I appreciate what Alexis is trying to do here but I hope he isn't assuming that the FCC just doesn't understand the problem. That's how this reads to me. Maybe the idea is to be diplomatic. I don't think the FCC cares. The FCC understands what is going on and it wants to do whatever is best for the FCC.<p>The best thing for tech companies to do is to start destroying some political careers. That's the only thing the machine understands and the only thing it's really going to respond to.
> "...so let’s reclassify broadband as the public utility we know it to be."<p>Thank you <i>very</i> much for writing that! (and the letter in general!)
> Y Combinator is Silicon Valley’s premiere early stage investor.<p>Shouldn't it be 'premier'? I know, not a big deal, but a mistake on the first line doesn't scream 'Best in the Business' if you ask me.
I said this in a comment a couple of months back on the subject, companies for net neutrality need to start lobbying. I understand Reddit, Y! Combinator and pretty much every company with a conscious who cares about the Internet all have good intentions and have more reasons than most to see fair laws/legislation based around the Internet. But the sad reality is the FCC is a mere Government agency and words are not enough.<p>Look at those who are against net neutrality, those who stand to gain the most from opposing it: ISP's. I can't recall where I saw it, but it was an infographic/table showing which companies/organisations have been spending lobbyist cash on getting their archaic and unfair legislation through via the FCC. It seems as though spending has increased over the years in the form of donations and propaganda.<p>If the likes of Google, Reddit and Y! Combinator want to see a fair Internet, they need to combine some cash into a pool and use it to lobby the right parts of the system. Sadly we live in a world where money talks and words are ignored. I have seen a lot of companies speaking out, but maybe it is time to consider changing tactics when a public statement from Google on the subject is basically ignored. Pull out those wallets and start spending guys, it's the only way.
Do such comments have any effect? It's hard to overlook that money seems to drive American politics moreso than public opinion (with the exception of the presidential elections).<p>I think that YC will become increasingly prominent in politics, because the tech sector has to in order to maintain control of its own fate. It'll be interesting to see what other moves YC will make.
A lot of folks on the legal/policy side of this debate believe that a regulator can distinguish between network administration that is monopolistic rent seeking and that which is value added services.<p>I'm very suspicious of this as an engineer. I suspect it is very hard to tell the difference. In a competitive environment, we can more easily discover the difference. I strongly prefer imposing competition at the last mile rather than the EFF's suggestion of Title 2 + forebearance...
One thing that seems to get me is most of this sort of action is defensive, they propose a new bill and the population has to respond on mass to have it rejected and put us back to square one.<p>They then go away, rephrase, and we're on the defensive again. Eventually, people who only defend will capitulate. You can't win if all you do is defend.
"Let me be clear: we need a bright-line, per se rule against discrimination, access fees, and paid prioritization on both mobile and fixed."<p>It would be hard to be less clear than this. When you have a comma-separated list of things you want a rule against, you need to either repeat the word "against" or risk having people at the FCC, who may just be dumb enough to make the mistake, think that you mean you want a rule against only the first thing you mention.<p>A naive reading of this (again, this is the FCC) would be that you mean we DO need access fees and paid prioritization, which I guess is the opposite of what you mean.
The same way capitalist concentration made building a small business very hard by the start of the 20th Century, the same process is taking place right now with the Internet. We usually don't notice or even like it (why, isn't it great to have every service in the same place?), but it is a tendency. Many arguments in favor of the small business and the virtues of free competition that were used back then are being used now by this post. The post even acknowledges that "the world isn't flat", but presumes the Internet needs to be, as if it was isolated from the rest of the system.<p>Even if net neutrality were approved, I don't think that unless there are other technological revolutions that open new sectors up like the PC or the Internet were, that subdivisions of large companies will be responsible for most new stuff, taking the most of the market for itself anyway and making competition harder, as we can see today in many ways. It'd just be a (very positive) way to preserve the current state of things a while longer, but not something capable of keeping the Internet "flat" in the long term.
<p><pre><code> startups would struggle to compete against those who were
able to afford paying for a fast lane--or an exclusive
fast lane. Even the slightest discrimination or paid
prioritization significantly affects startups, as
microseconds matter with both webpage-loading and
real-time content.
</code></pre>
This suggests that startups struggle to compete against those who are able to pay to use CDNs to improve their webpage-loading times. However, this is clearly not the case, and undermines the argument.<p>If a "fast lane" cost as much as using a CDN, then presumably most startups wouldn't have a problem with it.
That was well written, and provided a deep understanding of the topic. I really hope the FCC will listen to such reasoned responses, and not to big monied interests.
It's great to see more and more organizations taking a public stand - however it would be even better to see even a hint that a policy-based solution is coming.
Apologies for the cynicism, as I do support this letter, however I do think that some people will read it as reasons to block net-neutrality as y-combinator is a shopping-list of companies that annoy entrenched interests.<p>"<i>It's the economy, stupid</i>" has seemingly been replaced with "<i>It's my economy, stupid</i>", as the mating call of the political class.
Todays FCC commissioners have a unique opportunity; they can choose to shirk their responsibility to the public and kill the promise of the internet or they can go down in history as its saviors... the commission that preserved the internet as an economic engine of growth for generations to come.
What exactly is meant by this? Is there a source behind it?<p>> The fate of reddit may have been very different if Comcast had discriminated against our little two-person-startup in favor of the NBC.com news portal and the sites of other news giants.
Why don't we just shut down the FCC? (Serious question)<p><a href="http://transition.fcc.gov/Plan-for-Orderly-Shutdown-September-2013.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://transition.fcc.gov/Plan-for-Orderly-Shutdown-Septembe...</a>
The EFF set up a nice site that allows you to easily contact the FCC yourself: <a href="https://www.dearfcc.org/" rel="nofollow">https://www.dearfcc.org/</a>
I know I am in the minority here, but while I prefer net neutrality, I don't support it.<p>I'd like to have it, but I'd rather not see it enforced, because I believe private property rights are more important than anything else.<p>Should we really be able to force someone to use their property an a way that serves the public interest?<p>If so, where do we draw the line?<p>If ISPs start taking money to throttle bandwidth, alternatives will be established. Perhaps, widespread public wifi will become more prevalent--I don't know.<p>But, what I do know is that forcing companies--even if they are big corporations to use their property in a way we deem in our best interest is a slippery slope.<p>Want to call broadband an public utility? Good, then make it one. But, do it officially...
What about other forms of "neutrality"?<p>The BBC is required to maintain "balance" over political issues.<p>Should Google return the same results to all queries (ie no search bubble allowed?)<p>Should Facebook (indeed any advertiser) be required to serve the same advert no matter what the profile of the incoming request? I mean Billboards are public broadcasts not private to me, why should online advertising be different? I know it <i>is</i> but that's not the point.<p>I support net neutrality as it is commonly defined, but I think there are many other "neutrality" issues that we gloss over happily. I doubt very much Google will be happy removing the search bubble, and I would be interested in how much it affects the quality of results.