FCC Expected to Repeal Net Neutrality Rules in Vote Next Month

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
7,477
8,534



FCC chairman Ajit Pai today announced that his controversial Restoring Internet Freedom order is headed to vote on December 14.


The order, proposed in May, would roll back the Barack Obama administration's classification of internet service providers as "common carriers" under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934.

As common carriers, internet providers are required to act as neutral gateways to the internet. In other words, companies like Comcast are not allowed to speed up or slow down content passing through their networks.

If the order passes, ISPs will be reclassified as "information service" providers, as they were between February 1996 and February 2015.
For almost twenty years, the Internet thrived under the light-touch regulatory approach established by President Clinton and a Republican Congress. This bipartisan framework led the private sector to invest $1.5 trillion building communications networks throughout the United States. And it gave us an Internet economy that became the envy of the world.
Apple and dozens of other large technology companies urged the FCC to reconsider its proposal. The FCC also received a record-breaking 22 million comments from the public during a feedback period that ended in August.

Those against the order believe that the FCC rolling back the internet's classification as a public utility will hurt net neutrality, as it could eventually divide internet users into so-called "fast lanes" and "slow lanes."

In a letter submitted to the FCC in August, Apple warned that paid fast lanes could result in an "internet with distorted competition."
Broadband providers should not create paid fast lanes on the internet. Lifting the current ban on paid prioritization arrangements could allow broadband providers to favor the transmission of one provider's content or services (or the broadband provider's own online content or services) over other online content, fundamentally altering the internet as we know it today--to the detriment of consumers, competition, and innovation.
Pai, who was designated as FCC chairman by Donald Trump, insists the Obama-era internet regulations are a "mistake." Under the new rules, he said the FCC will "stop micromanaging the internet" to foster innovation.
Today, I have shared with my colleagues a draft order that would abandon this failed approach and return to the longstanding consensus that served consumers well for decades. Under my proposal, the federal government will stop micromanaging the Internet. Instead, the FCC would simply require Internet service providers to be transparent about their practices so that consumers can buy the service plan that's best for them and entrepreneurs and other small businesses can have the technical information they need to innovate.
Despite the significant backlash from tech companies and the public, it is widely expected that the FCC will vote in favor of the order next month.

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 Expected to Repeal Net Neutrality Rules in Vote Next Month
 
  • Like
Reactions: Huntn and OttawaGuy

unobtainium

macrumors 68020
Mar 27, 2011
2,269
3,040
Terrible. Get ready for ISPs to offer "basic", "premium" and "deluxe" internet packages.

"Want to stream online video? Try out our "deluxe" package, which allows full-speed access to Netflix, Amazon Video, and several other popular streaming sites! Want to game online? You'll need the "ultra deluxe gaming package" to access the most popular MMORPG services!"
 

Kaibelf

Suspended
Apr 29, 2009
2,454
7,083
Silicon Valley, CA
Since when did has the government ever done something that makes sense, and moves to protect the rights of property owners instead of pandering to a popular majority? Weird...
Yeah it's a shame they forced those businesses to serve those pesky coloreds and Jews, right?

Don't pretend the government is inherently bad. Like anything, it's the use that counts. The breakup of AT&T and Standard Oil did great things for America.
 

ThisBougieLife

macrumors 68020
Jan 21, 2016
2,022
6,367
SF Bay Area, California
We already have that. What is your point? I still feel like Net Neutrality was fixing something not really broken. It was always "this could happen" or "that might happen."
No we don't. We have service packages based on speed and, in some places, on data use, but not on actual content or specific websites (and even when there is a data cap, it is neutral in regard to what websites use the data). Now consider this carrier in Portugal, which does not have net neutrality regulations:



I do not ever want to see something like this in the U.S. In other words, what websites you can access depend on your plan, and they are grouped into packages like channels in a cable TV plan. In addition to implementing a scheme like this, a provider could theoretically slow down a competitor's streaming service and speed up their own. This is especially problematic in rural areas where they may only be one ISP to choose from.
 
Last edited:

unobtainium

macrumors 68020
Mar 27, 2011
2,269
3,040
We already have that. What is your point? I still feel like Net Neutrality was fixing something not really broken. It was always "this could happen" or "that might happen."
No we don't. We have different speed packages. Those speeds apply to EVERYTHING on the web.

I should have made my post more clear. Without net neutrality, a "basic" package could allow you to access "20 of the most popular websites" at full speed, while everything else would be throttled or unavailable. A "premium" package could allow you to access all or most of the web, and a "deluxe" package could be required to stream video or play games online. In other words, ISPs will have total control over the speeds you receive and the prices you pay for different parts of the web.
 

Stella

macrumors G3
Apr 21, 2003
8,273
4,636
Canada
Wow!

Can you get around this BS by using VPN?

We have that based on speed and in some places on data use, but not on actual content or websites (the data cap is neutral in regard to what websites use the data). But this is the situation in Portugal, a country with no net neutrality:



I do not ever want to see something like this in the U.S. In other words, what websites you can access depend on your plan and they are grouped into packages like cable TV. Additionally, a provider could theoretically slow down a competitor's streaming service and speed up their own. This is especially problematic in rural areas where they may only be one ISP to choose from.
 

RemE

macrumors regular
Mar 19, 2012
178
164
No we don't. We have services packages based on speed and in some places on data use, but not on actual content or websites (the data cap is neutral in regard to what websites use the data). But this is the situation in Portugal, a country with no net neutrality:



I do not ever want to see something like this in the U.S. In other words, what websites you can access depend on your plan and they are grouped into packages like cable TV. Additionally, a provider could theoretically slow down a competitor's streaming service and speed up their own. This is especially problematic in rural areas where they may only be one ISP to choose from.
Holy cow! This would be a very sad day for us and exactly what providers would begin doing, because they could.