FCC to defend Net Neutrality

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Frazzled**

I know for a fact that there's at least 3 providers I can get in Colorado or Arizona..

No no the topic is internetz providers, not herbal providers.

**AlmightyWalrus**

whembly wrote:
One of the FCC's commissioner comes out swinging against this plan...
http://www.fcc.gov/document/comm-pais-stmt-president-obamas-plan-regulate-internet

First, President Obama’s plan marks a monumental shift toward government control of the Internet. It gives the FCC the power to micromanage virtually every aspect of how the Internet works. It’s an overreach that will let a Washington bureaucracy, and not the American people, decide the future of the online world. It’s no wonder that net neutrality proponents are already bragging that it will turn the FCC into the “Department of the Internet.” For that reason, if you like dealing with the IRS, you are going to love the President’s plan.

And who controls the politicians? Gee, I guess that'd be the American people. Further, as a non-American I have to add that it's hubris of the highest order to claim that the American people have some sort of right to decide the future of the Internet on their own.

whembly wrote:

Second, President Obama’s plan to regulate the Internet will increase consumers’ monthly broadband bills. The plan explicitly opens the door to billions of dollars in new taxes on broadband. Indeed, states have already begun discussions on how they will spend the extra money. These new taxes will mean higher prices for consumers and more hidden fees that they have to pay.

If people don't want those taxes, they don't have to happen. They're not an intrinsic part of the legislation. It's like the whole "homosexuals can't have rights, because then zoophilia being next is not only logical, but inevitable!!!11!!" rant that shows up every now and then.

whembly wrote:
Third, President Obama’s plan to regulate the Internet will mean slower broadband for American consumers. The plan contains a host of new regulations that will reduce investment in broadband networks. That means slower Internet speeds. It also means that many rural Americans will have to wait longer for access to quality broadband.

That'd be the case if the companies wouldn't make a profit from the investments, yes. Making less profit is not the same as making no profit.

whembly wrote:

Fourth, President Obama’s plan to regulate the Internet will hurt competition and innovation and move us toward a broadband monopoly. The plan saddles small, independent businesses and entrepreneurs with heavy-handed regulations that will push them out of the market. As a result, Americans will have fewer broadband choices. This is no accident. Title II was designed to regulate a monopoly. If we impose that model on a vibrant broadband marketplace, a highly regulated
monopoly is what we’ll get. We shouldn’t bring Ma Bell back to life in this dynamic, digital age.

That sounds more like he's describing what's already going on (from my admitedly limited knowledge) than what'd happen. How many small, independent ISPs are there, really?

whembly wrote:

Fifth, President Obama’s plan to regulate the Internet is an unlawful power grab. Courts have twice thrown out the FCC’s attempts at Internet regulation. There’s no reason to think that the third time will be the charm. Even a cursory look at the plan reveals glaring legal flaws that are sure to mire the agency in the muck of litigation for a long, long time.

No, they don't. Hey, looks like I can make unsubstantiated claims too!

whembly wrote:
And sixth, the American people are being misled about what is in President Obama’s plan to regulate the Internet. The rollout earlier in the week was obviously intended to downplay the plan’s massive intrusion into the Internet economy. Beginning next week, I look forward to sharing with the public key aspects of what this plan will actually do.

See #5.

In summary, having Commissioner Pai spend a few years in DakkaDakka's Off-Topic Forum would probably have improved the arguments being made significantly.

Come to think of it, that fact kinda explains why you guys don't trust your government very much.

**whembly**

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
whembly wrote:
One of the FCC's commissioner comes out swinging against this plan...
http://www.fcc.gov/document/comm-pais-stmt-president-obamas-plan-regulate-internet

First, President Obama’s plan marks a monumental shift toward government control of the Internet. It gives the FCC the power to micromanage virtually every aspect of how the Internet works. It’s an overreach that will let a Washington bureaucracy, and not the American people, decide the future of the online world. It’s no wonder that net neutrality proponents are already bragging that it will turn the FCC into the “Department of the Internet.” For that reason, if you like dealing with the IRS, you are going to love the President’s plan.

And who controls the politicians? Gee, I guess that'd be the American people.

Bwahahahaha! Americans "control" their politician much like cat owners "herd" their cats across large bodies of water.

Thanks for the laugh.

Further, as a non-American I have to add that it's hubris of the highest order to claim that the American people have some sort of right to decide the future of the Internet on their own.

Uh... what was that again?

This proposal, ie. classifying this as a Title II utility will make the ISPs more vulnerable to AMERICAN POLITICIAN'S whims here... I mean, if you're claiming the it's "hubris of the highest order to claim that the American people have some sort of right to decide the future of the internet on their own"... then, you'd oppose this from the get-go.

Think about about it.

whembly wrote:

Second, President Obama’s plan to regulate the Internet will increase consumers’ monthly broadband bills. The plan explicitly opens the door to billions of dollars in new taxes on broadband. Indeed, states have already begun discussions on how they will spend the extra money. These new taxes will mean higher prices for consumers and more hidden fees that they have to pay.

If people don't want those taxes, they don't have to happen.

Read. My. Lips. No. New. Taxes.

DO'H!

They're not an intrinsic part of the legislation. It's like the whole "homosexuals can't have rights, because then zoophilia being next is not only logical, but inevitable!!!11!!" rant that shows up every now and then.

It's definitely part of the problem with this proposal... that and the increasing red-tape to get gak done.

whembly wrote:
Third, President Obama’s plan to regulate the Internet will mean slower broadband for American consumers. The plan contains a host of new regulations that will reduce investment in broadband networks. That means slower Internet speeds. It also means that many rural Americans will have to wait longer for access to quality broadband.

That'd be the case if the companies wouldn't make a profit from the investments, yes. Making less profit is not the same as making no profit.

That doesn't even make sense... you're acting like ISPs won't invest unless there's a huge ROI.

If companies could make a profit, they'd likely would expand in order to increase market shares. However, building new broadbands is ridiculously expensive, so the incentive need to be at least *just enough* to warrant said investment.

whembly wrote:

Fourth, President Obama’s plan to regulate the Internet will hurt competition and innovation and move us toward a broadband monopoly. The plan saddles small, independent businesses and entrepreneurs with heavy-handed regulations that will push them out of the market. As a result, Americans will have fewer broadband choices. This is no accident. Title II was designed to regulate a monopoly. If we impose that model on a vibrant broadband marketplace, a highly regulated
monopoly is what we’ll get. We shouldn’t bring Ma Bell back to life in this dynamic, digital age.

That sounds more like he's describing what's already going on (from my admitedly limited knowledge) than what'd happen. How many small, independent ISPs are there, really?

No... what he's saying is that startups like Vimeo would have a harder time to succeed against established media companies like Comcast/Verizon/Netflix.

whembly wrote:

Fifth, President Obama’s plan to regulate the Internet is an unlawful power grab. Courts have twice thrown out the FCC’s attempts at Internet regulation. There’s no reason to think that the third time will be the charm. Even a cursory look at the plan reveals glaring legal flaws that are sure to mire the agency in the muck of litigation for a long, long time.

No, they don't. Hey, looks like I can make unsubstantiated claims too!

Uh... the FCC were smacked down by the Courts due to over reach.

In fact, this proposal is awfully close to what EPA was trying to do, before the courts slapped them down too. That is, these regulatory boards are trying to "make" laws.

whembly wrote:
And sixth, the American people are being misled about what is in President Obama’s plan to regulate the Internet. The rollout earlier in the week was obviously intended to downplay the plan’s massive intrusion into the Internet economy. Beginning next week, I look forward to sharing with the public key aspects of what this plan will actually do.

See #5.

Saw it.

In summary, having Commissioner Pai spend a few years in DakkaDakka's Off-Topic Forum would probably have improved the arguments being made significantly.

Come to think of it, that fact kinda explains why you guys don't trust your government very much.

In summary... be careful what you wish for... what you think you want in "Net Neutrality" regulations is simply a trojan horse for the few powers to tweak the laws into their favor...

Ie: The Afforable Care Act may be a lot of things, but it certain ain't afforable.

The Employee Free Choice Act, a pro-Union Democrat bill that failed, sounds good in practice, but in reality it was trying to forbid "secret ballots". Definitely NOT "free choice".

And so on...

**AlmightyWalrus**

Seriously, half the thing is "but this awful thing could happen!". Tax increases do not have to follow just because they could.

And no, I'd much rather have your Government deciding the American rules for the Internet, becasue dealing with a foreign government is much easier than dealing with a conglomerate of foreign businesses whose sole reason for existing is profit. Having the government in control means the rest of the world at least can have input, whereas having private entities do it means the rest of the world is completely cut out of the loop. If you're going to screw over some of the biggest actors on the Internet the rest of the world would probably want a way to ask you to stop.

**whembly**

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Seriously, half the thing is "but this awful thing could happen!". Tax increases do not have to follow just because they could.

And no, I'd much rather have your Government deciding the American rules for the Internet, becasue dealing with a foreign government is much easier than dealing with a conglomerate of foreign businesses whose sole reason for existing is profit. Having the government in control means the rest of the world at least can have input, whereas having private entities do it means the rest of the world is completely cut out of the loop. If you're going to screw over some of the biggest actors on the Internet the rest of the world would probably want a way to ask you to stop.

I "get" what you're saying... I really do.

I'm not convinced that reclassifying ISPs to Title II is the way to go...

I mean... what do proponents of Net Neutrality really want?

They want that the ISPs not have the ability to discriminate on the source, destination or contents of internet traffic. That they will have to treat all traffic equally. While I think there are issues with that (we should only have that limit on the consumer end), if that's what we really want, why not engage Congress to codify that into a separate law.

Such that it'll stand up to future legal challenges. That's the way to do it imo.

EDIT:

. Having the government in control means the rest of the world at least can have input, whereas having private entities do it means the rest of the world is completely cut out of the loop

Philosophically... that's flawed.

I believe the government should stay as far away as possible and with "light fingers" on the internet. Only get involved when things gets too big. Frankly, we're nowhere near there.

**Dreadwinter**

So wait, has the plan even come out with how all of this is going to be handled?

**whembly**

Dreadwinter wrote:
So wait, has the plan even come out with how all of this is going to be handled?

The official plan hasn't been released to the public yet and the plan is (so far) to only release until after the FCC vote at the end of the month (5 commissioner).

What we do know, according to Wheeler, is reclassifying ISPs back into Title 2. (there were title 2 prior to 2000 I believe).

**dogma**

whembly wrote:

I'm not convinced that reclassifying ISPs to Title II is the way to go...

Of course you aren't, it is a proposal by a Democrat Administration.

whembly wrote:

They want that the ISPs not have the ability to discriminate on the source, destination or contents of internet traffic. That they will have to treat all traffic equally. While I think there are issues with that (we should only have that limit on the consumer end), if that's what we really want, why not engage Congress to codify that into a separate law.

Because a GOP controlled Congress will never agree to it as net neutrality is seen as a liberal issue, and habitual GOP voters are unlikely to back a member of the GOP who votes liberal.

**whembly**

dogma wrote:
whembly wrote:

I'm not convinced that reclassifying ISPs to Title II is the way to go...

Of course you aren't, it is a proposal by a Democrat Administration.

That does "raise a red flag" to me.

But, it's not so automatic as you seem to imply.

whembly wrote:

They want that the ISPs not have the ability to discriminate on the source, destination or contents of internet traffic. That they will have to treat all traffic equally. While I think there are issues with that (we should only have that limit on the consumer end), if that's what we really want, why not engage Congress to codify that into a separate law.

Because a GOP controlled Congress will never agree to it as net neutrality is seen as a liberal issue, and habitual GOP voters are unlikely to back a member of the GOP who votes liberal.

Eh... it's politically toxic now, true.

But, eventually something like could pass in the future.

The public has generally been against more regulation:
61% Oppose Federal Regulation of the Internet

Americans really like the online service they currently have and strongly oppose so-called “net neutrality” efforts that would allow the federal government to regulate the Internet.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 26% of American Adults agree the Federal Communications Commission should regulate the Internet like it does radio and television. Sixty-one percent (61%) disagree and think the Internet should remain open without regulation and censorship. Thirteen percent (13%) are not sure. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

Only 19% believe more government regulation is the best way to protect those who use the Internet. Fifty-six percent (56%) feel more free market competition is the best protection. Twenty-five percent (25%) are undecided.

Most Americans have opposed increased government regulation of the Internet since December 2010 when some members of the FCC began pushing “net neutrality” efforts to stop some companies from offering higher downloading speeds to preferred customers.

To my European Dakkanaughts, pay attention to here:

Seventy-six percent (76%) of Americans who regularly go online rate the quality of their Internet service as good or excellent. Only five percent (5%) consider their service poor.

The money shot:

Americans remain suspicious of the motives of those who want government regulation of the Internet. Sixty-eight percent (68%) are concerned that if the FCC does gain regulatory control over the Internet, it will lead to government efforts to control online content or promote a political agenda, with 44% who are Very Concerned. Twenty-seven percent (27%) don’t share this concern about possible government abuse, but that includes only eight percent (8%) who are Not At All Concerned.

Fifty-six percent (56%) of voters said in December 2010 that if the FCC was given the authority to regulate the Internet, it would use that power to promote a political agenda.

**dogma**

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 26% of American Adults agree the Federal Communications Commission should regulate the Internet like it does radio and television. Sixty-one percent (61%) disagree and think the Internet should remain open without regulation and censorship.

I sensed a series of push questions, turns out I was right.

1* How closely have you followed recent news reports about so-called Internet “neutrality” issues?

2* Should the Internet remain “open” without regulation and censorship or should the Federal Communications Commission regulate the Internet like it does radio and television?

Really?

**LordofHats**

That's just an abuse of statistics.

Sixty-one percent (61%) disagree and think the Internet should remain open without regulation and censorship.

Then let the government reclassify. The entire point of putting the net under Title II is to continue things as they were. Does anyone have a problem with the way the FCC was handling the internet prior to this? I didn't. Let them reclassify so we can go back to the way things were. It is the only realistic way we are going to get that now. If you don't like that blame the ISPs. They're the ones who have boxed us into this corner, not the FCC, not the government. If this change hurts them, cry me a river. They brought this on themselves. Maybe they shouldn't have screwed their own pooch.

This entire thing about 'government regulation is bad we can't let them touch the internet" is intellectually dishonest (and one of the most blatant cases of it I've seen in my life).

**whembly**

LordofHats wrote:
That's just an abuse of statistics.

Sixty-one percent (61%) disagree and think the Internet should remain open without regulation and censorship.

Then let the government reclassify. The entire point of putting the net under Title II is to continue things as they were. Does anyone have a problem with the way the FCC was handling the internet prior to this? I didn't. Let them reclassify so we can go back to the way things were. It is the only realistic way we are going to get that now. If you don't like that blame the ISPs. They're the ones who have boxed us into this corner, not the FCC, not the government. If this change hurts them, cry me a river. They brought this on themselves. Maybe they shouldn't have screwed their own pooch.

This entire thing about 'government regulation is bad we can't let them touch the internet" is intellectually dishonest (and one of the most blatant cases of it I've seen in my life).

Hoooooooold up there buddy.

in 2002, the FCC voted to classify cable modem service as an “information service,” which falls under Title I of the Communications Act:
http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/News_Releases/2002/nrcb0201.html

In 2007, the FCC classified wireless broadband Internet access as an information service:
https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-30A1.pdf

So you wanna reclassify them back to pre-2002 for cable (pre-2007 for wireless)? Was it fething rainbows and unicorn back then... because, I don't remember that.

**LordofHats**

Was there censorship and rampant government regulation ruining our internet?

Stop twisting reality. It doesn't suit you.

**daedalus**

I feel like there's often two different types of regulation that get lumped together in such a way that, when I see a blanket "regulation is X" or "you support regulation in X. True?! False?!" I sometimes question the motives of why that's not being defined more precisely than that.

For example, if regulation means "regulate what appears on the internet, what a person can say, do, or visit without fear of repercussion, or the use and connection to the internet itself" then my answer is almost always no. If regulation means "regulate the reach of ISPs to control what their users are allowed to view, or regulate legal monopolies and other conditions that stifle further improvements to infrastructure due to removing any economic impetus for them", then my answer might be different.

I also question the wisdom of anyone taking something that has nearly limitless capacity* and regulating it like limited spectrum bands, like radio and television. Again though, I'd have to wonder in what ways one would propose that it be regulated that way.

* I'm talking in terms of breadth, not throughput here. I realize that capacity is limited.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

whembly wrote:

So you wanna reclassify them back to pre-2002 for cable (pre-2007 for wireless)? Was it fething rainbows and unicorn back then... because, I don't remember that.

I was only 19 in 2002, but I had more internet access than most people my age at the time. I don't frankly recall a significant change anytime around then, excepting the DMCA years prior.

A lot of us in college rearranged our keyboard keys to spell out "DMCASUXOR". We were such rebels.

**whembly**

LordofHats wrote:
Was there censorship and rampant government regulation ruining our internet?

Stop twisting reality. It doesn't suit you.

I'm not twisting reality.

Why is it that you want to change the entire industry over some Comcast/Verizon shenanigans?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

daedalus wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

whembly wrote:

So you wanna reclassify them back to pre-2002 for cable (pre-2007 for wireless)? Was it fething rainbows and unicorn back then... because, I don't remember that.

I was only 19 in 2002, but I had more internet access than most people my age at the time. I don't frankly recall a significant change anytime around then, excepting the DMCA years prior.

A lot of us in college rearranged our keyboard keys to spell out "DMCASUXOR". We were such rebels.

Heh... that's because cable broadband was still really in it's infancy back then. They're STILL laying down pipes.

As to wireless broadbands, we're almost to the point that it's going to explode and we'll start seeing major coverages, like our cellular coverages.

**LordofHats**

whembly wrote:
Why is it that you want to change the entire industry over some Comcast/Verizon shenanigans?

Points 1; No one wants the industry to change. That's the point. The entire point of reclassifying to Title II is to keep things the way they are. The way net neutrality was previously implemented was deemed illegal. All the FCC (and proponents of NN) are now saying is that we make what we were doing before legal by switching ISPs to Title II which grants the FCC the legal authority to keep doing what it was doing. You and others who keep harping on about big bad government regulation are actively engaging in intellectual dishonesty (i.e. twisting reality) by constantly trying to suggest to people otherwise.

Points 2; Those shenanigans are being undertaken by the companies with the most influence in how we consumers interact with the internet. What they do effects all of us. Strongly. It is further intellectually dishonest to try and present their actions as if they were some minor inconvenience. It isn't. What they're attempting to do has sweeping and radical ramifications. They (Comcast/Verizon/Cable and ISP providors) trying to change the entire industry. Not the government. Not the FFC. Not NN proponents. You are actively taking the reality of what is happening, and twisting it in on itself, where the conservatives of the internet who want to maintain things the way they are, are somehow engaged in some insidious plot to expand the power of the government when they are not.

**whembly**

LordofHats wrote:
whembly wrote:
Why is it that you want to change the entire industry over some Comcast/Verizon shenanigans?

Points 1; No one wants the industry to change. That's the point. The entire point of reclassifying to Title II is to keep things the way they are. The way net neutrality was previously implemented was deemed illegal. All the FCC (and proponents of NN) are now saying is that we make what we were doing before legal by switching ISPs to Title II which grants the FCC the legal authority to keep doing what it was doing. You and others who keep harping on about big bad government regulation are actively engaging in intellectual dishonesty (i.e. twisting reality) by constantly trying to suggest to people otherwise.

Points 2; Those shenanigans are being undertaken by the companies with the most influence in how we consumers interact with the internet. What they do effects all of us. Strongly. It is further intellectually dishonest to try and present their actions as if they were some minor inconvenience. It isn't. What they're attempting to do has sweeping and radical ramifications. They (Comcast/Verizon/Cable and ISP providors) trying to change the entire industry. Not the government. Not the FFC. Not NN proponents. You are actively taking the reality of what is happening, and twisting it in on itself, where the conservatives of the internet who want to maintain things the way they are, are somehow engaged in some insidious plot to expand the power of the government when they are not.

It's intellectually dishonest to say "All the FCC (and proponents of NN) are now saying is that we make what we were doing before legal by switching ISPs to Title II which grants the FCC the legal authority to keep doing what it was doing. "

Switching the ISPs to Title I is largely credited to the advancements we see right now.

The FCC got bitch slapped by the Appeals Court because they overstepped their authority. Reclassifying it will NOT mean that "things will go back to the way they were". And frankly, it's foolish to think that the powers that be will leave it well alone.

**LordofHats**

whembly wrote:
"All the FCC (and proponents of NN) are now saying is that we make what we were doing before legal by switching ISPs to Title II which grants the FCC the legal authority to keep doing what it was doing. "

No it's not because that's exactly what the FCC and proponents of NN say they want to do.

The FCC got bitch slapped by the Supreme Court because they overstepped their authority.

The FCC got bitch slapped because the law hasn't caught up to technology (really in this case it's kind of baffling we are still using a law devised in 1934 for this kind of thing, but that's how it is). They went 30 years pretty steadily and figured "eh so far so good."

Reclassifying it will NOT mean that "things will go back to the way they were".

Yes it will. Title II is basically the US common carrier standard. Net neutrality is at it's essence an advocation for the same principle. Neutrality in regards to who is using a service. To content providers and consumers, not much is going to change.

And frankly, it's foolish to think that the powers that be will leave it well alone.

I trust a democratically elected government more than a private corporation and it's foolish to think that letting the later run rampant will ever be better than the former. The FCC has endorsed net neutrality for over 30 years. I trust that for now they will continue to do so. When that changes (and it probably will) we can deal with it then under the FCC, a much easier task than ever attempt reform under a bunch of corporate monopolies.

**whembly**

LordofHats wrote:

And frankly, it's foolish to think that the powers that be will leave it well alone.

I trust a democratically elected government more than a private corporation and it's foolish to think that letting the later run rampant will ever be better than the former. The FCC has endorsed net neutrality for over 30 years. I trust that for now they will continue to do so. When that changes (and it probably will) we can deal with it then under the FCC, a much easier task than ever attempt reform under a bunch of corporate monopolies.

You may trust the government... but, here's the sticking point for me: We can’t see the new rules yet!

There's a total of 332 pages and will apparently be available to the public only after the commission votes on them on 26 February 2015.

How the feth does that inspire me to trust my government?

EDIT: that a "large" number of pages... which some industry experts speculates that it may be a nothingburger in the end because Wheeler used to by the industry lobbist. Such that, it may be lip service to NN with minor regulatory changes. *shrug*

**LordofHats**

whembly wrote:

How the feth does that inspire me to trust my government?

You never trust your government anyway

Even if you don't trust them, what is better/easier to handle? A government regulatory body answerable to elected officials, or a private corporation answerable to no one but its profit margin?

This is the real world and there are now only two options. Reclassify to Title II and try to go back to the good old days, or just surrender and let the internet become subverted to the interests of a small number of companies to everyone elses detriment. There are no other options that will pass muster. The Republicans are quickly taking an anti-NN stance, while Obama and the Dems are quickly taking a pro-NN stance. If we do not resolve this now, before the next big elections, we are screwed. We have to do this now. Title II is the only way to avoid worse outcomes. If it drags for too long it'll become embroiled in election politics and we'll probably never actually get a solution, meaning that the cable and ISP providers will just move forward with their plans for lack of any law that says they can't.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

whembly wrote:

EDIT: that a "large" number of pages... which some industry experts speculates that it may be a nothingburger in the end because Wheeler used to by the industry lobbist. Such that, it may be lip service to NN with minor regulatory changes. *shrug*

While possible, it's also possible Wheeler and the FCC have been forced to be completely serious by sheer public and political pressure. The open call they made for comments was overwhelmingly anti-ISP.

**daedalus**

whembly wrote:

How the feth does that inspire me to trust my government?

Meh. Don't trust anyone over 30.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

LordofHats wrote:

While possible, it's also possible Wheeler and the FCC have been forced to be completely serious by sheer public and political pressure. The open call they made for comments was overwhelmingly anti-ISP.

Now I KNOW you're not that naive.

**LordofHats**

daedalus wrote:

Now I KNOW you're not that naive.

I am allowed to dream!

**Dreadwinter**

whembly wrote:
Dreadwinter wrote:
So wait, has the plan even come out with how all of this is going to be handled?

The official plan hasn't been released to the public yet and the plan is (so far) to only release until after the FCC vote at the end of the month (5 commissioner).

What we do know, according to Wheeler, is reclassifying ISPs back into Title 2. (there were title 2 prior to 2000 I believe).

Oh, so you do not know anything about what is going on and you are already calling this the next Obamacare?

**whembly**

LordofHats wrote:
whembly wrote:

How the feth does that inspire me to trust my government?

You never trust your government anyway

You got that right bro... Zombie Reagan said it best: "Trust, but verify. AND DEVOUR THEIR BRAAAAAINS!"

Even if you don't trust them, what is better/easier to handle? A government regulatory body answerable to elected officials, or a private corporation answerable to no one but its profit margin?

In this industry? Definitely NOT politicians and the government. It moves way too fast to be over burden with Title-II like regulations.

I'm not saying we go wild, wild west here. But you seem to be focused on the bad things and not on all the good things that happened along the way.

This is the real world and there are now only two options. Reclassify to Title II and try to go back to the good old days, or just surrender and let the internet become subverted to the interests of a small number of companies to everyone elses detriment. There are no other options that will pass muster. The Republicans are quickly taking an anti-NN stance, while Obama and the Dems are quickly taking a pro-NN stance. If we do not resolve this now, before the next big elections, we are screwed. We have to do this now. Title II is the only way to avoid worse outcomes.

I see it becoming toxic politically because it hit's all the right buzz words to the partisan crowd. But, the big issue for me is that where is this dire situation that we MUST DO SOMETHING RIGHT NOW!

NOOOOOOAW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

?

Did we learn after the Obamacare boondogle? That will be a microcosm of what will happen if ISPs is reclassified as telecommunications service.

Yeah, it is said that this proposal is to ensure that all legal Internet traffic is treated with equal, best-effort priority (ie, FRAND). At the same time, the FCC is promising to set aside provisions (forebarence that is) that enable the agency to set rates, impose fees, and require ISPs to share key portions of their networks with competitors.

How long do you trust the FCC to NOT to "go there" sometime in the future.

What are they going to say? But, Mr. FCC dude... you promised!

Cue the:
If you like your plan, you can KEEP you plan!
Montage.

whembly wrote:

EDIT: that a "large" number of pages... which some industry experts speculates that it may be a nothingburger in the end because Wheeler used to by the industry lobbist. Such that, it may be lip service to NN with minor regulatory changes. *shrug*

While possible, it's also possible Wheeler and the FCC have been forced to be completely serious by sheer public and political pressure. The open call they made for comments was overwhelmingly anti-ISP.

True. I'm still very bother that the plan isn't made public prior to the vote. That smacks to me as the Nancy Pelosi™ "You have to pass it to see what's in it" strategy.

**daedalus**

Dreadwinter wrote:
whembly wrote:
Dreadwinter wrote:
So wait, has the plan even come out with how all of this is going to be handled?

The official plan hasn't been released to the public yet and the plan is (so far) to only release until after the FCC vote at the end of the month (5 commissioner).

What we do know, according to Wheeler, is reclassifying ISPs back into Title 2. (there were title 2 prior to 2000 I believe).

Oh, so you do not know anything about what is going on and you are already calling this the next Obamacare?

I don't recall where he said that.

**whembly**

Dreadwinter wrote:
whembly wrote:
Dreadwinter wrote:
So wait, has the plan even come out with how all of this is going to be handled?

The official plan hasn't been released to the public yet and the plan is (so far) to only release until after the FCC vote at the end of the month (5 commissioner).

What we do know, according to Wheeler, is reclassifying ISPs back into Title 2. (there were title 2 prior to 2000 I believe).

Oh, so you do not know anything about what is going on and you are already calling this the next Obamacare?

There are leaks around the 'Net, here's one set:

ISPs may not block, degrade, or limit any lawful Internet content or service. Similarly, ISPs may not create “fast lanes” or engage in paid prioritization deals that grant preferential treatment to selected lawful Internet traffic. These restrictions preserve the central key aspects of net neutrality or the “Open Internet.”

In a new move, open Internet requirements wouldn’t apply to just fixed-line Internet providers like telephone and cable companies, but also to mobile Internet, interconnection points, and so-called edge providers. These segments had been exempt from previous net neutrality rules. ISPs could still charge companies like Netflix, Cogent, and Level 3 for access to their networks, but the deals would only be allowed if the FCC finds them “just and reasonable” under Title II. However, content delivery networks (like Akamai) that try to optimize how data gets to individual users would still have free rein in charging their clients.

ISPs may engage in “reasonable” network management — which could include blocking apps, capping data, or limiting performance — so long as they disclose the practice and it’s not done for their commercial benefit.

ISPs will continue to be held to transparency requirements to provide accurate information about their services to consumers. Transparency rules aren’t new — they survived Verizon’s most recent court challenge — but the FCC says they’ll be augmented under the new rules.

ISPs may offer private-networking services that don’t use the public Internet (like voice service over cable), but they’re subject to transparency requirements and cannot be used to create de facto “fast lanes” or undermine net neutrality.

ISPs will be subject to Title II provisions enabling the FCC to guard against “unjust and unreasonable” practices, hear consumer complaints, ensure “fair access” to poles and conduits, protect access for people with disabilities, and protect consumer privacy.

The FCC can ignore (or “forbear”) aspects of Title II it feels aren’t in the public interest. ISPs will not be subject to Title II provisions that would enable the FCC to regulate rates or require broadband providers to contribute to the Universal Service fund. The new rules also won’t apply any new taxes or fees to broadband, and ISPs will not be required to “unbundle” the last mile of connectivity to homes and businesses for competitors to use.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

daedalus wrote:
whembly wrote:

How the feth does that inspire me to trust my government?

Meh. Don't trust anyone over 30.

Oh wait...

I'm over 30!

But, I'm still really, REALLY immature, so I'm like 28!

**Dreadwinter**

daedalus wrote:
Dreadwinter wrote:
whembly wrote:
Dreadwinter wrote:
So wait, has the plan even come out with how all of this is going to be handled?

The official plan hasn't been released to the public yet and the plan is (so far) to only release until after the FCC vote at the end of the month (5 commissioner).

What we do know, according to Wheeler, is reclassifying ISPs back into Title 2. (there were title 2 prior to 2000 I believe).

Oh, so you do not know anything about what is going on and you are already calling this the next Obamacare?

I don't recall where he said that.

That is cool, I got you.

Whembly wrote:Looks like the playbook here is that "we have to pass it to find out what it will do" mindset... ala, Obamacare.

**LordofHats**

whembly wrote:

In this industry? Definitely NOT politicians and the government. It moves way too fast to be over burden with Title-II like regulations.

How is laying cable a fast paced industry? Comcast and Verizon and other ISPs are not the internet. They're just the ones who can dictate who can access it and how. Their industry hasn't changed much (in the sense that the nature and structure of their business hasn't changed much) in awhile. It is in fact a very slow and steady industry where advancement is fairly linear and stable. The proposed regulations would effect them, but it's hardly going to halt progress.

But you seem to be focused on the bad things and not on all the good things that happened along the way.

That's because the only people who are saying that good will come out of this are the people with a huge financial interest in all the bad stuff happening (not to mention most of the 'good' is a bunch of horse hooey that is observably false).

Did we learn after the Obamacare boondogle? That will be a microcosm of what will happen if ISPs is reclassified as telecommunications service.

Yes. That expecting the government to pass a sensible new way to deal with an old problem is asking for too much.

It's much better to ask a regulatory body to use existing laws to solve the problem. The only thing that this shares with Obamacare, is the need for immediacy. Beyond that is just political BS.

**daedalus**

LordofHats wrote:
Oh wait... I'm over 30!

I'm basically there too. 30+ year olds are simply too old to be properly taken advantage of.

Dreadwinter wrote:
That is cool, I got you.

Whembly wrote:Looks like the playbook here is that "we have to pass it to find out what it will do" mindset... ala, Obamacare.

Thanks. I will reread.

**whembly**

LordofHats wrote:
whembly wrote:

In this industry? Definitely NOT politicians and the government. It moves way too fast to be over burden with Title-II like regulations.

How is laying cable a fast paced industry? Comcast and Verizon and other ISPs are not the internet. They're just the ones who can dictate who can access it and how. Their industry hasn't changed much (in the sense that the nature and structure of their business hasn't changed much).

The TECHNOLOGIES has change quite a bit... gak, I work in the healthcare IT industry and I see it. And we're usually the last group to adopt new gak as we're so conservative (in a non-political manner).

It's true that the nature of their business hasn't changed, but the way we use it as evolved rapidedly.

For instance, streaming movies/shows has increased enormously over the years.... not only capacity has increased, but so has NETWORK STABILITY.

Stability is king now. I could care less if I have 50 MB download broadband or 500 MB. As long as I can watch Netflix, me yammer on Dakka and my boys play their XBone without any issues, then I'm a happy customer.

Also, don't discount how the advancement of your smartphones as evolved recent. Do you know how they work? You often transmit from "tower-to-local-ISP". So, here in St. Louis, if you have ATT&T/Cricket/Sprint and you use your smartphone... you'll hit the nearest wireless tower, then to Charter's network. Major, MAJOR advancements/agreements between the Wireless companies and the regional MSOs over the years.

But you seem to be focused on the bad things and not on all the good things that happened along the way.

That's because the only people who are saying that good will come out of this are the people with a huge financial interest in all the bad stuff happening (not to mention most of the 'good' is a bunch of horse hooey that is observably false).

Where's my check dude?

Did we learn after the Obamacare boondogle? That will be a microcosm of what will happen if ISPs is reclassified as telecommunications service.

Yes. That expecting the government to pass a sensible new way to deal with an old problem is asking for too much.

It's much better to ask a regulatory body to use existing laws to solve the problem.

No. And Hell No!.

If you can't get Congress to pass anything that you think is important... then, it's I'm sorry, it's not THAT important.

And even if the FCC did change ISP back to Title II, I don't see how they can prevail over a concerted lawsuit. If you want to affect lasting change, the engage your congress critters.