Technology

This post serves as an index to the net neutrality posts on The Lippard Blog. I’ll update this post with any future posts on the subject. “Net Neutrality” (February 12, 2006) Critique of Bill Thompson’s argument for net neutrality. “Geddes on net neutrality” (February 14, 2006) Comment on and link to good Martin Geddes blog post on net neutrality. “Commoncause.org: Spamming for ’net neutrality’" (March 9, 2006) How Common Cause deluged Mark Cuban with spam after depicting him with devil horns for not backing net neutrality. “Talking Points Memo gets it completely wrong on COPE Act” (April 22, 2006) Critique of Josh Marshall and Art Brodsky’s bogus claim that the bill transfers control of the Internet to the telcos (who have a much smaller percentage of consumer Internet customers in the U.S. than the cable companies). “Misinformation in defense of net neutrality” (May 7, 2006) Critique of Adam Green and Matt Stoller who repeat the common misconception that common carriage requirements have applied to the Internet, which is the basis of their calling Mike McCurry a liar. “Net Neutrality and Last-Mile Connectivity: An Analogy” (May 8, 2006) An analogy about net neutrality and last-mile connectivity in terms of taxicabs, in an attempt to elucidate some of the major points and misconceptions. “Net Neutrality and the Pace of Innovation” (May 17, 2006) A look at the pace of innovation in the Bell System under monopoly in light of calls for nationalization of “the Internet backbone” (as though there is one such thing) by net neutrality advocates. “Misinformation from ‘Save the Internet’" (May 19, 2006) A critique of “Save the Internet”’s critique of the “Hands Off the Internet” flash animation cartoon, which seems to repeat the common confusion that common carriage requirements have applied to the Internet. “Bad unintended consequences of HR 5417” (May 19, 2006) A criticism of the Sensenbrenner net neutrality bill. “Yglesias on McCurry” (May 19, 2006) Critique of Matthew Yglesias on net neutrality guest blogging at Talking Points Memo. “Net Neutrality and Fair Use” (May 22, 2006) Disagreement with Larry Lessig about an analogy between net neutrality and fair use. (I tend to agree with Lessig on intellectual property issues, at least about the dangers of ever-extending copyright terms, lack of registration requirements, and DRM.) “Hillary Clinton and Net Neutrality” (May 23, 2006) The hypocrisy of Hillary Clinton’s support of net neutrality on the grounds of protecting free speech (as pointed out by Adam Thierer). “Consumer broadband last-mile competition in the Phoenix metropolitan area” (May 24, 2006) A summary of actual broadband options in the Phoenix area, listing eight separate providers. “Net Neutrality expands to absurdity” (May 24, 2006) Critique of net neutrality advocate Jim Durbin, who thinks corporate web filters are a violation (which presumably he thinks should be made illegal). Also comment on Glenn Harlan Reynolds on pirate WiFi in the enterprise. “Newmark vs. McCurry on net neutrality” (May 24, 2006) Comment on Craig Newmark’s debate with Mike McCurry in the Wall Street Journal, in which Newmark is mightily confused about the technical facts. “Dave Siegel on QoS and net neutrality” (May 26, 2006) Link to Dave Siegel blog post that summarizes how QoS is used in Global Crossing’s network, and to a presentation by Xiao Xipeng on the same topic. “Save the Internet: Fighting astroturf with astroturf” (May 26, 2006) How “Save the Internet” has generated astroturfed letters-to-the-editor while condemning astroturf from the telcos. I condemn both. “More on last-mile options in Phoenix” (May 27, 2006) A response to criticisms of my list Phoenix-area broadband options from Douglas Ross. “The Abstract Factory on net neutrality” (May 31, 2006) A link to a good commentary on net neutrality and astroturfing telco shills. “Kevin Drum gets it wrong on net neutrality and common carriage” (June 1, 2006) Kevin Drum repeats the common misconception that common carriage requirements have applied to the Internet. “Worst net neutrality analogy ever?" (June 1, 2006) A critique of Susan Crawford’s horrible sidewalk analogy. “George Ou explains QoS to Russell Shaw” (June 10, 2006) In a ZDnet debate, George Ou gives a good simple explanation of QoS to someone who wants to regulate something he doesn’t understand. “Martin Geddes on net neutrality, federalism, and U.S. vs. EU” (June 12, 2006) Link to a nice piece on Geddes’ Telepocalypse blog where he provides links to his past positions on network neutrality and compares the U.S. to EU, and their respective regulatory regimes to networks. “Verizon’s Thomas Tauke on net neutrality” (June 12, 2006) Quote from and link to a Declan McCullagh interview with Thomas Tauke of Verizon about net neutrality. “Bennett on Free Press net neutrality ‘facts’" (June 12, 2006) Richard Bennett shows that the Free Press’s network neutrality facts are mostly fiction, argues against the anti-QoS provision of Snowe-Dorgan and Markey in a note to Sen. Boxer, comments on tomorrow’s Senate hearing, and on Matt Stoller’s acting as a spokesman for admitted ignorance. "‘Hands Off the Internet’ writes about me, then thinks better of it” (June 15, 2006) A post from the HOTI blog about me, recovered from Google cache. (Most of the content is actually excerpted from my own blog, with a bit of HOTI commentary.) “The New Republic supports net neutrality, based on error” (June 15, 2006) The editors of The New Republic join the crowds of net neutrality supporters who incorrectly think that common carriage requirements have applied to ISPs and the Internet. “Douglas Ross’s Network Neutrality Index” (June 16, 2006) A link to an index of blog posts by an advocate of net neutrality regulation. “Demonization of adversaries is wrong, Matt Stoller” (June 16, 2006) A criticism of part of Matt Stoller’s presentation at YearlyKos. “Andrew Kantor changes his mind on net neutrality” (June 16, 2006) The USA Today technology columnist no longer supports net neutrality regulations. “Matt Stoller lies about site blocking” (June 18, 2006) Matt Stoller falsely attributes a problem between Craigslist.org and Cox’s PC firewall software to the kind of discriminatory site blocking he thinks net neutrality regulations are needed to prevent–after already being informed of the real cause. “Update on Cox blocking of Craigslist” (June 20, 2006) Update on who’s said what, and a bit more detail on the underlying problem in which I disagree with placing blame on Craigslist. “Content providers and ISPs: who really has the stronger hand?" (June 21, 2006) A look at a case of “reverse network neutrality” involving ESPN360 blocking access to ISPs. “The future of connectivity options” (June 22, 2006) Telco 2.0 looks at a variety of business models for different types of connectivity and projections for how they will change in significance over the next decade. It would be a bad idea to impose regulations which stifle innovation by prohibiting some business models. “Matt Stoller refuses to come clean” (June 22, 2006) Matt Stoller, caught in falsehood, tries to avoid responsibility for his statements and instead accuses others of being “lying liars." “A version of network neutrality I can endorse” (June 22, 2006) I attempt to put forth a minimal, non-FCC-regulated version of “Lippard Network Neutrality” that I think is reasonable, and explain how it differs from what many network neutrality advocates are supporting. “Craigslist no longer uses TCP window size of 0” (July 14, 2006) Update on the Craigslist/Cox issue. “VoIP quality degradation shows need for prioritization” (July 27, 2006) Brix Networks study shows quality of VoIP calls has declined over the last 18 months due to competition for network resources. “ACLU incompetence and misinformation on net neutrality” (November 3, 2006) The ACLU comes out in support of network neutrality, making many of the same erroneous arguments which have been debunked here before, such as confusing common carriage with IP-layer nondiscrimination. “Netroots and telecom” (July 19, 2008) Discussion about the description of the Netroots Nation “Big Telecom” panel and an Art Brodsky column about it. “New Markey/Eshoo net neutrality bill” (August 3, 2009) Brief comments on the Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2009. ...

Part II of my interview on Michael Santarcangelo’s Security Catalyst podcast is now available. (Part I is here.)

Kevin Drum writes: The 1996 Telecommunications Act defined two different types of service, information services (IS) and telecommunications services (TS), and cable companies were originally classified as IS and telephone companies as TS.Right so far, except that Internet service is classified as an information service, not a telecommunications service. Keep that in mind as you read his next two sentences: Although both cable companies and telcos provide local internet access, the backbone of the internet is carried exclusively by telcos, which were regulated as common carriers under the tighter TS rules. The common carrier rules effectively enforced the principles of net neutrality on the internet backbone.This is just wrong. Common carriage rules require telcos to allow third parties to connect to their telephony networks or to use their networks for private line connections between two points. Common carriage does not require interconnection to anybody’s Internet network. There is not and there has never been a legal requirement that any Internet service provider or backbone allow all comers to connect to their Internet services–and thank goodness, because that means ISPs and NSPs can deny services to spammers or other entities that don’t agree to their terms of service/acceptable use policies. ISPs qua ISPs and NSPs qua NSPs are not common carriers! While there are Internet backbone links that use telco networks, these were typically the networks of long-distance telcos (AT&T, Sprint, MCI) or next-generation fiber telcos (Qwest, Global Crossing, Level 3) rather than the last-mile telcos (such as the Regional Bell Operating Companies). Now AT&T, MCI, and Qwest have been acquired by or acquired last-mile telcos (SBC, Verizon, and U.S. West, respectively), but the last-mile telcos subject to common carriage didn’t build the backbones. Why do net neutrality advocates continue to get this wrong, even after being corrected repeatedly? UPDATE: BTW, I should note that Harold Feld (who has commented here) has specifically agreed that he’d like to impose common carriage requirements on broadband providers (meaning that last-mile telcos and cable companies would have to allow others to provide services over their access networks, so you could buy Earthlink, AOL, Yahoo, or Panix Internet service from your local cable company or telco–the situation would be like it used to be with DSL providers and local telcos). I’m not sure what other elements he would advocate–whether he’d apply similar requirements to wireless providers (requiring them to let anybody be a mobile virtual network operator), ban QoS, ban anything less than full Internet service over any medium, count non-residential services as broadband, etc. (And Harold, if you read this, I’m still waiting to hear responses from you here (on your own blog) and here (on mine, about HR 5417).) By contrast, Timothy Karr at Save the Internet has explicitly denied that he’s equating net neutrality and common carriage, but hasn’t said what he does mean. (And Tim, you haven’t responded to my final comment here on your own blog, either.) UPDATE June 11, 2006: Tim Lee rightly questions Drum on this point as well, asking whether Internet backbones have really been under such regulations, which leads to some further information about peering agreements. I’ve pointed him to this post from last November about peering (see in particular the linked Geoff Huston paper).

From Susan Crawford: Think of the pipes and wires that you use to go online as a sidewalk. The question is whether the sidewalk should get a cut of the value of the conversations that you have as you walk along. The traditional telephone model has been that the telephone company doesn’t get paid more if you have a particularly meaningful call – they’re just providing a neutral pipe.If you’re going to use a sidewalk as an analogy for a communications pipeline, then the users of the sidewalk need to stand for the communications traffic. Then the question becomes, should users of different types have to pay different rates for the use of the sidewalk to those who build and maintain it (not to the sidewalk itself!). Further, the sidewalk has to keep being made bigger to support all the traffic being carried, and some of the users are in a bigger hurry and are likely to collide with those who aren’t, and some of the latter are holding big gatherings between their residences, like a block party in the neighborhoods. Should those guys get to do that for free, or at the same cost as their neighbors who aren’t interested in a block party? UPDATE: I had issued a trackback ping to Susan Crawford’s blog post which was accepted, but apparently she decided to delete it. That’s rather ironic–she supports net neutrality, but blocks critical trackbacks to her blog. I guess her support of net neutrality isn’t based on any principle of fairness or free speech. UPDATE (June 8, 2006): Susan Crawford responded to a query about this, and attributed the deletion to automatic anti-spam defenses, and invited me to re-issue a trackback, which I will shortly do. I retract the last two sentences of the above update, and apologize to her for my erroneous inference. UPDATE (March 13, 2008): Actually, I never regained the ability to issue trackbacks or even to reference this blog’s URL in comments posted on Susan Crawford’s Blogware blog, so all of my comments there refer to my discord.org website instead. She moved her blog in late 2007, but I’ve not commented or issued any trackbacks to the new one.

“Cog” at The Abstract Factory has a good, thoughtful post on net neutrality–and gets hit by astroturfing shills in the comments who almost seem to be trying to change his mind. (He comments further on the shills, a few of which have appeared in the comments at this blog, here.)

I’ve posted this as an update on the original post, but it’s also worth bringing out as a separate posting. I’ve made a few minor changes here (e.g., to insert the point about Cable America that is made elsewhere in the original post). Douglas Ross (directorblue) has called this list “bogus” and claimed that only two of the options (Qwest and Cox) actually count. He rightly dismisses Cable America from the list on the grounds that Cox entered into an agreement to acquire them in January of this year–I grant his point and that reduces the number of broadband providers by one. He dismisses Covad because it uses Qwest last-mile wires, but goes on to say, inconsistently, that he would count other cable resellers if the Brand X decision had gone the other way and providers like Cox were forced to enter into relationships like Covad has with Qwest. My observation is that if those reseller relationships exist and the reseller provides access to its own Internet network, then that is enough to foster a competitive environment. It doesn’t matter whether it’s government-mandated, it matters whether it exists. Doug rejects all the wireless options out of hand on the grounds of Verizon’s EVDO terms-of-service. (His section about why WiMax isn’t viable doesn’t actually discuss WiMax at all, only EVDO terms-of-service.) He misses the point that Sprint Broadband and Sprint EVDO are two different services–he doesn’t actually give a reason to reject Sprint Broadband. He says he doesn’t understand why I put the City of Tempe’s municipal WiFi network in the list–I did so because Tempe is right in the middle of the Phoenix metropolitan area (and noted Chandler’s metro WiFi in-development, which is just south of Tempe, for the same reason). These are real options for people moving to the Phoenix area and for anyone who is willing to move to get different broadband service. (And certainly broadband options in an area are an important factor in choosing a place to live.) Finally, he rejects HughesNet because it is unsuitable for VOIP or P2P. At least he doesn’t say that HughesNet should be mandated to change the laws of physics in order to provide those services under net neutrality. Doug’s position on net neutrality appears to be that nothing counts as broadband unless it supports every application he wants to use. But it’s important to note that the net neutrality bills in Congress do count all these options and place regulations on them–they count anything as broadband that is greater than 200kbps in one direction, whether wired or wireless. I don’t see Doug volunteering to exempt things he doesn’t count as valid broadband options from broadband net neutrality restrictions. It appears to me that Doug’s position is that whoever builds an infrastructure capable of supporting what he wants has to provide it to him, without recovering the costs of that infrastructure by charging any third parties. But I bet he also is unwilling to pay an unsubsidized rate to use such a service. (UPDATE: I was just looking at Doug’s blogroll, and he’s pretty strong evidence that net neutrality positions don’t necessarily correlate with political positions. Doug’s political blog links include Michelle Malkin, Little Green Footballs, and the dishonest nutcases at “Stop the ACLU.”) ...

Dave Siegel has given a very brief introduction to QoS (with some specifics about how it’s engineered into Global Crossing’s network today) and chimed in on the net neutrality debate. A bit more detail about how QoS has been a problem in some networks but successfully engineered into Global Crossing’s network can be found in this presentation by Dr. Xiao Xipeng of Alcatel, “The Elusive QoS” (PDF). Xiao Xipeng was one of the designers of QoS for Global Crossing and is the author or co-author of numerous IETF standards for QoS.

As the InOpinion blog has pointed out, Save the Internet-generated form letters have been published as letters to the editor here, here, and here. This is ironic given their complaints about astroturf by “Hands Off The Internet." InOpinion has a project to identify astroturf where it appears, which appears to be nonpartisan.

Net neutrality advocates claim that telcos (meaning the local telco providers) have a “virtual monopoly” on consumer broadband, or that they have a duopoly with the cable companies. In many regions, this is true, or nearly so (thus the “virtual” qualifier). (Note, however, that the statement becomes transparently false if it’s not restricted to consumer broadband. There are far more options for Internet service for businesses, especially businesses that can put equipment into colo facilities.) But if you look at the metropolitan Phoenix area, there are quite a few competing consumer broadband providers, e.g.: * Qwest, the Regional Bell Operating Company formerly known as U.S. West, provides DSL services (as well as higher bandwidth wired connections from fractional T1 and up, and I think they still offer ISDN). This is one of the evil telcos that is enemy number one for many net neutrality advocates. * Covad, a DSL provider that uses Qwest’s last-mile network in Phoenix. In 2003 Covad acquired all of Qwest’s business DSL customers, and it appears that they will or have exited the consumer broadband market–however, they can provide business-class DSL service to my residence (which is interesting because Qwest says they can’t). Covad is also actively pursuing WiBro (wireless broadband, a Korean standard) and WiMax (wireless broadband, an Intel standard that will now be compatible with WiBro). * Cox Communications, a cable company, provides cable modem services. (They also have higher speed connections for businesses.) Cox has done very well in recent years in taking away customers from Qwest for voice telephone services, as well as out-competing Qwest’s DSL offering for consumer Internet access. I currently use Cox Business Services to my home. * Cable America, a competing cable company, provides cable modem services in parts of the east Valley. (UPDATE May 27, 2006: As Douglas Ross (directorblue) has pointed out, Cox entered into an agreement to acquire Cable America in January 2006, so this doesn’t really count as an independent broadband provider.) * Sprint Broadband, a long distance and wireless provider, offers a point-to-point wireless broadband service (previously People’s Choice, which Sprint acquired). Sprint also offers EV-DO mobile wireless service. * Alltel, a wireless provider, offers EV-DO mobile wireless service (which is actually using Sprint’s EV-DO network). * Verizon Wireless, a wireless provider, offers EV-DO (3G) mobile wireless service. * HughesNet, a satellite-based wireless provider (previously DirecWay, and DirecPC before that), offers satellite connectivity (with high latency as a drawback imposed by the laws of physics). * City of Tempe municipal wireless service, provided and managed by NeoReach. Similar service is being deployed to the City of Chandler, also by NeoReach. There are no doubt others I’ve missed–if you’re willing to pay for business service, many providers can get that service to your home, which includes services like a T1 connection (where your provider, if not Qwest, will have to pay monthly local loop charges to Qwest and pass that along in your bill) and may include other sources of wireless service. When I had a Global Crossing T1 to my home, the local loop costs were slightly over $200/mo–consumer broadband, by contrast, costs substantially less for more bandwidth, at least in the downstream direction, when delivered to a residence. On the other hand, bandwidth costs in a colo facility can be as low as $10/Mbit/mo, in quantity, i.e., $1000/mo for a 100Mbps Ethernet port. You pay more per Mbit to get data to your residence because of the costs of getting the data out to all those residences and the overhead of dealing with a lot more customers whose individual bills are much smaller than those of a business, and who, on the average, need a lot more hand-holding and support. Salt River Project, a power generation and transmission company (and a water delivery/irrigation company) that operates in Phoenix, also has about 1,000 route-miles of fiber throughout the city. It resells its excess capacity to businesses (including Qwest) from the entity SRP Telecom. I don’t know if they would ever consider using their network to provide consumer services themselves, but there’s clearly the potential for a consumer broadband provider to purchase capacity on their network in order to move data around the city. In Phoenix, if one provider decided to start blocking access to or degrading certain kinds of services that their customers want, there are multiple alternative options. Any provider that engaged in such behavior would see an increase in churn, to the benefit of its competition. UPDATE (May 27, 2006): Douglas Ross (directorblue) has called this list “bogus” and claimed that only two of the options (Qwest and Cox) actually count. He dismisses Covad because it uses Qwest last-mile wires, but goes on to say, inconsistently, that he would count other cable resellers if the Brand X decision had gone the other way and providers like Cox were forced to enter into relationships like Covad has with Qwest. My observation is that if those reseller relationships exist and the reseller provides access to its own Internet network, then that is enough to foster a competitive environment. It doesn’t matter whether it’s government-mandated, it matters whether it exists. Doug rejects all the wireless options out of hand on the grounds of Verizon’s EVDO terms-of-service. (His section about why WiMax isn’t viable doesn’t actually discuss WiMax at all, only EVDO terms-of-service.) He misses the point that Sprint Broadband and Sprint EVDO are two different services–he doesn’t actually give a reason to reject Sprint Broadband. He says he doesn’t understand why I put the City of Tempe’s municipal WiFi network in the list–I did so because Tempe is right in the middle of the Phoenix metropolitan area (and noted Chandler’s metro WiFi in-development, which is just south of Tempe, for the same reason). These are real options for people moving to the Phoenix area and for anyone who is willing to move to get different broadband service. (And certainly broadband options in an area are an important factor in choosing a place to live.) Finally, he rejects HughesNet because it is unsuitable for VOIP or P2P. At least he doesn’t say that HughesNet should be mandated to change the laws of physics in order to provide those services under net neutrality. Doug’s position on net neutrality appears to be that nothing counts as broadband unless it supports every application he wants to use (even though the proposed net neutrality bills count anything as broadband that is greater than 200kbps in one direction–they don’t restrict it to wireline services), and that whoever builds an infrastructure capable of supporting what he wants has to provide it to him, without recovering the costs of that infrastructure by charging any third parties. But I bet he also is unwilling to pay an unsubsidized rate to use such a service. ...

Craig Newmark of Craigslist and Mike McCurry of “Hands Off the Internet” debate “Should the Net Be Neutral?” at the Wall Street Journal. I’m struck by a number of things that Newmark says: Do you believe Yahoo should be allowed to outbid Google to slow down Google on people’s computers? That’s the kind of thing that the big guys are proposing.In fact, nobody has proposed slowing down anything–the consumer broadband telcos have proposed adding new, higher-bandwidth physical circuits (fiber to the home) which contain virtual circuits dedicated to content with requirements for higher bandwidth and low latency and jitter, for which the primary application they have in mind is IP television. And they want to charge content providers to use those virtual circuits. Now, one can argue that dedicating bandwidth to new applications that content providers have to pay for will have a future consequence that Internet bandwidth will be consumed and not upgraded, leading to degradation for best-effort Internet services, but that requires argument to support the likelihood of that outcome in the face of competition from cable companies and wireless providers. With all that empty fiber, bandwidth is not an issue. A bigger issue is that we’re running out of [Internet protocol] addresses. The new net protocols, IPv6, address that, but the big telecoms are already very late implementing that. (Hey, I’m an engineer, and their engineers talk to me.)Newmark is confusing Internet backbone bandwidth with last-mile consumer broadband bandwidth. I’ve addressed this confusion at length. BTW, IPv6 is rife with difficulties and not quite ready (or useful) for the average consumer, but my employer, Global Crossing, has been one of the first to make it widely available to its customers. (I run IPv6 on my home network via a tunnel to Global Crossing.) No one’s talking about “government lawyers and regulators engineer[ing] the future of the Internet,” except, well, you, Mike. We’re trying to prevent that, and trying to get Congress to maintain the level playing field we have right now, that the FCC just tried to ruin. We’re just asking everyone to play fair. … I’m being completely straight: no one’s interested in regulation in the sense you’re thinking, we just want the existing level playing field to continue… Beyond that, we’re not interested in mandating performance criteria, none of that stuff. … What we’re looking for is just fairness, a level playing field, no regulation or stuff like that. In America we believe that if you play fair and work hard, you get ahead. We don’t want the government to give special privileges to the big guys, particularly not at the expense of small business and consumers. We don’t want more regulation and we don’t need lawyers involved where the free market functions well. I guess we’re for capitalism. Here, Newmark is simply failing to recognize what’s in the actual network neutrality bills in Congress, which have unintended consequences about how networks are engineered, what can be in acceptable use policies, what kinds of contracts network providers are permitted to enter into with their customers, and how they can charge for access to different services–rules that to date have not existed for Internet services. Today, many Internet providers have acceptable use policies that prohibit spam, going beyond the requirements of the relatively weak federal CAN-SPAM law. Under all of the net neutrality bills I’ve seen, providers must permit customers to send or receive any “lawful content,” which forces them to reduce their AUPs to the lowest common denominator of whatever is prohibited by law in the jurisdictions where they provide service. These bills prohibit providers in the United States from setting the conditions of contract with their customers regarding activities they consider abusive which are not codified in law. The “pink contract” would thus become a government mandate. UPDATE: FCC Commissioner Michael Copps and U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas back up McCurry’s statement in this debate that the FCC already has authority under Title I to prevent anti-competitive discrimination without the need for new statutory powers from Congress. McCurry at the WSJ: And doesn’t the FCC have authority already (under Title I) to step in and act if necessary?Copps: The Federal Communications Commission has authority under current law to ensure that broadband-access providers – currently mainly cable and phone companies – do not discriminate against Web-based providers of content, search services and applications, FCC commissioner Michael Copps said Tuesday.Thomas: “The [FCC] remains free to impose special regulatory duties on facilities-based [Internet-service providers] under its Title I ancillary jurisdiction,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in National Cable & Telecommunications Association vs. Brand X Internet Services.This means net neutrality advocates who support the bills in Congress don’t think this is enough, and owe an explanation of specifically what powers they want to add to the FCC, what rules they want the FCC to make, and how those rules will be enforced.