This is the eighth installment in our series on the proposed Net Neutrality regulations. If you haven’t followed “Neutrality’s Reality” from the beginning, the introduction is in the Arizona Daily Independent at here.
“O, that thy Great Leader would deign to elevate you to be one of his ministers, then thou would receive for thyself much bounty.” [I Barack 2:4]
The Communications Commission continues its sales pitch, and it’s ugly. But in one important way, they Commission is getting awfully clever here. Let’s move quickly through the Commission’s spit-shine and get to the new tax opportunity they hid in plain sight.
“Disclosures must also include packet loss as a measure of network performance, and provide notice of network management practices that can affect service. To further consider the concerns of small ISPs, the Order adopts a temporary exemption from the transparency enhancements for fixed and mobile providers with 100,000 or fewer subscribers.”
● Remember: The corporations must maintain transparency, but the government calling for it may remain shrouded in secrecy.
● What does packet loss mean to you if your provider prints a metric on your bill? The Commission won’t open opportunities for other competing providers, so consumers must pay the bills and accept what level of service they receive. I can imagine the enthralling dinner table conversation this genius move will spur: “Oh, look, honey! We dropped three fewer packets this month! Pass the beans.”
● The core protocols underlying the internet came into existence for the primary purpose of being able to withstand packet loss and network interruptions. All networks have an amount of inherent unreliability. A count of dropped packets, almost always, is meaningless to the customer.
“For the purposes of the rules, other than paid prioritization, an ISP may engage in reasonable network management.”
● Who defines “reasonable” network management? A group of inept and impotent Commissioners, appointed by politicians, who have likely never issued a single network device configuration command?
Brace yourself, this is insidious:
“Some data services do not go over the public Internet … (VoIP [Voice over Internet Protocol] from a cable system is an example, as is a dedicated heart-monitoring service) … Moreover, all broadband providers’ transparency disclosures will continue to cover any offering of such non-Internet access data services—ensuring that the public and the Commission can keep a close eye on any tactics that could undermine the Open Internet rules.”
● The Commission clearly states that they will regulate all data services, internet-facing or otherwise. This could lead to monitoring, or to taxing these services, or both.
● But what if content providers can deliver content to a device in an ISP’s data center, and then use “non-internet” transport to push that content? Here’s where it gets ugly. Some of the big studios have already started conversations with ISPs to find ways to get their content to customers in circumvention of the neutrality regulations on the public internet. And the second the FCC starts taxing internet connectivity, they can start to tax these “managed services”, and recoup tax revenue off TV viewing.
The Commission isn’t foolish enough to undermine itself by building in a giant loophole. These politicians are, however, intelligent enough to give themselves a cut of the action. More in another day…