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

[bradl]

This should be a relatively cost free regulation. At worst they'll have a panel that might review network policies, but I have a feeling that panel is already in place.

----------

At it's core, Net Neutrality protects consumers from predatory practices of monopolies. It's that simple. I don't understand how anyone could be against it unless you're paid off by said monopolies.

Simple.. FREE MARKET ENTERPRISE!!!

The same free market enterprise that got us into the economic issue we are in to begin with.

BL.

 

[KPOM]

This should be a relatively cost free regulation. At worst they'll have a panel that might review network policies, but I have a feeling that panel is already in place.

----------

At it's core, Net Neutrality protects consumers from predatory practices of monopolies. It's that simple. I don't understand how anyone could be against it unless you're paid off by said monopolies.

Another term for "net neutrality" could be "legalized price fixing." We had "telephone neutrality" back in the old AT&T days. The solution was to break up the government-sanctioned monopoly and restore actual competition.

 

[Renzatic]

While you can throw as much rhetoric as you want here, you need to look at case history.

Ironically, the EFF has been vanguard keeping government interference out of the owners and operators of computing equipment. While this may seem all nice and fluffy, what is keeping from this ruling forcing private ISPs from relaying government propaganda?

My take is this ruling is moot, the ISPs will go to court. Use the last thirty years of Internet case history and whatever is voted on will never effect a single packet of information flowing on the net.

See, that's what you're missing. That's what you're all missing. We've been enjoying net neutrality for the last 30 years. All packets of data are created equal. The ISPs never slowed down a website simply so they could charge for it because it's popular, or block a website that offers an opposing opinion of the owners.

Focing ISPs to relay government propaganda because of a now enforced Net Neutrality law wouldn't be net neutrality, but would be a direct violation of their first amendment rights. No one has the right to force the ISPs to say anything, and the ISPs have no right to block or severely limit anyone else's opinion. They have the right to host their own websites and services, but since their primary role is acting as a gateway to the internet, they don't have the right to curtail anyone else's services or websites. It's Free First Amendment For All.

It amazes me that so many people are willing to sell out their own best interests because they're scared of a bunch of far flung what-ifs and conspiracy theories.

 

[KPOM]

Simple.. FREE MARKET ENTERPRISE!!!

The same free market enterprise that got us into the economic issue we are in to begin with.

BL.

I wouldn't consider the US government essentially guaranteeing every mortgage loan to be "free market enterprise." Banking has long been one of the most regulated enterprises. Wall Street is a big contributor to the Democratic party. There's a reason Bill and Hillary Clinton moved to New York instead of Arkansas. Wall Street is their donor base.

 

[Renzatic]

But your solution is a case of government regulation begetting more government regulation. It becomes self-reinforcing because the only companies that eventually can cope with all the regulation are the big ones like Verizon and Comcast. As much as they are fighting this now, if it holds up, eventually they will turn their infrastructure into cash cows to be milked and protected through more regulatory barriers. After all, if they will get commodity returns, better to put up some more barriers to actual competition.

How badly is Europe suffering under Net Neutrality laws. Quite simply, it's a regulation that prevents regulation. It restricts nothing other than the potential for abuse.

It's happening to banks, too. After all the old regulations couldn't prevent the last financial crisis, the government imposed a bunch of new regulations to try to solve the problem of "too big to fail." But what's actually happened is that the bigger banks have gotten even bigger. So when the next crisis hits, there will be that much more pressure for another rescue.

Actually, the last financial crisis came about in part due to a relaxing of the old regulations that were initially put in place to prevent another Great Depression from happening. It's not the sole cause, there about 10,000 different moving parts that contributed to it, but deregulation did lay the groundwork.

 

[KPOM]

Focing ISPs to relay government propaganda because of a now enforced Net Neutrality law wouldn't be net neutrality, but would be a direct violation of their first amendment rights. No one has the right to force the ISPs to say anything, and the ISPs have no right to block or severely limit anyone else's opinion. They have the right to host their own websites and services, but since their primary role is acting as a gateway to the internet, they don't have the right to curtail anyone else's services or websites. It's Free First Amendment For All.

Not really. The First Amendment didn't protect broadcasters from the FCC in the bad old days of the "Fairness Doctrine." Under that doctrine, if you scheduled Bill Nye on a Sunday morning talk show, you had to give equal time to some luddite who denied evidence of the impact of CO2 emissions. The idea is that the FCC's actions fall within the "regulation of interstate commerce" clause.

 

[ThisIsNotMe]

Yeah, it has. Until a couple of years ago, the FCC ruled on net neutrality without forcing ISPs to become utilities, and the internet backbone was built on the idea that no one could act as gatekeeper for certain types of data. It has been the foundation of the Internet As We Know it.

...until now.

That isn't true at all as companies like Level3 have existed far longer than 'a couple of years ago' and their entire business model is paid prioritization over their network.

 

[Renzatic]

Not really. The First Amendment didn't protect broadcasters from the FCC in the bad old days of the "Fairness Doctrine." Under that doctrine, if you scheduled Bill Nye on a Sunday morning talk show, you had to give equal time to some luddite who denied evidence of the impact of CO2 emissions. The idea is that the FCC's actions fall within the "regulation of interstate commerce" clause.

Depends on how you look at the situation. An ISPs website can say whatever the owners want it to say. Their movie services play whatever movie they want to air. Nothing is restricting their right to free speech, nor requiring them to host an opposing opinion on their own personal space.

But like I've said many times before, an ISPs job is primarily to act as a gateway to a larger body of information. It's their raison d'être. An Internet Service Provider. As an ISP, they have to offer the internet. Not their personally tailored version of the internet. The internet.

 

[KPOM]

Actually, the last financial crisis came about in part due to a relaxing of the old regulations that were initially put in place to prevent another Great Depression from happening. It's not the sole cause, there about 10,000 different moving parts that contributed to it, but deregulation did lay the groundwork.

"De-regulation" without getting rid of the implicit government guarantees.

In a free market, the government isn't providing explicit or implicit guarantees to private business. Banks could speculate all they want with mortgage loans and never cause a crash if they didn't have access to government-subsidized funding through FDIC-insured deposits and government-sponsored entity securitization programs.

The best sign of that is that the crisis was caused by speculating in "safe" assets such as mortgage loans. Credit card issuers (issuers of the "riskiest" assets out there) did NOT suffer massive loan losses even in the worst of the crash, since they knew they were originating and trading in risky assets. If the government doesn't provide the all-you-can-drink punch bowl in the first place, there's no need for the bouncers.

 

[Renzatic]

That isn't true at all as companies like Level3 have existed far longer than 'a couple of years ago' and their entire business model is paid prioritization over their network.

They're a backbone. People pay them to route their data over their network to ease congestion on smaller networks. It's not a net neutrality situation because if you're slinging a ton of data around, you gotta get it to people somehow.

Remember, ISPs can slow down data if it's congesting their network. Even under net neutrality they're allowed to do so. This is where companies like Level 3 come in. You pay them, they distribute your bandwidth. Totally different situation.

 

[KPOM]

Depends on how you look at the situation. An ISPs website can say whatever the owners want it to say. Their movie services play whatever movie they want to air. Nothing is restricting their right to free speech, nor requiring them to host an opposing opinion on their own personal space.

But like I've said many times before, an ISPs job is primarily to act as a gateway to a larger body of information. It's their raison d'être. An Internet Service Provider. As an ISP, they have to offer the internet. Not their personally tailored version of the internet. The internet.

Here's a government example as to why net neutrality is a bad idea.

The best roads in this country typically are toll roads. That's because they have an independent source of funding. People pay extra to get access to a limited-access highway that gets them from Point A to Point B faster. Absent tollways, we are left with a system where roads are funded with gasoline taxes or income taxes. Ironically, since cars get better gas mileage at highway speeds, relying on gas taxes to finance roads actually means that those who travel on the highway pay less toward their building than those who don't.

Net neutrality basically says that everyone gets the same service no matter what they are otherwise willing to pay.

 

[noodlemanc]

Simple.. FREE MARKET ENTERPRISE!!!

The same free market enterprise that got us into the economic issue we are in to begin with.

BL.

Before building out new networks, Internet Service Providers (ISPs) must negotiate with local governments for access to publicly owned “rights of way” so they can place their wires above and below both public and private property. ISPs also need “pole attachment” contracts with public utilities so they can rent space on utility poles for above-ground wires, or in ducts and conduits for wires laid underground.

The problem? Local governments and their public utilities charge ISPs far more than these things actually cost. For example, rights of way and pole attachments fees can double the cost of network construction.

So the real bottleneck isn’t incumbent providers of broadband, but incumbent providers of rights-of-way. These incumbents — the real monopolists — also have the final say on whether an ISP can build a network. They determine what hoops an ISP must jump through to get approval.

Nothing says free market like a government monopoly that dictates which companies can provide service in which areas...

 

[Renzatic]

"De-regulation" without getting rid of the implicit government guarantees.

In a free market, the government isn't providing explicit or implicit guarantees to private business. Banks could speculate all they want with mortgage loans and never cause a crash if they didn't have access to government-subsidized funding through FDIC-insured deposits and government-sponsored entity securitization programs.

The best sign of that is that the crisis was caused by speculating in "safe" assets such as mortgage loans. Credit card issuers (issuers of the "riskiest" assets out there) did NOT suffer massive loan losses even in the worst of the crash, since they knew they were originating and trading in risky assets. If the government doesn't provide the all-you-can-drink punch bowl in the first place, there's no need for the bouncers.

Not being an economist, and having forgotten about half of the many things I've read about it over the last couple of years, I can only offer you a vague explanation, then a pithy little aside.

The government did play a part in the collapse, but it wasn't the sole reason for it. I've seen many people blame democrats, republicans, or their favorite personal federal demons on it, and...truth be told, they're all correct in the sense that they all played a part. It was a bipartisan affair, all working together with Wall Street, while not paying attention of the signs of impending doom that were becoming more noticeable by the day.

I wouldn't say too many regulations were the sole cause, nor deregulations. It was a little little things putting the proper pressures in the proper spots that caused the eventual collapse.

In a vaccum, I'm neither a fan of more or less regulations by default. I'm more a fan of what makes sense. If less regulations makes sense, I'm for it. Vice versa for more. In this situation, I believe net neutrality makes sense. It will keep us competitive with the rest of the world, and allow many smallers businesses to flourish on what's supposed to be the one true free market, rather than allowing it to be controlled by a few entrenched players.

 

[2010mini]

It's a difference of before and after...with pervious insurance you could get cancer treatment if you came down with it and your plan covers it. Now, even if your plan covers it, a board has to still decide if it will honor that treatment coverage.

Wrong pal. There have been many documented cases of insurance companies denying claims even when covered in the plans.

I myself have had to fight my own friggin' insurance to cover a bill. Health Insurance in the US is a complete mess. And ASA is a poor band-aid to solve its festering sore.

 

[Renzatic]

Here's a government example as to why net neutrality is a bad idea.

The best roads in this country typically are toll roads. That's because they have an independent source of funding. People pay extra to get access to a limited-access highway that gets them from Point A to Point B faster. Absent tollways, we are left with a system where roads are funded with gasoline taxes or income taxes. Ironically, since cars get better gas mileage at highway speeds, relying on gas taxes to finance roads actually means that those who travel on the highway pay less toward their building than those who don't.

Net neutrality basically says that everyone gets the same service no matter what they are otherwise willing to pay.

The best example for why net neutrality works is...well...the internet as it is now. All the innovations we've seen come to pass from it, all the business that have been built up around it, all the services we now use because of it, came about due to the fact that, since its inception, no one packet has been given priority over another. They're all flowing equally through the pipes, with the only restriction being the bandwidth a person or company can afford.

No one is allowed to prioritize one stream of information over another based on whims, personal beliefs, or general greed. It's why the internet has worked as well as it has.

Net Neutrality isn't about creating a new free government sanctioned internet. It's about keeping the internet as it is right now.

 

[samiwas]

awww good for you, I'm sure you are happy. There isn't anything to discuss really.

Mine went up, my whole families went up, my sisters went up and a lot of self employed people i know went up. Again tell me whats to discuss? exactly....

Mine went up every year before the ACA. And after the ACA, although less after the ACA. Costs going up is nothing new. But plans offered to me through the ACA were far, far less than what I currently have, but I wasn't ready to drop it since I didn't research special-needs coverage in the ACA plans.

 

[JamesMike]

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.

You may be onto what will be coming.

 

[SuperMatt]

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

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

Tom Wheeler? Weird, I don't recall him saying that.

----------

Here's a government example as to why net neutrality is a bad idea.

The best roads in this country typically are toll roads. That's because they have an independent source of funding. People pay extra to get access to a limited-access highway that gets them from Point A to Point B faster. Absent tollways, we are left with a system where roads are funded with gasoline taxes or income taxes. Ironically, since cars get better gas mileage at highway speeds, relying on gas taxes to finance roads actually means that those who travel on the highway pay less toward their building than those who don't.

Net neutrality basically says that everyone gets the same service no matter what they are otherwise willing to pay.

No it doesn't. You pay more for more bandwidth. That's not changing. Prioritizing bandwidth from one person's website over another's is what net neutrality prevents.

 

[Renzatic]

No it doesn't. You pay more for more bandwidth. That's not changing. Prioritizing bandwidth from one person's website over another's is what net neutrality prevents.

In one simple sentence, you say what I've been trying to say with like 50,000 paragraphs.

I think the best way to nail the point home is to scare the hell out of everyone by talking about the worst case scenario. That thing that could happen if ISPs get too greedy, and there's nothing around to stop them.

...imagine a world :shakes hands: where you gain access to websites through your ISP like you get blocks of channels on your TV.

You want the internet? HERE YOU GO!

-=Basic Internet=-

For the low price of $39.99 a month, you have access to all your local and free hosted websites at 25Mbps! Read the news! Watch local TV! Great for people who don't want too much!

-=Social Media Extravaganza=-

For an extra $5.99 a month, you now have access to sites such as Facebook, Instagram, Google Plus, and many more! Connect with all your friends!

-=MOVIE NITE=-

Big movie buff? THEN THIS IS THE PACKAGE FOR YOU! For $29.99, you now have access to Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime, Vudu, and others!

-=Shopping Therapy Pack=-

Like books? DVDs? Clothes? Want to get your groceries online? For an extra $9.99 a month, you can gain access to sites such as Amazon, Esty, Barnes and Nobles, American Eagle, and many, many more!

-=Gamers Frag Zone=-

For just $3.99 a month, you can now buy games and play with your friends through services such as GOG.com, Steam, Origin, and others! CHEAP!

...yes, people. This is the future without Net Neutrality. The future some of you are BEGGING for!

 

[noodlemanc]

In one simple sentence, you say what I've been trying to say with like 50,000 paragraphs.

I think the best way to nail the point home is to scare the hell out of everyone by talking about the worst case scenario. That thing that could happen if ISPs get too greedy, and there's nothing around to stop them.

...imagine a world :shakes hands: where you gain access to websites through your ISP like you get blocks of channels on your TV.

You want the internet? HERE YOU GO!



...yes, people. This is the future without Net Neutrality. The future some of you are BEGGING for!

And if you get a VPN...?

Most attempts to block people from accessing certain websites whether it be in schools, workplaces or entire countries have enjoyed lukewarm success at best. If the Chinese government can't stop people from going on Facebook despite having the power to fine and imprison, how are ISPs going to be able to do it when the only punishment they can dish out is cancelling your service (and thus losing your money)?

 

[KPOM]

The best example for why net neutrality works is...well...the internet as it is now. All the innovations we've seen come to pass from it, all the business that have been built up around it, all the services we now use because of it, came about due to the fact that, since its inception, no one packet has been given priority over another. They're all flowing equally through the pipes, with the only restriction being the bandwidth a person or company can afford.

No one is allowed to prioritize one stream of information over another based on whims, personal beliefs, or general greed. It's why the internet has worked as well as it has.

Net Neutrality isn't about creating a new free government sanctioned internet. It's about keeping the internet as it is right now.

Actually, we don't have "net neutrality" since ISPs can prioritize traffic.

What you may be thinking of is US oversight over ICANN (who assigns IP numbers and manages the DNS), which has kept the infrastructure supporting the free flow of information generally free of government control. Actually, the current administration was planning to cede US control over ICANN later this year, but Congress pushed forward a 2-year extension in the December budget bill. The concern is that if the US doesn't oversee ICANN, then countries like China will want to impose direct controls over the internet (right now they need to employ a massive national firewall).

 

[Renzatic]

And if you get a VPN...?

Europe will probably run out of IP addresses. The telcos will go lobby Washington, making it illegal to use VPNs to bypass US restrictions ISPs have placed on certain data streams. People will go to jail. Children will go homeless. Dogs and cats will live together. MASS HYSTERIA!

If the worst comes to pass, chances are good all our once precious internet startups will bug out to more open shores to start their website, since they won't be able to afford the fees required to compete with the big guns for internet traffic here in the states.

 

[noodlemanc]

Europe will probably run out of IP addresses. The telcos will go lobby Washington, making it illegal to use VPNs to bypass US restrictions ISPs have placed on certain data streams. People will go to jail. Children will go homeless. Dogs and cats will live together. MASS HYSTERIA!

If the telecom companies won't tolerate VPNs being legal, what makes you think that they will tolerate the net-neutrality laws that you are in favour of?

 

[Treq]

And if you get a VPN...?

Most attempts to block people from accessing certain websites whether it be in schools, workplaces or entire countries have enjoyed lukewarm success at best. If the Chinese government can't stop people from going on Facebook despite having the power to fine and imprison, how are ISPs going to be able to do it when the only punishment they can dish out is cancelling your service (and thus losing your money)?

So what if you get a VPN. Regulating the internet like a utility would have no effect on that, other than to ensure that you can do it the same as using any other service on the internet.

 

[Tech198]

Europe will probably run out of IP addresses. The telcos will go lobby Washington, making it illegal to use VPNs to bypass US restrictions ISPs have placed on certain data streams. People will go to jail. Children will go homeless. Dogs and cats will live together. MASS HYSTERIA!

If the worst comes to pass, chances are good all our once precious internet startups will bug out to more open shores to start their website, since they won't be able to afford the fees required to compete with the big guns for internet traffic here in the states.

Dogs and cats already live together ...

Here in Australia the government stays geo-blocking is a "grey" area..... what they really should mean is "They will decide when we catch you"

Maybe the U.S tells it better ? No idea, but i doubt VPN's wouldn't restrict anything.

Canada law is already introducing something to require VPN logging, so just image what would happen if this went to U.S..

I could just see them doing that, but really, does any government in the word even understand how technology works ? Look at the amount of piracy still going on... If they understood the tech, then it would of been a small percentage.