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

[Renzatic]

So, in your view if a housing developer goes off and builds a 2,000 house community out in the stix that results in a massive increase in traffic on the highway going into the city, the developer should not pay the burden of increasing the highway throughput?

I am saddened Netflix has become some poster-child for net neutrality because they are only telling half the story.

That's the thing. Netflix spent a lot of money building their own peering network to help offset bandwidth usage to the ISPs. All Comcast and co. had to do was sign onto it, and everything would've been hunky dory.

But instead, they ignored that option entirely, complained about the bandwidth usage, and demanded that they give them money while throttling down their traffic to make them look bad. It's all pretty pathetic.

 

[arkmannj]

On a slightly different but related topic.

What we need is to break the pole & tube monopolies and make it much easier for most businesses who want to run a service to all homes to do so. Make it MUCH easier and cheaper to get Pole & tube access. Easier access to this vital part of infrastructure should help get some healthy competition for Internet (and other) services going. If a Pole/tube is "owned" by a specific company but is not on (or running through) their own land, that company should be required to do one of two things.
1) Open access to the pole/tube to any business that is running services to all homes/businesses in the area.

OR

2) Pay the land owner rent for allowing their pole/tube in/through the owner’s property. Pricing of rent and terms of use to be negotiated with each land owner individually.

Either that pole should be for the public good, or the Company should have to rent the space from the land owner. This will incentivize opening up access since the companies won't want to deal with each individual land owner (and what if the land owner and company cannot agree on terms...would the company want to take the chance of having to reroute everything around that property) End result is it should be easier for "smaller" ISP's (local companies, Google, etc...) to run cable, fiber, etc.. and Consumers/small businesses will benefit from greater competition and better service.

 

[aka777]

That's YOUR idea of government.

MY idea of government is: I pay my taxes, now do useful things.

Nobody cares about liberty except 12 year olds and elderly people suffering from alzheimers that band together to form the tea party.

Normal adults care about results. And that means MORE government.

Spot on there. The only folks one typically comes across who actually think using "Freedom, Liberty, and Murica" as some sort of valid argument in a discussion are fools, rural folks, or simply uneducated.

Their idea of government and views against a 21st century government typically borders that of ISIS - it's extreme.

Of course, they flat-out refuse to listen to reason or even accept that every single other advanced economy on the planet utilize modern, efficient, and powerful Federal Governments. It's how they get things done and why they rank in the top 18 for median wealth per adult, versus 19th for Americans. In fact, 19 of the top G20 economies today utilize large Federal Governments, with the US being the only one who does not.

Their powerful FCC is why someone can purchase gigabit broandband, TV, and phone for $60 in France. Whereas, not even a fraction of Americans have access to 1GB speed, let alone for less than $299 per month.

 

[AmpSkillz]

Torrent sites such as the now defunct piratebay.

It was working just fine last time i checked...

 

[Rocketman]

Regulators are in a monologue with themselves. The only reason they ask for public comments is to look for loopholes they missed in rule making for their singular goal. Suing to correct is slow, expensive, and very hard to even get standing for. So there is zero feedback and control loop.

So the FCC will do whatever it wants in this matter. For proof look at today's news SEC fining S&P $2.5B. That's right B for billion. And they keep the money that comes to FEDGOV and spend it with zero guidelines because it was not "taxed".

The sheer scale and frequency of fines under this Presidential term is staggering. Tens of Billions, perhaps over $100B. The regulators operate under the Executive branch under their marching orders.

note:
This administration believes in tax, spend, borrow, fine, mandate, monologue.

 

[btbeme]

So, where's my ability to vote to only have TWC as my broadband provider. Then who's accountable when the advertised speed 30Mb up/10Mb down isn't even close to accurate (currently, it's ~6Mbps/.5Mbps), and after the 10th visit by a tech and just as many modems, I've seen zero improvement.

I guess I could go back to DSL, but guess what, it tops out at what TWC's **** service is giving me now.

I trust big business about as far as I can throw them.

Oh and by the way, you can easily sue the FCC/EPA/etc, it happens every year. By the big businesses you want to give absolute freedom to. They sue the government, so they can dump into our water, or control what you can access on the internet.

It is soft-headed thinking like this that has created the Entitlement Society that exists today.

Guess what? You CAN'T HAVE everything you feel you deserve.

It's that simple. You should have learned that in Kindergarten. Really.

This Entitlement Society Utopia that you feel you ought to have simply does not exist. And demanding that a federal bureaucracy somehow conjure it up from nothing (well, maybe by "sticking it to Big Business") is a fantasy.

 

[Renzatic]

It was working just fine last time i checked...

It's back? ALRIGHT! Now I can start getting free por...

...public domain educational books again.

 

[btbeme]

[/COLOR]

You'll get over it.

And you'll love it.

Just like how you love your roads, which is paid-for and run by government.

Where does the government get the money to do such things as build roads and give you free healthcare and free internet and free food and free education?

 

[Renzatic]

It is soft-headed thinking like this that has created the Entitlement Society that exists today.

Guess what? You CAN'T HAVE everything you feel you deserve.

I love it.

"Hey, I'm paying $80 for this. Why am I not getting it?

"WHY DO YOU FEEL SO ENTITLED?"

"...cuz I'm paying $80 for something you say I'm gonna get, then you don't give it to me."

"And you think that just because you're paying for something, you deserve it?"

"Well, yeah."

"What are you? Some kind of socialist?"

 

[KPOM]

They can now. Up until recently, the FCC had it set so that ISPs were forbidden from prioritizing traffic, but never officially classified them as a utility. Rather, they were information service, as they're currently classified as now.

This is ultimately what tripped up the works, and lead to the hooplah we're now deeply involved in. Apparently, when it comes to legal matters, you have to call a spade a spade, rather than an onion to make it kosher. Information services aren't beholden to nearly as many restrictions as utilities are, and it was thus illegal to hold them accountable as such. Someone sued, can't remember who, and now we're having this discussion.

The important thing to remember is that while there is no restriction on ISPs prioritizing traffic, we've effectively been functioning in a net neutrality-like environment since the 90's at least.

----------



They don't. Haven't you seen the advertisements? Read the reports? Seen the astroturfing? Comcast, Verizon, and Co. are very much against Net Neutrality.

Read the fine print. Net Neutrality is nothing more than a massive government subsidy to Google and Netflix. The FCC is proposing exempting broadband from the consumer pricing rules at first. They absolutely are looking to rewrite the business arrangements such as those that companies like Level 3 have entered into.

The debate isn't so much about the current state of broadband as it is the future. Broadband is a capital intensive market. Someone needs to provide that capital. Net neutrality essentially means that ordinary consumers are going to pay the costs just the same as Google and Netflix who consume massive amounts of capacity. It is exactly my tollway argument.

 

[btbeme]

I love it.

"Hey, I'm paying $80 for this. Why am I not getting it?

"WHY DO YOU FEEL SO ENTITLED?"

"...cuz I'm paying $80 for something you say I'm gonna get, then you don't give it to me."

"And you think that just because you're paying for something, you deserve it?"

"Well, yeah."

"What are you? Some kind of socialist?"

If you aren't getting "what you want" then don't pay.

Because I live in a neighborhood where my connection is fast (but not inexpensive), explain to me why I should be required to subsidize your connection. Or explain why my mother, who has a 1.5mb connection, should be required to fork over another few dollars a month so you can feel good about streaming movies and playing online games.

Yes, you richly deserve everything you want. The difference is, you are not willing to do anything about it except cry that it isn't fair and demand that others subsidize your indulgence at the point of a federal bayonet.

 

[Renzatic]

Read the fine print. Net Neutrality is nothing more than a massive government subsidy to Google and Netflix. The FCC is proposing exempting broadband from the consumer pricing rules at first. They absolutely are looking to rewrite the business arrangements such as those that companies like Level 3 have entered into.

The debate isn't so much about the current state of broadband as it is the future. Broadband is a capital intensive market. Someone needs to provide that capital. Net neutrality essentially means that ordinary consumers are going to pay the costs just the same as Google and Netflix who consume massive amounts of capacity. It is exactly my tollway argument.

No, it doesn't. I've read a number of bills, and the only concerns are primarily centered around the prevention of throttling, blocking, or paid prioritizing of information.

I think a lot of us here are making this into something it's not. The telcos stand to make a ton of money in a environment without net neutrality, and they're willing to fight tooth and nail to get it. With it in place, they'll just continue making money the same way they always have, i.e. you don't pay for the data, you pay for the bandwidth the data goes through.

 

[malexandria]

I wasn't worried about any arbitrary company paying extra to get a "fast lane". I was worried about ISPs intentionally slowing down connections to certain companies that provide services over IP that compete with phone or TV.

Example: I was suspicious of Verizon because Amazon Instant Video used to load unacceptably slowly, less than 1mbps on our 30mbps connection.

----------



You're not self-employed then. Obama Care specifically targets people making income from self-employment or capital gains with higher taxes. Some people get cheaper coverage, and I'm sure they love it if they don't mind that it comes at the expense of others.

Give it a rest. Not everyone's Health insurance went up as you claim. Some people's probably went up but a lot of people's also went down. I get so sick of morons like you whining about Obama care and making ridiculous arguments that just because YOUR health insurance went up then everyone's must have gone up as well. Get a life. I'm not a particular fan of Obamacare either, but at least I'm capable of actually listening to FACTS and not stupid "anecdotal" arguments or talking points. I think they should have done a simple Opt-In National Medical plan, not this forced insurance industry led garbage. But hey, it is what it is.

----------

For people to not see widespread changes and cancellations of a wide swath of health care plans out there... requires a complete avoidance of all news sources.

----------



He most likely was referring to the idea of going down that road of treating the Internet like a utility. Question: Name me one utility in the United States that does NOT have a tax imposed on it?

----------



Wow... so you in particular have not had your particular plan changed... so you must mock and ridicule all those that have had theirs changed or cancelled. Glad you are so caring for your fellow countrymen that have had a lot of problems result.

So because YOURS changed, that means you get to mock and ridicule everyone who is "happy" with Obamacare... See how your logic is stupid?

 

[Renzatic]

If you aren't getting "what you want" then don't pay.

Because I live in a neighborhood where my connection is fast (but not inexpensive), explain to me why I should be required to subsidize your connection. Or explain why my mother, who has a 1.5mb connection, should be required to fork over another few dollars a month so you can feel good about streaming movies and playing online games.

Yes, you richly deserve everything you want. The difference is, you are not willing to do anything about it except cry that it isn't fair and demand that others subsidize your indulgence at the point of a federal bayonet.

Who said anything about subsidizing? It's merely "I should get what was advertised, and what I paid for", otherwise it's consumer fraud.

Granted, if a choice was there to be made, many people would make it. Not getting the service you want through ISP X? Well guess what? There is no ISP Y in your area that offers an equal competing service. If you want those speeds, your only hope is that the sole provider in your area that offers those speeds lives up to their end of the bargain.

...and that's not how capitalism is supposed to work.

 

[malexandria]

if you were paying $350 a year for health insurance that is not what I call health insurance but a pile of crap.

As for your cable referencing no you did not address my point. You are talking about cable TV.
That is very different than broadband internet. In that area most of the country has one choice where they live. It is a bunch of local monopolies.

$15K a year for Health Insurance, yeah, I believe that.... If it's for Business related Healthcare than yeah sure, and if you were only paying $350 a year that means you weren't paying for Health Insurance for you employees, therefore, you get zero sympathy from me. Ya cheap....

 

[Renzatic]

$15K a year for Health Insurance, yeah, I believe that.... If it's for Business related Healthcare than yeah sure, and if you were only paying $350 a year that means you weren't paying for Health Insurance for you employees, therefore, you get zero sympathy from me. Ya cheap....

One of the major reasons why the ACA jacked up prices for so many people is because it forced insurance companies to get rid of their worthless placebo plans. You know, the ones where you pay $70 a month for a plan with like a $40,000 deductible. They were swept under the rug, forcing people to get actual, honest to god insurance, which...costs money.

 

[btbeme]

Who said anything about subsidizing? It's merely "I should get what was advertised, and what I paid for", otherwise it's consumer fraud.

Granted, if a choice was there to be made, many people would make it. Not getting the service you want through ISP X? Well guess what? There is no ISP Y in your area that offers an equal competing service. If you want those speeds, your only hope is that the sole provider in your area that offers those speeds lives up to their end of the bargain.

...and that's not how capitalism is supposed to work.

Yes, that is exactly how capitalism works. You could not be more wrong. When you pay for something and don't get it, stop paying. That is pure capitalism.

Go to the restaurant and order the steak dinner. You get served a side salad only. You pay the full bill anyway. And then next week you go back and order the steak dinner. Again, side salad is all you get, but you still pay the full bill. And then you go back the next month...like a fool...

Someday, if the federal government does not make it prohibitively expensive, maybe someone will open another restaurant in your neighborhood. Until then, your have choices. If nobody ate the crappy side salad and refused to pay the bill, well, ... But if the fools keep lining up to pay, there is no incentive to stop taking the money and serving side salads.

Some guy - I believe his last name was Smith - wrote about this peculiar market force a few years back. Perhaps that book should be in your hands before you start to lecture about what capitalism is and isn't. Because you are about 180 degrees off the mark.

Capitalism runs on the principle of supply AND demand. Not supply MY demand.

 

[malexandria]

It is soft-headed thinking like this that has created the Entitlement Society that exists today.

Guess what? You CAN'T HAVE everything you feel you deserve.

It's that simple. You should have learned that in Kindergarten. Really.

This Entitlement Society Utopia that you feel you ought to have simply does not exist. And demanding that a federal bureaucracy somehow conjure it up from nothing (well, maybe by "sticking it to Big Business") is a fantasy.

WTH? How the F is it an ENTITLEMENT to expect to get the service we ****ING PAY FOR? In many cases an EXTRA PREMIUM. If a company is advertising 50 MBPS service than goddamn that's what I expect to get. Not 5 MBPS, or 10 MBPS, I expect 50 MBPS. I know I pay an extra $30 a month for Xfinity Blast that promises 100 MBPS Downloads and I'm lucky if I get 15 MBPS on most occasions.

 

[Rocketman]

One of the major reasons why the ACA jacked up prices for so many people is because it forced insurance companies to get rid of their worthless placebo plans. You know, the ones where you pay $70 a month for a plan with like a $40,000 deductible. They were swept under the rug, forcing people to get actual, honest to god insurance, which...costs money.

Hospitalization insurance is to preserve your financial assets in the event of a major costly event. I think my deductible was $2500-5000. The ACA is very much like insisting everybody get full coverage auto insurance even if you have a used car you can afford to replace in exchange for insurance premiums 1/3 liability only. Nobody is harmed by the choice either since the pool of full coverage insured and that of the liability insureds are independently priced and independently underwritten and independently covered. That's what insurance companies do.

Governments force everyone into the same pool at the highest possible premium cost. That is how ACA works.

"their worthless placebo plans" is a political talking point not a fact as the world existed before ACA for 95% of plans.

 

[Tiger8]

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.

While I fully support the new healthcare law, to be fair to the original poster, the rates did change and increase, so Obama was not accurate. I am self-employed and used to be less for a $0 deductable plan, now I pay 1.5 as much as I used to, with a $6,000 deductable

 

[malexandria]

If you aren't getting "what you want" then don't pay.

Because I live in a neighborhood where my connection is fast (but not inexpensive), explain to me why I should be required to subsidize your connection. Or explain why my mother, who has a 1.5mb connection, should be required to fork over another few dollars a month so you can feel good about streaming movies and playing online games.

Yes, you richly deserve everything you want. The difference is, you are not willing to do anything about it except cry that it isn't fair and demand that others subsidize your indulgence at the point of a federal bayonet.

I hope you realize you are the one that comes across as an entitled *******? You are ignoring the simple, basic fact that people are saying they are ENTITLED to get what they PAY for. Why is this a hard concept for you to grasp? Your flip response that we shouldn't pay for the service doesn't wash since most of us need Internet access and most of us don't have a choice. You apparently live in some Utopia world where a) You get everything you want an b) you have plenty of choices.

 

[Renzatic]

Capitalism runs on the principle of supply AND demand. Not supply MY demand.

You're ignoring the one fact that for capitalism to work, you need a choice, a series of true competitors. This is especially true for something as necessary as internet, where you have plenty of people with a need and demand, but only one source that's blessed by the government to provide it in any given area.

If these companies aren't willing to give people the service they need to run their businesses, to do their shopping, do their banking, etc. at a base standard of quality, then it should be switched to a utility.

But what does this have to do with net neutrality?

 

[topmounter]

Say goodbye to any content or protocols that the federal government deems "unlawful".

 

[TimelessOne]

Yes, that is exactly how capitalism works. You could not be more wrong. When you pay for something and don't get it, stop paying. That is pure capitalism.

Go to the restaurant and order the steak dinner. You get served a side salad only. You pay the full bill anyway. And then next week you go back and order the steak dinner. Again, side salad is all you get, but you still pay the full bill. And then you go back the next month...like a fool...

Someday, if the federal government does not make it prohibitively expensive, maybe someone will open another restaurant in your neighborhood. Until then, your have choices. If nobody ate the crappy side salad and refused to pay the bill, well, ... But if the fools keep lining up to pay, there is no incentive to stop taking the money and serving side salads.

Some guy - I believe his last name was Smith - wrote about this peculiar market force a few years back. Perhaps that book should be in your hands before you start to lecture about what capitalism is and isn't. Because you are about 180 degrees off the mark.

Capitalism runs on the principle of supply AND demand. Not supply MY demand.

Problem with your argument is the network the companies are running on for isp was built by government money and tax deals. They gave them the monopolies. Now that they have them they are not willing to play ball.

If the isp do not want to give net neutrality they they need to pay back the trillions they got in deals and put in new lines as they were given the network.

Isp is a lot like power lines. There is just not going to be 2-3 lines running to every house. There are natural monopolies like power lines, phone lines and cable lines. Those need to be regulated. We need to separate the isp from the line owners.

We do not have any competition in broadband and the current providers make it near impossible for a new player as they make sure they can not lay the lines.

 

[ssspinball]

The gov't is saying our access to information is being limited and distorted and bandwidth controlled, so they will regulate it like common utilities so that it is illegal to distort your access, just like it is illegal to distort what you can do with the power or water entering your home.

T;FTFY

Seems to be working pretty excellently for many decades with utilities so far!