Speaker 1: Get in tech with technology with text stuff from stuff
Speaker 1: works dot com. Say everyone, and welcome to text Stuff.
Speaker 1: I'm Jonathan Strickland and I'm Lauren Boa. Lauren, how are
Speaker 1: you feeling today? Um? Pretty well? Yeah, yeah, I'm not
Speaker 1: feeling great, so I'm not feeling bad either, kind of
Speaker 1: right in the middle, you're sort of neutral. Yeah. By
Speaker 1: the way, if you are a long time listener to
Speaker 1: tech stuff, you may remember that joke. I'm making it again,
Speaker 1: make the same joke in the Okay, So today we're
Speaker 1: talking about net neutrality, and um, Jonathan and Chris did
Speaker 1: an episode called how Net Neutrality Works way back on
Speaker 1: December fifteenth, two eight, and I made that same joke
Speaker 1: then some jokes. Just I'm glad. I'm glad that you've
Speaker 1: advanced so much as a joke teller in the intervening
Speaker 1: five years. I learned from my mistakes. I can repeat
Speaker 1: them almost exactly. Yeah. So we're gonna talk about net neutrality.
Speaker 1: And the reason why we're bringing this back up is
Speaker 1: because it's in the news again. It's also you know,
Speaker 1: back in two thousand and eight when Chris and I
Speaker 1: did the the episode that was before a lot of
Speaker 1: the actual FCCS rules and regulations on net neutrality had
Speaker 1: been formalized, so there's actually been quite a bit of
Speaker 1: development since we first did it. Now the basics remain
Speaker 1: the same as in what the actual concept of net
Speaker 1: neutrality is. And before we get any further into this,
Speaker 1: the reason we're doing this, besides the fact that's in
Speaker 1: the news, is that one of our valuable listeners actually
Speaker 1: asked us to cover it, right. Yeah, Bob m via
Speaker 1: Facebook wrote in and said, how about a podcast on
Speaker 1: net neutrality? What other topic is there? Yeah, And and honestly,
Speaker 1: I mean it's it's big, it's very big. It's very ongoing,
Speaker 1: as we will slowly unveiled over the course of the
Speaker 1: next four hours. No, we're not gonna We're not gonna
Speaker 1: do that. But first of all, I mean, this is
Speaker 1: a concept that is core to what the intent was
Speaker 1: of the Internet. If you're to talk to any of
Speaker 1: the architects of the Internet, any of the people who
Speaker 1: built the protocols, whenever they talk about the Internet, this
Speaker 1: is the kind of stuff they say was their idea
Speaker 1: from the start was this net neutrality approach. So what
Speaker 1: does that mean? Well, on a very simple level, it
Speaker 1: means that you should be able to use any Internet
Speaker 1: service provider to access any kind of legal service or
Speaker 1: site that's available on the Internet. And it should be
Speaker 1: a level playing field, right, You know that no I
Speaker 1: s P should be allowed to deny a content provider
Speaker 1: access to that UM disbursement. Yeah, exactly, So anyone using
Speaker 1: it on either side, whether you are someone who's creating
Speaker 1: websites and services or you're a person who wants to
Speaker 1: consume them, should be able to use any Internet service
Speaker 1: provider and expect the same experience. Now, we all know
Speaker 1: that things can happen, right There's the Internet is a
Speaker 1: network of networks, and so sometimes you can get traffic
Speaker 1: on the network of networks. Sometimes you can get a
Speaker 1: server that's overwhelmed. That kind of stuff is based on
Speaker 1: the hardware and the signals that are coming through at
Speaker 1: any given point in time. You can run into as
Speaker 1: as we all have many different kinds of of slowdowns
Speaker 1: and problems. But right now, so so that's that's that's just,
Speaker 1: that's that's what, Yeah, exactly. You don't want to artificially
Speaker 1: introduce those issues, which is really where net neutrality comes along.
Speaker 1: So I thought it would be fun to use a
Speaker 1: couple of examples, so I wrote them down in my
Speaker 1: notes and I got super technical. So you use Joe's
Speaker 1: Internet service for your I s P. We're talking, of course,
Speaker 1: about Joe McCormick, our co host from Forward Thinking. Clearly,
Speaker 1: he I'm sure has aspirations of running his own Internet
Speaker 1: service provider business. And Joe has a lot of aspiration.
Speaker 1: He does. He aspires constantly. So Joe has his Internet
Speaker 1: service provider, that's your I s P. You use Joe's. Now,
Speaker 1: you typically visit three sites. Now, one of those sites
Speaker 1: happens to be run by Joe. He's not. He's not
Speaker 1: just the provider. He's also a content creator. Oh yeah,
Speaker 1: he's a really good writer. Yeah. So then you've got
Speaker 1: these two other sites that are not Joe's. Now, under
Speaker 1: the rules of net neutrality, you would be able to
Speaker 1: visit all three of those sites with an equal playing field,
Speaker 1: and that the same speed and bandwidth would apply across
Speaker 1: all three sites. Keeping in mind, like we said before,
Speaker 1: sometimes on the Internet, traffic clog stuff up. So maybe
Speaker 1: one day one site loads a little more slowly than another,
Speaker 1: but they're all using the same kind of connections. Now,
Speaker 1: let's imagine a dark scary world where net neutrality is
Speaker 1: no longer in play, and you again are using Joe's
Speaker 1: Internet service, but now it's not acting the same way
Speaker 1: dead back in the in the glory days of net neutrality. Now,
Speaker 1: when you visit Joe's website, it loads incredibly fast, it's
Speaker 1: almost instantaneous. But whenever you try and go to one
Speaker 1: of those other two sites you used to go to
Speaker 1: all the time, it just takes forever for them to load.
Speaker 1: Sometimes they don't load at all, and you might even
Speaker 1: be denied the access to them. This is the world
Speaker 1: where Joe is able to decide what stuff you can
Speaker 1: access and how quickly you can access it. So what
Speaker 1: you're saying is that Joe is on purpose throttling my
Speaker 1: connection to these websites that he doesn't known, throttling the
Speaker 1: life out of it, Lauren, That's exactly what I'm saying. Yeah,
Speaker 1: So this is the fear of net neutrality, uh, and
Speaker 1: and what would happen if it goes away? And why
Speaker 1: the story is so important right now? So there are
Speaker 1: a lot of different implications with net neutrality and or
Speaker 1: the absence of net neutrality. Uh. You could end up
Speaker 1: not just having an I s P that gives preferential
Speaker 1: treatment to certain sites while holding other sites back. You
Speaker 1: could also have an I s P that ends up
Speaker 1: creating a tiered system, right, you might have imagine all
Speaker 1: the different scenarios. I could have a system where, uh,
Speaker 1: let's say that for one price, like a baseline price,
Speaker 1: I get the I s P service where certain sites
Speaker 1: load up very quickly. Anything that belongs to the Internet
Speaker 1: service provider or partners with them loads quickly. Everything else
Speaker 1: loads really slowly. Maybe there's a higher level of service
Speaker 1: where if I'm willing to pay more as a customer,
Speaker 1: then I get a level playing ground. Like that's a possibility,
Speaker 1: but it means that you know, you suddenly are are
Speaker 1: having to choose, you know what, what's going to happen.
Speaker 1: Or if they don't offer that choice, then you have
Speaker 1: a scary world where you have a fractured internet. Right. So,
Speaker 1: depending upon which Internet service provider you happen to subscribe to,
Speaker 1: you would have access to certain sites and not and
Speaker 1: services and not access to other ones. So let's say, Lauren,
Speaker 1: that you are a Comcast customer and I'm an a
Speaker 1: T and T customer. It's possible that our two experiences
Speaker 1: of the Internet are completely different, and that you go
Speaker 1: to sites that I can't go to and vice versa,
Speaker 1: kind of similar to the to the way that some
Speaker 1: cable television providers will offer certain packages of channels that
Speaker 1: others do not. Yeah. In fact, it really reminds me
Speaker 1: of the old days of online service providers, where you
Speaker 1: might have like a O l as one and I
Speaker 1: have uh Spring Prodigy, thank you, Yeah, I'll have Prodigy.
Speaker 1: Is another one which means that you get content over
Speaker 1: the Internet, but well, not over the Internet online, I
Speaker 1: should say, because online service providers, you get content online.
Speaker 1: I get content online, but it's two totally different packages
Speaker 1: of content based upon what those companies curate for us.
Speaker 1: That's kind of what the Internet could potentially turn into
Speaker 1: without net neutrality, and it's why a lot of people
Speaker 1: are upset. Now. There of course, are multiple sites of
Speaker 1: this argument. It's not all just you know, it sounds
Speaker 1: like I'm I'm painting this picture where there's just one side,
Speaker 1: ah right, right, and you are kind of painting the
Speaker 1: the deepest orwelly in kind of dystopia of of the
Speaker 1: absence of net neutrality. But there are arguments against net
Speaker 1: neutrality and to be fair lot of them are are
Speaker 1: being put forth on behalf of people who could who
Speaker 1: could um stand to financially benefit from the absence, right right? Um?
Speaker 1: But you know, the arguments against it state that like
Speaker 1: over regulation of the Internet by the government could create
Speaker 1: uncertainty in the Internet market, um, thus discouraging investment and
Speaker 1: stifling innovation. Um, which maybe, I mean there are other
Speaker 1: the The counter to that is saying that a fair
Speaker 1: playing field creates a fluid market that everyone can play on. So,
Speaker 1: for example, a smaller internet service would be able to
Speaker 1: effectively run a business on a level playing field, but
Speaker 1: could be completely run out of business in a world
Speaker 1: where I s p s choose who they play with
Speaker 1: and who they don't, right. Or you know, if if
Speaker 1: you set up kind of expense tears for how much
Speaker 1: bandwidth you're going to get, then someone like Amazon could
Speaker 1: play in that field. But could your you know, mom
Speaker 1: and pop corner website do the same thing? Maybe not? Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: if you're a multibillion corporation, you're gonna milk billion dollar
Speaker 1: I should say billion dollar corporation. You you could afford this,
Speaker 1: You're still gonna fight it. I mean, any any corporation
Speaker 1: is gonna fight if it means that they are going
Speaker 1: to have to pay something that otherwise they would not
Speaker 1: have to pay, they'll fight against it or pass the
Speaker 1: buck onto their customer a k A. Yeah, yeah, their
Speaker 1: customer ultimately will be us, whether their customer, like maybe
Speaker 1: their first customer is another company, but that company's customers
Speaker 1: might be us. You know, Eventually it trickles down to
Speaker 1: where we end up having higher prices for the services
Speaker 1: and and and sites that we want to be able
Speaker 1: to utilize. Right well, although you know, I would also
Speaker 1: argue that the counter to that would be that either
Speaker 1: way we are paying for our Internet service, and whether
Speaker 1: we're paying more to the internet service providers or to
Speaker 1: these companies that might end up in a mafia like
Speaker 1: situation have to pay their Internet service providers. The bandwidth
Speaker 1: Sure is a nice website you got here, be a
Speaker 1: real shame at someone out and they'll burn it down. No,
Speaker 1: I mean, I I think the analogy is perfectly legitimate.
Speaker 1: I mean, I would not back off of that for
Speaker 1: a second. I think I think the two of us
Speaker 1: are clearly a little bit biased that neutrality. We might
Speaker 1: be just a touch, but then again, our livelihood depends
Speaker 1: upon the Internet. So it does, and you know it's so,
Speaker 1: so take take everything that we're saying with a little
Speaker 1: bit of a grain of salt. But um, but back
Speaker 1: to back to arguments against it, because I do think
Speaker 1: that that creating uncertainty in the Internet market due to
Speaker 1: overregulation is a completely fair Yes, for sure, you could
Speaker 1: you could make rules and regulations that far overstep the
Speaker 1: intent level playing ground. Yes, I agree, that is entirely bad.
Speaker 1: If you put in regulations that put the I s
Speaker 1: p s at a disadvantageous position, then there's no reason
Speaker 1: to be in that business anymore, and then we're stuck
Speaker 1: in a totally different problem. So yes, the regulations have
Speaker 1: to be fair and they have to be level. Yeah,
Speaker 1: otherwise it's just bad news. And there's there's also the
Speaker 1: argument that those kind of regulations could prevent I s
Speaker 1: p s to from managing traffic on their networks, and
Speaker 1: those those arguments have been made in court before, and
Speaker 1: most of the time, from what I've seen, the FCC
Speaker 1: has said the which we'll talk more about the FCC later,
Speaker 1: but they tend to say, uh that networks do have
Speaker 1: the right to to take care of traffic. So if
Speaker 1: there are traffic bottlenecks or problems rerouting that is perfectly
Speaker 1: within the rights of that company, because ultimately that's better
Speaker 1: for everybody. Oh sure, not no one. I don't think that.
Speaker 1: I don't think that the government wants to have their
Speaker 1: fingers that deep in it, because that sounds problematic for Yeah,
Speaker 1: that would be I mean apart from the n s
Speaker 1: A who has their elbows deep into it. Yeah, I
Speaker 1: don't think the government really wants to get that involved.
Speaker 1: Oh that's a whole other podcast. But they're not so
Speaker 1: much concerned about about traffic bottlenecks. They're more concerned about
Speaker 1: the content. So let's be fair, Okay. Another argument against
Speaker 1: IT neutrality says that competition between I s p s
Speaker 1: will naturally discourage anyone company from throttling business from content providers.
Speaker 1: I would I would agree with that if it were
Speaker 1: the case that as a consumer I had equal access
Speaker 1: to all I s p s. Because here's the reality
Speaker 1: in the United States. I don't know about the rest
Speaker 1: of the world, but in the US, it is uh
Speaker 1: not uncommon to have a very few, a very limited
Speaker 1: selection of choices when it comes to I s p s,
Speaker 1: particularly if you live someplace like say an apartment complex,
Speaker 1: which might have a contract with a particular provider. I've
Speaker 1: I've lived in an apartment complexes where you didn't have
Speaker 1: any choice. If you wanted to have cable access, cable
Speaker 1: internet access, or just cable TV access, you had one option,
Speaker 1: uh and if you didn't want that option, then it
Speaker 1: meant you didn't have that service. So it's not like
Speaker 1: I have access to all of these. You might have
Speaker 1: access to some smaller I s p s. But even
Speaker 1: though smaller I s p s most of the time
Speaker 1: are working on the larger I s p s actual networks.
Speaker 1: So it's possible that if a larger I s P
Speaker 1: has these policies that go against net neutrality, that it
Speaker 1: would trickle down to these other smaller one And so
Speaker 1: you feel like you're going to avoid it because you're
Speaker 1: not going with the big guy who has the scary policy.
Speaker 1: But if the little guys working on the big guys network,
Speaker 1: it may still affect you. So I mean, I wish
Speaker 1: we lived in the world where we had all those choices,
Speaker 1: because then I think this wouldn't be a problem. All
Speaker 1: you would what would happen is you would have UH
Speaker 1: I s p s that would experiment with throttling certain
Speaker 1: traffic and allowing other traffic to go quickly. Other I
Speaker 1: s p s would say, Hey, if we don't do that,
Speaker 1: we're going to get lots of customers, and then the
Speaker 1: playing ground would would level out through that. But that's
Speaker 1: not the reality. Yeah, that's the way that it stands.
Speaker 1: It's not really all. That's not real. Yeah, problem um.
Speaker 1: But so in essence, what this campus saying is that
Speaker 1: creating net neutrality regulations is fixing what's not broken and
Speaker 1: that generally bad. Yeah, I I and I can understand that.
Speaker 1: My counter to that is net neutrality rules prevent it
Speaker 1: from breaking. So it's not that it's fixing something it's
Speaker 1: not broken, it's making sure it doesn't break. Because it's
Speaker 1: better to be proactive than reactive in this case, is
Speaker 1: my is my personal point of view now that I
Speaker 1: can't stress that enough. That's my personal philosophy. Is it's
Speaker 1: better to go ahead and have these in place to
Speaker 1: protect against breaking. And and especially considering that a lot
Speaker 1: of you know, like we've been talking about using Joe,
Speaker 1: is that example. For example, Comcast has its own streaming
Speaker 1: services and it might be advantageous to Comcast to throttle,
Speaker 1: say Netflix, sure, yeah, exact financially, because then you've got
Speaker 1: you know, if you are discouraging people from using a
Speaker 1: competing service, then they're more likely to use your service.
Speaker 1: At least that's generally the line of thinking. So if
Speaker 1: I happen to be both an I s P and
Speaker 1: a content creator, then it certainly is within my interests
Speaker 1: to make sure that the experience of getting to my
Speaker 1: stuff is painless. And if I can make getting to
Speaker 1: competitor stuff painful or at least not convenient, it, then
Speaker 1: I am making extra money. Right. Not only am I
Speaker 1: making money off of charging people to use the Internet
Speaker 1: because I'm an Internet service provider, but theoretically there's some
Speaker 1: other means of generating revenue through the content I create
Speaker 1: as well, So you end up making lots of cash.
Speaker 1: And if you then charge other companies to be put
Speaker 1: on that same fast track, you're making money that way too.
Speaker 1: There's a lot of money here in build books. That's
Speaker 1: kind of when I'm getting at um, speaking of money, money,
Speaker 1: you know, it actually costs money to build out infrastructure.
Speaker 1: It costs money to be able to support the amount
Speaker 1: of traffic that's going on a network. So you know,
Speaker 1: it means that, you know, they have to have that
Speaker 1: money because it is a business. It's not like it's
Speaker 1: it's some sort of weird charity or public good thing.
Speaker 1: This is a business and businesses are in it to
Speaker 1: generate revenue and profits. So in order to do that
Speaker 1: there and and still build out a competitive infrastructure and
Speaker 1: maintain it, uh, that that's a cost. That's an ongoing
Speaker 1: post and it's it's a really high and really um
Speaker 1: intricate cost. Actually, I mean, I think that probably most
Speaker 1: people listening to this show have have broadband internet access
Speaker 1: and take it a little bit for granted at this
Speaker 1: juncture because it's probably in your pocket and your desktop
Speaker 1: at home and etcetera, etcetera. But that is that is
Speaker 1: not what most of the world has at this point.
Speaker 1: And if anyone I s P or or any number
Speaker 1: of is sp s even could afford to build out
Speaker 1: their infrastructure further, that would be a great boon to them. Right. So,
Speaker 1: so obviously this is you know, like we said, it's
Speaker 1: a pretty complicated issue that the concept of net neutrality
Speaker 1: is incredibly simple, but the end, the the consequences of
Speaker 1: what happens if net neutrality isn't a factor. Are pretty complex,
Speaker 1: So there's you know, there are a lot of different
Speaker 1: ways to approach this. I mean, there's the hope that
Speaker 1: the market would support net neutrality simply on its own
Speaker 1: because it's the most advantageous for everybody. That's that's sort
Speaker 1: of the ideal, but it's not necessarily proven. Uh. Then
Speaker 1: there's the fact that we've had some government agencies step
Speaker 1: in and try and create some regulations and some rules
Speaker 1: to codify the net neutrality so that it ends up
Speaker 1: being de facto. That's that's the situation, right, that's gonna
Speaker 1: be the status quo, and to go outside of that
Speaker 1: would be breaking the law. But that itself is complicated,
Speaker 1: so complicated in fact, that we're going to take a
Speaker 1: quick break right now to thank our sponsor. Alright, So,
Speaker 1: like we said, there are there's a in the United States,
Speaker 1: we've actually had some government regulations step in and recently
Speaker 1: it was overturned, which is a big thing in the news.
Speaker 1: But to start off, we need to talk about the
Speaker 1: agency that tried to create actual legal rules to govern
Speaker 1: net neutrality, and that is the Federal Communications Commission or
Speaker 1: f c C. Now, their their job is to regulate
Speaker 1: interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite, and cable.
Speaker 1: So some of the FCC's duties have gotten a little
Speaker 1: cloudy because those definitions aren't as clear cut as they
Speaker 1: used to be. Yeah, when the FCC was created, the
Speaker 1: Internet didn't exist, So what to do with all of
Speaker 1: this new fangled stuff has been certainly in question many
Speaker 1: times over the past few decades, and early on the
Speaker 1: Internet's life, there was a fear that putting it under
Speaker 1: the mantle of the f c C would stifle its
Speaker 1: ability to grow. And you know, that was one of
Speaker 1: those real concerns, was the idea that you know, you
Speaker 1: could kill this before it could be anything by putting
Speaker 1: in too much oversight and regulation. So there's a lot
Speaker 1: of hesitancy on the part of the government to step
Speaker 1: in and really, you know, get involved in this. And
Speaker 1: in fact, if you if you look at the history
Speaker 1: of f c C getting involved with with net neutrality,
Speaker 1: it's relatively recent. I mean keep in mind that the
Speaker 1: Internet and the Worldwide Web even it's been around for
Speaker 1: a few decades now, but it wasn't until two thousand
Speaker 1: five that FCC really gotten of the net neutrality well
Speaker 1: to well to back up just a little bit, I
Speaker 1: did want to put in that the FCC defines broadband
Speaker 1: providers as being different from other telecommunication systems, and that
Speaker 1: was laid out back in with the Federal Talngue Communications
Speaker 1: Act of Yeah. And then the thing to remember is
Speaker 1: that broadband providers are in information services, right, which is
Speaker 1: different from the telecommunication services, which was considered more of
Speaker 1: the actual networks that allow people to uh to make
Speaker 1: calls or whatever whatever those systems happened to be that
Speaker 1: the FEC looks over. So that's important because that that
Speaker 1: distinction ends up being the very key to the to
Speaker 1: the arguments that we're seeing come to light right now, right,
Speaker 1: And this this distinction was upheld in a two five
Speaker 1: Supreme Court decision of the National Cable and Telecommunication Association
Speaker 1: versus Brand X Internet Services. This will come back in
Speaker 1: a moment. But um, other things that happened in two five, well, yeah,
Speaker 1: that's when the FCC created the Open Internet Regulations, also
Speaker 1: known as net neutrality. And these were rules that were
Speaker 1: announced in two thousand five and included that well, they
Speaker 1: said essentially that consumers are entitled to certain rights which
Speaker 1: include access to the lawful Internet content of their choice,
Speaker 1: So clearly anything that's against the law, things that violate
Speaker 1: copyright for example, or have illicit material in them, they
Speaker 1: are not protected. Also the ability to run applications and
Speaker 1: services of their choice, so again internet connected services, in
Speaker 1: other words, not limiting it just to using a browser
Speaker 1: to look at a website, but all things connected to
Speaker 1: the Internet, including things like email, etcetera. Then also the
Speaker 1: ability to connect the types of devices of their choice
Speaker 1: to the network, assuming those devices are legal and aren't
Speaker 1: designed to hurt the network, which is great. This is
Speaker 1: saying that your internet service provider would not be allowed to, uh,
Speaker 1: say yes, you can completely hook up your your laptop
Speaker 1: to the cable modem, but we're not going to allow
Speaker 1: any mobile devices to hook up to WiFi rite or
Speaker 1: to say, um, yes you can hook up your Mac,
Speaker 1: but you cannot hook up your PC. Yeah, that would
Speaker 1: be That would be another great example. So this rule
Speaker 1: would essentially say no, it has to be agnostic towards
Speaker 1: all platforms that are capable of connecting to your network,
Speaker 1: assuming that they're not designed to hurt it or be
Speaker 1: you know, or that there they themselves are illegal, and
Speaker 1: then also said that uh, customers are entitled to access
Speaker 1: to competing services among networks and content providers. Uh, well,
Speaker 1: there's a little I mean, like I said, in certain
Speaker 1: areas in the United States, internet service providers operate at
Speaker 1: an effective monopoly, so that one is probably the weakest
Speaker 1: among those four. Uh. At any rate, those were kind
Speaker 1: of the proposed rules, but it wasn't like it was
Speaker 1: again a formal thing. This was uh, you know, sort
Speaker 1: of what they were saying, this is what we want
Speaker 1: to protect, right right. Nonetheless, people started kind of possing
Speaker 1: up on on both sides of net neutrality. Um, hands
Speaker 1: off dot org was in favor of the Internet service
Speaker 1: providers and Save the Internet dot Com was in favor
Speaker 1: of net neutrality, and both were saying that they were
Speaker 1: trying to save the Internet, and it was a little
Speaker 1: bit confusing. Yeah. Um so on October twenty two, two
Speaker 1: thousand nine, so this is after the original text Off
Speaker 1: net Neutrality episode went out, the FCC saw out public
Speaker 1: input on drafting formal rules that would guard the Internet's
Speaker 1: neutral status, and they adopted the Open Internet R and
Speaker 1: O on November two thousand eleven. And those rules are
Speaker 1: actually a little odd in that not everyone is treated
Speaker 1: the same way, the wireless providers were given a slightly
Speaker 1: um looser leash in a way, because wireless at that
Speaker 1: time was starting to was just starting to take off,
Speaker 1: whereas the wired broadband services had been around for us.
Speaker 1: But yeah, yeah, things like UH three G four g
Speaker 1: UM and and other wireless UH standards and protocols were
Speaker 1: relatively young, and so the idea was that we don't
Speaker 1: again same sort of idea that was around earlier, saying
Speaker 1: we don't want to overregulate a young industry and thus
Speaker 1: UH end up inhibiting its ability to blossom. So the
Speaker 1: wireless ones have a little bit there. The restrictions aren't
Speaker 1: quite as um tight as the wired ones. So then
Speaker 1: you know, everything was great, right, I mean, everyone just
Speaker 1: said these are fantastic rules, and I absolutely agree with
Speaker 1: everything you say, and the world is a better place
Speaker 1: everyone except the internet service providers. Yeah yeah, okay, So
Speaker 1: it didn't take very long before these rules were challenged,
Speaker 1: um like officially in court. Yeah, Verizon Communications stepped up
Speaker 1: to the plate and challenged these rules, and they said
Speaker 1: that the FCC doesn't have the authority to make such
Speaker 1: regulations and that Congress had never given the FCC any
Speaker 1: authority to make such regulations. Therefore these rules are moot it.
Speaker 1: You don't have the authority to make the rules. Therefore
Speaker 1: the rules don't exist. Yeah, and trying to make them
Speaker 1: is illegal. And your face is downb Yeah, that was
Speaker 1: pretty much I think was actually in the deposition was
Speaker 1: your dumb face was in there somewhere. They used legal ease,
Speaker 1: but the intent, we think is there um at any rate,
Speaker 1: this this one through the courts for a good long
Speaker 1: while because I mean, you know so, so we just
Speaker 1: we just said that that was late Yeah, and it's
Speaker 1: early February when we record this, and uh so it
Speaker 1: hasn't been that long since this decision was handled handed down.
Speaker 1: It was the Court of Appeals for the d C
Speaker 1: Circuit which ruled two to one that the FCC does
Speaker 1: in fact have the authority to regulate broadband and wireless
Speaker 1: service providers. That against Verizon Communications, they said that the
Speaker 1: FEC didn't have that authority. This court said, no, they've
Speaker 1: got the authority. But those rules of the open Internet
Speaker 1: that the f CC came up with, we're based upon
Speaker 1: a flawed foundation and therefore are not valid. So it's
Speaker 1: not that the FCC doesn't have the authority. It's just
Speaker 1: that the justifications they used to build their rules, they
Speaker 1: don't they don't exist, right, right that they were saying
Speaker 1: that because the f c C has has previously put
Speaker 1: out that broadband service providers are not to be treated
Speaker 1: like telecommunications providers, that rules for telecommunications providers cannot be
Speaker 1: applied to broadband service providers. Yeah, this is where that
Speaker 1: definition comes back to bite us, right because that definition
Speaker 1: where we say that broadband providers are information services, not
Speaker 1: common carriers, then that's where that's where it all breaks down.
Speaker 1: Because the rules that the FCC had had created were
Speaker 1: for common carriers. It was based on the rules for
Speaker 1: common carriers. And if if it's if you know, it's
Speaker 1: saying like, you can't treat an orange like an apple
Speaker 1: because an orange is not an apple. So just because
Speaker 1: you have rules for apples doesn't mean those rules apply
Speaker 1: to oranges. That's essentially what we're saying here. So I know,
Speaker 1: one thing that I wanted to clear up was what
Speaker 1: the heck is a common carrier? What what does this
Speaker 1: common carrier thing mean? And it actually dates back to
Speaker 1: a concept called just common carriage, and common carriage was
Speaker 1: that if you have a business that uses some form
Speaker 1: of a fundamental service that that that uses public rights
Speaker 1: of way, you cannot discriminate with that service. You have
Speaker 1: to you have to allow open access to every everybody. Right.
Speaker 1: So here's an example that I read that I thought
Speaker 1: was a good one. Let's say that you operate a ferry.
Speaker 1: So you've got to You've got a little boat that
Speaker 1: you ferry people across a river. But that river is
Speaker 1: a public right of way. You can't deny anyone's service
Speaker 1: on that ferry because you're using a public right of way.
Speaker 1: And so telecommunications, those networks are considered a public right
Speaker 1: of way, and it was really important in those early
Speaker 1: days because it meant that if you were one telephone
Speaker 1: company and you're competing against another telephone company, you could
Speaker 1: not deny your customers the ability to call the other
Speaker 1: companies customers. All right. We talked about this some in
Speaker 1: our A T and T Mini series. Yeah, we did exactly. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it was one of those things where it was an
Speaker 1: important decision. It meant that it leveled that playing field,
Speaker 1: so you had options on what company you wanted you
Speaker 1: wanted to use, depending upon how many were available in
Speaker 1: your region. And you didn't have to worry that the
Speaker 1: option you chose would limit your ability to make phone calls. Well,
Speaker 1: those rules don't apply to broadband service providers because they don't.
Speaker 1: They aren't under the definition of common carriage or common carrier.
Speaker 1: And and this is just a legal distinction. It's it
Speaker 1: doesn't mean that the FCC couldn't make up rules that
Speaker 1: do apply to broadband providers, right And and in fact,
Speaker 1: this decision upheld some of the FCC's powers over the
Speaker 1: Internet at large, which we'll get into in just a moment.
Speaker 1: But but I did I did want to say that this,
Speaker 1: this entire court decision was not quite what either side
Speaker 1: was really hoping to hear. I mean, it was clearly
Speaker 1: on the side of the I s p s, But
Speaker 1: both sides are kind of looking at this and figuring
Speaker 1: out whether and how exactly to further appeal the decision, right,
Speaker 1: because you've got the FCC, which still apparently has this
Speaker 1: power to regulate broadband providers, they just have to figure
Speaker 1: out a different way of going about it. Then you've
Speaker 1: got the broadband providers who are told that these net
Speaker 1: neutrality rules don't apply to them because they were based
Speaker 1: on a faulty foundation. But you know, neither side really
Speaker 1: is ready to move forward, because if if the broadband
Speaker 1: providers decide to just throw net neutrality to the wind
Speaker 1: and the FCC comes up with new rules, then they're
Speaker 1: going to have to reverse everything anyway. And meanwhile, the
Speaker 1: FCC doesn't really know if they like, they know that
Speaker 1: the providers are going to challenge the FCC's authority again.
Speaker 1: So yeah, and in some cases a few Internet service
Speaker 1: providers have have prior regulations that are applying this to them, right.
Speaker 1: You found out a little about Comcast. It was I
Speaker 1: did not know this. I I was looking through one
Speaker 1: of the articles about net neutrality and about this decision
Speaker 1: in particular that that overturns net neutrality, the formal net
Speaker 1: neutrality rules, and it stated that in a previous decision
Speaker 1: against Comcast, which had challenged the FCC as well UH,
Speaker 1: Comcast had agreed that it would abide by the rules
Speaker 1: of net neutrality for seven years. Actually, and I don't
Speaker 1: even know when the date was of this particular court case,
Speaker 1: but I know I know it was not seven years ago,
Speaker 1: but Comcast agreed that they would abide by the rules
Speaker 1: of net neutrality for seven years. Even if those rules
Speaker 1: were to change or be thrown out entirely, they would
Speaker 1: still abide by them. So uh so, that means that
Speaker 1: Comcast at least will be playing fair by the by
Speaker 1: the standards of net neutrality for as long as those
Speaker 1: seven years are still in effect. So if, even if,
Speaker 1: even if net neutrality is completely a thing of the
Speaker 1: past for a while, anyone who's got Comcast service will
Speaker 1: still be experiencing it at least, you know, there's they
Speaker 1: should be like, assuming that everyone's behaving themselves. You know.
Speaker 1: So maybe sometime I'll write up a blog post once
Speaker 1: I figure out all the details of that, because I thought, wow,
Speaker 1: that's kind of interesting, certainly an interesting agreement to say
Speaker 1: I will abide by these rules even if the rules
Speaker 1: cease to exist. It almost seems chivalrous. Um. So we're
Speaker 1: recording this on February five, and in the interest of
Speaker 1: full disclosure, because on February three, a group of lawmakers
Speaker 1: introduced bills both in the United States Senate and in
Speaker 1: the House of Representatives in an effort to restore the
Speaker 1: rules of net neutrality as they had been created by
Speaker 1: the FCC. Essentially, this is a stop gap. It's not
Speaker 1: meant to be a permanent thing. But if this, this
Speaker 1: legislation was signed into law, then you would have those
Speaker 1: rules in effect until the f CC was able to
Speaker 1: draft something permanent to catch up and and make actual rules. Right. Yeah,
Speaker 1: this this one's being called the Open Internet Preservation Act. Yeah,
Speaker 1: so obviously open Internet preservation meaning that they want to
Speaker 1: preserve those rules that have been made before. So if
Speaker 1: this gets passed, um, then we would see those rules
Speaker 1: remain in effect until the FCC came up with something
Speaker 1: more permanent. Uh so, what what are the what are
Speaker 1: the odds that's going to be passed? Well, it's bound
Speaker 1: to face some opposition in the House of Representatives. You see,
Speaker 1: the people who have proposed this bill are Democrats. The
Speaker 1: House of Representatives is controlled by the Grand Old Party,
Speaker 1: the GOP. Uh and historically Democrats and the GOP tend
Speaker 1: to vote against one another usually actually sometimes sometimes you
Speaker 1: can see people reach across the aisle. Certainly, certainly, and
Speaker 1: a lot of the people that I have a lot
Speaker 1: of the Congress people who I've seen opposing net neutrality
Speaker 1: have been on the Republican side. Yeah, yeah, and uh,
Speaker 1: and you can draw your own conclusions about that I
Speaker 1: will leave all commentary aside for the yes, it's hurting me.
Speaker 1: But then uh, in the Senate, it's expected to pass
Speaker 1: because the Senate happens to be controlled by the Acratic
Speaker 1: party right now. So so it may be that we
Speaker 1: see one bill passed in the Senate, one bill fail
Speaker 1: in the House of Representatives, and the the bill in
Speaker 1: the Senate would go to the House, and we have
Speaker 1: to see what would happened there. But whatever happens with that,
Speaker 1: proponents of net neutrality seem overall hopeful right now, and
Speaker 1: for for a couple of different reasons. And that's first because,
Speaker 1: like I said earlier, that the court's ruling upheld the
Speaker 1: f SEC's power to regulate the Internet at large um
Speaker 1: that was set forth specifically under section seven h six
Speaker 1: of the Communications Act. And some people are even saying
Speaker 1: that the decision could have granted the FEC power that
Speaker 1: the Communications Act didn't really intend. D C Circuit Judge
Speaker 1: Lawrence Silberman, said he was one of the judges involved
Speaker 1: in this recent decision, said in his dissent that the
Speaker 1: ruling gave and I quote the FCC virtually unlimited power
Speaker 1: to regulate the Internet in the future, um, which I
Speaker 1: think is a little bit of an overstatement. Um. But
Speaker 1: but you know, there are certainly some fringe theorists who
Speaker 1: are who are passing on a little bit of doom
Speaker 1: and gloom about all of this, But it's also being
Speaker 1: talked about by net neutrality proponents as a promising it's promising, right,
Speaker 1: So yeah, I think the point when the FCC reached
Speaker 1: out its gloved hand in the middle of the court
Speaker 1: proceedings and said join me now, and you will be
Speaker 1: more powerful than you could possibly imagine that people got
Speaker 1: a little weird feeling about it. But I can't imagine
Speaker 1: why nothing but sunshine and puppies after that. Uh No,
Speaker 1: But seriously, you know it's one of the dark side.
Speaker 1: We have puppies, puppies and chocolate, but not chocolate puppies. Alright,
Speaker 1: so except for chocolate labs, which totally different thing. No,
Speaker 1: now I've gotten off on the rails. It's clearly too
Speaker 1: warm in this room. Let's talk about some of the
Speaker 1: the quotes you've grabbed here. I found them really interesting. Yeah.
Speaker 1: These were actually from the House Stuff Works article on
Speaker 1: on how net neutrality works, which was published way back
Speaker 1: in two thousand six. So these are so these are
Speaker 1: two thousand five, two thousand six Eric quotes, but I
Speaker 1: think that they're still extremely elevant. Yeah. The first one
Speaker 1: is from the Economist and and gives a interesting perspective
Speaker 1: on the whole thing. Uh. The writer said, blocking your
Speaker 1: interfering with existing traffic on the Internet is unacceptable, but
Speaker 1: if operators want to build fast lands alongside it, they
Speaker 1: should be allowed to. So in other words, uh, don't throttle,
Speaker 1: but if you can build faster stuff, two things go
Speaker 1: on ahead. I mean, you know, that's one way of
Speaker 1: looking at it. Letting letting people make money, they're essentially saying,
Speaker 1: is not a bad thing. It's kind of going back
Speaker 1: to that tiered approach I talked about earlier. And in fact,
Speaker 1: I mean we see I s p s offer tears
Speaker 1: right now where you can get a certain guarantee. Yeah,
Speaker 1: you get a guarantee of a certain bandwidth, like a
Speaker 1: certain download speed. Uh. And if you pay more than
Speaker 1: you can get more. Uh. It may very well be that,
Speaker 1: like I said, we might one day see a tier
Speaker 1: where it's a it's a lower price, but you trade
Speaker 1: off with access to certain things, or you pay the
Speaker 1: higher price and you you get access to everything that could
Speaker 1: be an outcome. Um. My second quote is from John
Speaker 1: Hannibals Stokes who is writing for Ours Technica, and this
Speaker 1: is a long one, so stick with me, folks. He
Speaker 1: was saying the simple truth that you can't have a
Speaker 1: free market without government regulation should be so obvious that
Speaker 1: it hurts because markets rest on the rule of the law.
Speaker 1: The relationship between markets and regulation is not a binary opposition,
Speaker 1: but a continuum. Anarchy at one extreme and overregulation at
Speaker 1: the other are both emtithetical to free markets. You have
Speaker 1: to have rules to play by because the rules guarantee
Speaker 1: that the game is fair. An excellent quote. Yeah, I agree.
Speaker 1: I mean again, you have to have rules. The trick
Speaker 1: is to make sure that the rules don't break the game, right,
Speaker 1: which is that that's the fear. I mean, it's that's tricksy. Yeah,
Speaker 1: especially when you talk about technology, which tends to outpace
Speaker 1: law by about ten years at least. So you know,
Speaker 1: I understand why this is a complicated issue. I mean,
Speaker 1: people have a lot of dake in this and uh,
Speaker 1: and I understand why there there's opposition. I'm still very
Speaker 1: much for net neutrality personally. I like the idea that
Speaker 1: if I if I have a certain i SP that
Speaker 1: I'm going to have just the same experience going to
Speaker 1: one of their sites as one of their competitors. Um,
Speaker 1: because I mean, I'm still paying that i s P
Speaker 1: for that service, so I feel like I should have
Speaker 1: access to everything that's out there. I don't want there
Speaker 1: to be a fractured Internet where Lauren's Internet is different
Speaker 1: from my Internet, and then I can't see the awesome
Speaker 1: cat video that she's posted because it's not on the
Speaker 1: service that my Internet service provider uses. And that right
Speaker 1: there is the best description of a dystopia that I've
Speaker 1: ever heard, you know, the inaccessibility of cat videos madness.
Speaker 1: There would be riots in the streets, alright. So the
Speaker 1: cats and dogs living together, no, or if they did,
Speaker 1: we wouldn't know about it. At least anyone not using
Speaker 1: that i SP wouldn't know about it. Don't let that
Speaker 1: world come to be all right. So that wraps up
Speaker 1: this episode of tech stuff. Our update on net neutrality,
Speaker 1: what it is, what the arguments are, why it was
Speaker 1: in the news. Guys. If you have any questions about
Speaker 1: net neutrality or you have suggestions for other topics, you
Speaker 1: should contact us. Let us know what you think and uh.
Speaker 1: That email address is tech Stuff at Discovery dot com.
Speaker 1: You can also send us a message on Facebook or
Speaker 1: on the twitters, or even go to tumbler. You can
Speaker 1: look for us. We have tech Stuff hs W as
Speaker 1: our handle. We'd love to hear from you, and we
Speaker 1: will talk to you again really soon. For more on
Speaker 1: this and thousands of other topics, does it has staff
Speaker 1: works dot com