear the full brunt of the regulations. This
> drives away their investors and incents them to fold or sell.
>
> > I buy internet service to get me the bits I request, as expeditiously as
> > possible.
>
> ISPs attempt to do this. However, they may be thwarted in doing so - as
> Comcast was when Netflix artificially slowed its service to Comcast customers
> so as to gain an advantage in peering negotiations. And ISPs cannot find
> innovative ways to deliver bits at lower cost this if they are required to
> ask "Mother, may I?" - of an FCC which is determined to stop them from doing
> anything which might not benefit edge providers - before acting. (This is
> one of the things that the 2015 regulations required.) The repeal of the
> 2015 regulations puts ISPs and edge providers on a level playing
> field - EACH subject to discipline if it fails to keep its promises or
> engages in anticompetitive behavior. This is why the edge providers are
> so set against it; they do not want to give up an advantage so great
> that it actually motivated corporations to divert money from their own
> lines of business to the purchase of edge provider businesses.
>
> --Brett Glass



-------------------------------------------
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/18849915-ae8fa580
Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=18849915&id_secret=18849915-aa268125
Unsubscribe Now: 
https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=18849915&id_secret=18849915-32545cb4&post_id=20171229230159:2CDE2344-ED16-11E7-AE29-E22FDF6B8469
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com