FCC to Propose Regulating Internet Service as a Utility for Stronger Net Neutrality Rules

[MacRumors]

Federal Communications Commission (FCC) chairman Tom Wheeler plans to submit a proposal that would allow the agency to regulate Internet service much like a public utility, reports The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal. The move would let the FCC introduce strong rules that could prevent Internet providers from creating "fast lanes" letting certain sites pay for faster speeds.

It is expected that the proposal will reclassify high-speed Internet service as a telecommunications service, instead of an information service, under Title II of the Communications Act, according to industry analysts, lobbyists and former F.C.C. staff members.

Net neutrality, which is the principle that all data on the Internet should be treated equally, has been a major topic of discussion in recent months as the FCC in 2014 approved commercially reasonable "Open Internet" net neutrality rules that could potentially allow companies to pay for better service.

In November, President Obama urged the FCC to instead implement strong rules to protect net neutrality, following a four tenet path that would prevent ISPs from blocking or throttling Internet sites. Obama's proposal also called for the prevention of paid prioritization, keeping companies from shelling out money for faster speeds, and it suggested greater transparency between ISPs and their customers.

More than any other invention of our time, the Internet has unlocked possibilities we could just barely imagine a generation ago. And here's a big reason we've seen such incredible growth and innovation: Most Internet providers have treated Internet traffic equally. That's a principle known as "net neutrality" -- and it says that an entrepreneur's fledgling company should have the same chance to succeed as established corporations, and that access to a high school student's blog shouldn't be unfairly slowed down to make way for advertisers with more money.

Obama's call for stronger net neutrality rules caused FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler to reverse course from his original plan that did allow for paid prioritization, and he is said to be aiming to submit the new proposal to FCC commissioners on Thursday. Wheeler may, however, aim for a "light-touch approach" to the plan, avoiding meddling in pricing decisions. A vote on the proposal is expected on February 26.

Apple has been working on developing its own content delivery network and has been pursuing deals with various ISPs to ensure the efficient delivery of content to customers, but it's possible these types of deals will no longer be allowed if the FCC's newest proposal is implemented.

Note: Due to the political nature of the discussion regarding this topic, the discussion thread is located in our Politics, Religion, Social Issues forum. All forum members and site visitors are welcome to read and follow the thread, but posting is limited to forum members with at least 100 posts.

Article Link: FCC to Propose Regulating Internet Service as a Utility for Stronger Net Neutrality Rules

 

[Dookieman]

That would be amazing if it actually happens.

 

[jonblatho]

Wonderful.

Cue the outrage over communism or whatever.

 

[robertpetry]

Perhaps the FCC should focus on breaking up the TV Content<>Distribution oligopoly so we can get a true, Cable like steaming and on-demand service with local channels and current content. Why does cable or satellite cost me $130+ regardless of whether it is Comcast, Dish, DirectTV or Uverse? Sure, $19.99 for 3 months. lol. And $150 per month for the last 12 months of a 24 month contract.

What a scam.

 

[bennibeef]

Tom Wheeler is such a strange person. Some weeks he does stuff I hate him for and sometimes he wants to do stuff like this and I think thanks. I think he is playing me.

 

[supersalo]

My fear is that the recent "reclassification" of broadband (ie, 25Mbps or higher) is the first step to "fast lane".

I can see the FCC saying "broadband internet will not have slow/fast lane access", knowing full well that a majority of America has internet speeds less than 25Mbps and those people with slower internet (ie, not "broadband") will be subject to this ridiculous fast/slow lane extortion.

Then they'll (the FCC) shrug and say "Who me?" when Wheeler says "See? Broadband has net neutrality!"

 

[JoEw]

Not trying to bring down the parade, but I can't see this happening. Not in our current bought and paid politics.

If anything should be regulated as a utility it is the thing that is increasingly becoming part of every single thing in our lives.

 

[yeah]

FCC, please tell the major ISPs to lower their prices for internet access. I pay around $35 for 3 Mbps DSL... come on...

 

[Dimwhit]

While I like the idea, I fear that we'll not only face higher rates, but that the gov't will start taxing internet service like they do phone lines, which will add more to our bills.

 

[Renzatic]

FCC, please tell the major ISPs to lower their prices for internet access. I pay around $35 for 3 Mbps DSL... come on...

I don't think they can do that, but net neutrality will keep you from paying more.

"Hey, like Netflix? Facebook? Get them faster with our special high speed data package. Only $15 more a month to access your favorite websites at speeds that won't make you want to tear out your teeth while waiting for them to load!"

 

[bradl]

FCC, please tell the major ISPs to lower their prices for internet access. I pay around $35 for 3 Mbps DSL... come on...

Forget that..

If this is classified as a utility instead of informational, not only would that trump state and municipality laws that restrict provisioning of cable (read fiber) to just telcos. This would mean that companies like Google (who are rolling out fiber) would have easier access to provision those in more locations than the few they are limited to.

Having fiber coming straight in instead of being restricted to what other ISPs give you (and they pretty much are anti-net neutrality) would be a bonus to everyone.

BL.

 

[SlugBlanket]

No gatekeepers .

I had to laugh about there being no gatekeepers. I'm sure direct access to some sites is routinely blocked on both sides of the pond e.g. Torrent sites such as the now defunct piratebay. At the end of the day whatever system we are left with, the consumer will always end up paying the most and benefitting the least.

 

[Renzatic]

I had to laugh about there being no gatekeepers. I'm sure direct access to some sites is routinely blocked on both sides of the pond e.g. Torrent sites such as the now defunct piratebay. At the end of the day whatever system we are left with, the consumer will always end up paying the most and benefitting the least.

As far as I know, The Pirate Bay was only ever blocked in the UK. Here, we've only had occasional rumors of bittorrent throttling, but no outright blocks.

 

[noodlemanc]

Why don't local governments just stop granting monopoly privileges to large ISPs -- then this wouldn't be required.

 

[larrylaffer]

While I like the idea, I fear that we'll not only face higher rates, but that the gov't will start taxing internet service like they do phone lines, which will add more to our bills.

Utility rates are subject to regulations that private companies aren't. If a utility wants to increase their rates, they first need permission from the PUC to do so. This is why things like water rates are fairly stable. Yes, they do go up sometimes, but not like the way Internet prices have for the last 10+ years.

As far as extra taxes go, those largely exist to cover the costs of providing free and low cost services to people that cannot afford services. If you think access to the Internet is as important as electricity, water and landlines are (and I would argue that they are), then these fees embolden our society by allowing everyone access to something important.

 

[blacktape242]

"if you like you health plan you can keep it."

i don't believe anything that spews from his mouth....

 

[GeneralChang]

Turns out complaining on the internet can actually accomplish something worthwhile.

But don't take that too much to heart.

 

[2010mini]

Google is salivating at the thought of this reclasification being implemented. This would negate all the current exclusive deals cable companies have with municipalities all over the country. They would have access to all the poles to expand their fiber network wherever they wanted.

Make it happen FCC!!!

 

[bradl]

"if you like you health plan you can keep it."

i don't believe anything that spews from his mouth....

Not for nothing, but are you employed, and has your employer-sponsored health plan changed?

If it hasn't, your statement holds no water.

But don't let me go down the health insurance road again, as I have plenty to say on that; not only has it been discussed before, but is offtopic for this thread.

BL.

 

[ThisIsNotMe]

And the destruction of the internet commences.
Hope you enjoy your federal internet taxes.

 

[bradl]

And the destruction of the internet commences.
Hope you enjoy your federal internet taxes.

Really? Have you looked at Sweden or Finland, or the Netherlands? they have this very exact setup, and have much faster broadband speeds than we have in the US. And if I remember right, no tax increase.

BL.

 

[Renzatic]

And the destruction of the internet commences.
Hope you enjoy your federal internet taxes.

How will it lead to the destruction of the internet? All data being treated the same is exactly how it's been administrated for the last 30 odd years!

 

[goobot]

Great news.

 

[blacktape242]

Not for nothing, but are you employed, and has your employer-sponsored health plan changed?

If it hasn't, your statement holds no water.

But don't let me go down the health insurance road again, as I have plenty to say on that; not only has it been discussed before, but is offtopic for this thread.

BL.

I'm self employed so my comment holds plenty of water.

You may not like what I have to say but you must acknowledge those comments were made several times and on all accounts were not true. I'm sure it has been discussed before and for damn good reason, but I already said my peace in my 1st comment.

 

[bradl]

I'm self employed so my comment holds plenty of water.

You may not like what I have to say but you must acknowledge those comments were made several times and on all accounts were not true. I'm sure it has been discussed before and for damn good reason, but I already said my peace in my 1st comment.

If you're going to go down that road, here we go.

My health insurance plan has not changed. It has not changed for the past 7 years. But if you'd like to discuss this, start another thread, and we'll definitely discuss it.

BL.