Net Neutrality Lives! FCC will Classify the Internet Under Utility-Style Rules

[dgstorm]

We knew it would be coming soon. The FCC had their final meeting regarding the Net Neutrality debate. As the FCC Director Tom Wheeler shared in his proposal, the FCC will now classify the Internet under the Title II classification. This basically categorizes the Internet like a utility and allows the FCC to keep ISPs from blocking or slowing down traffic on wired and wireless networks. It also bans ISPs from charging content providers differently for any type of paid priority "fast lanes," even in the case of network congestion.

This classification will be applied to both wired and wireless broadband networks to prevent ISPs from favoring bits of data over each other. Here's a quote with a few more details regarding the resulting furor over the official announcement,

But the FCC's move to apply Title II to broadband has been viewed by cable operators, wireless providers and phone companies as a "nuclear option," with potentially devastating fallout from unintended consequences.

These companies argue that applying outdated regulation to the broadband industry will stifle innovation by hurting investment opportunities in networks. It could also allow the government to impose new taxes and tariffs, which would increase consumer bills. And they say it could even allow the government to force network operators to share their infrastructure with competitors.

Wheeler has said these fears are overblown. The agency is ignoring aspects of the Title II regulation that would apply most of the onerous requirements.

He said critics have painted his proposal as "a secret plan to regulate the Internet."

His response to that? "Nonsense. This is no more a plan to regulate the Internet than the First Amendment is a plan to regulate free speech. They both stand for the same concept: openness." ~ CNET

These new rules will be published in the Federal Register within the next few weeks.

 

[sharpuser]

The phrase "keep from slowing down" is being used by proponents. But these rules will also "keep from speeding up". One size fits all. Equal result, not equal opportunity. Everyone in the classroom gets grade B, regardless of innovation, hard work or competitive advantage or the opposites of these. In short, Grade Neutrality.

I think I learned about "Lowest common denominator" when I was in the classroom.

 

[GreyFox7]

The phrase "keep from slowing down" is being used by proponents. But these rules will also "keep from speeding up". One size fits all. Equal result, not equal opportunity. Everyone in the classroom gets grade B, regardless of innovation, hard work or competitive advantage or the opposites of these. In short, Grade Neutrality.

I think I learned about "Lowest common denominator" when I was in the classroom.

I relearned LCD from IBM. Until then I just thought it applied to math.

 

[Arizona Willie]

Why do you pro-corporation right wingers want to pay more for downloading games and streaming movies?

This legislation just makes sure that if you pay your internet provider for 50 Mbps service that they have to GIVE you 50 Mbps service and cannot deliberately slow it down when you want to stream a movie and make you pay extra.

Or make Netflix and other providers pay more to send you movies.

American corporations have PROVEN they have no loyalty to American citizens and will screw you any time they get a chance.
They were getting ready to make you pay more to stream a movie if you didn't want to see that spinning spooling circle all the time.

Without net neutrality, you would either pay providers more for streamed content and large downloads like games because they have to pay the providers more or < more likely > you would have to pay a surcharge for every large download such as a game or movie.

Net neutrality stops that crap.

But you right wingers moan and groan and want to pay more.

The phrase "keep from slowing down" is being used by proponents. But these rules will also "keep from speeding up". One size fits all. Equal result, not equal opportunity. Everyone in the classroom gets grade B, regardless of innovation, hard work or competitive advantage or the opposites of these. In short, Grade Neutrality.

I think I learned about "Lowest common denominator" when I was in the classroom.

 

[Arizona Willie]

Net Neutrality just preserves the Internet as we know it today where you pay X dollars for X service and can use it any damn way you want to. They make no distinction between surfing the web and downloading a game or movie.

But the internet providers want to charge people surcharges for any large downloads if the customer wants it at full speed so they don't have to put up with that spinning spooling circle all the time.

The right wing corporation lovers are screaming bloody murder. Reckon they like paying more.

=============
Welcome to the United Corporate States of America
Democracy is dead
Long live the Corporation

I relearned LCD from IBM. Until then I just thought it applied to math.

 

[leeshor]

@Arizona Willie
Just a reminder that this forum does not allow for any political discussion and you are on the verge of crossing that line.

I do think that some people are ignoring the fact that what has happened here has only opened the door for even more regulation and regulation means some sort of tax or fees that will eventually sneak in. If this was to try to keep ISPs from charging some, (other), service providers like Netflix more and that was the purpose behind the word neutrality that wouldn't be a big problem for me. But now that they have a foot in the door, take a close look at your other "utility" bills at all the additional fees. If you think the government should be in the business of fixing something that was not really broken, that isn't what government does or is supposed to do.

 

[Arizona Willie]

And < I'm > close to crossing the line?

Unfortunately, the subject IS political by it's very nature.

It is impossible to discuss Net Neutrality without political viewpoints.

You give me a warning about crossing the line and then proceed to post < your > political viewpoint on the issue

But that's ok --- I understand. As I said, it's impossible to talk about this without politics.
=======================

@Arizona Willie
Just a reminder that this forum does not allow for any political discussion and you are on the verge of crossing that line.

I do think that some people are ignoring the fact that what has happened here has only opened the door for even more regulation and regulation means some sort of tax or fees that will eventually sneak in. If this was to try to keep ISPs from charging some, (other), service providers like Netflix more and that was the purpose behind the word neutrality that wouldn't be a big problem for me. But now that they have a foot in the door, take a close look at your other "utility" bills at all the additional fees. If you think the government should be in the business of fixing something that was not really broken, that isn't what government does or is supposed to do.

 

[jnjroach]

And < I'm > close to crossing the line?

Unfortunately, the subject IS political by it's very nature.

It is impossible to discuss Net Neutrality without political viewpoints.

You give me a warning about crossing the line and then proceed to post < your > political viewpoint on the issue

But that's ok --- I understand. As I said, it's impossible to talk about this without politics.
=======================

Big difference on discussing the issue (which Policy more than Political) and calling people....

pro-corporation right wingers

 

[Arizona Willie]

Well, in my opinion, pro-corporation right wingers is what they are. They don't want any restriction on corporations actions in any way.

That isn't an insult, it is an accurate description of their economic philosophy.

At least I didn't call them " knuckle dragging pro-corporation right wingers "

I frequent a lot of discussion forums and the term I used would almost be considered an endearment on most of them.
I didn't see it as being extremely political. More a statement of fact, because they do want to allow corporations to operate under laissez faire capitalism.

But that's the end of my " political " statements /opinions.

Reckon politics is so deeply engrained in me that it just oozes out.

If I crossed some " line " I can only say " mea culpa mea culpa mea maxima culpa " translated that means " my bad ".

 

[leeshor]

Jeff was right on, there is a difference between policy and politics.

 

[Arizona Willie]

Yes, I understand that.

It is the policy of the Surface forum not to allow politics
But life is political whether we like it or not and it is inevitably going to creep in at times.

Unfortunately, I slip into political mode without even realizing it.
Reckon I have a political brain.

But I will try to monitor my postings for such slips.

Jeff was right on, there is a difference between policy and politics.

 

[dgstorm]

Regardless of the politics behind the legislation, I would gladly pay an extra .30 cents worth of "FCC tax" per month, rather than pay an extra $3.00 per month to the ISP so they don't hijack my speed. Make no bones about it, the only reason why the carriers started the lawsuit that kicked off this whole thing had nothing to do with politics.

They simply wanted to create a new revenue stream to increase their already massive profits. We already pay too much for broadband in the US compared to other countries, and our service is slower and worse for that extra price. And, don't get me started on the whole network congestion/network investment and buildout argument. That's a bunch of hogwash.

One, the big ISPs have already recouped all of their initial investments into infrastructure, and the upgrade costs are minuscule for the amount they rake in. Also, their initial network rollout investments were heavily subsidized by the Federal Government. Furthermore, the amount of congestion they see isn't even a blip compared to the bandwidth they have on hand from their fiber networks. Congestion is a myth. The big ISPs simply wanted to find a way to monetize every single bit and byte we consume.

I'll leave it with this final thought... History has shown that too much regulation will stifle innovation and growth, but guess what... history has also shown that too little regulation does exactly the same thing.

You need the right amount of balance. Preserving Net Neutrality with Title II classification only attempts to create that balance. I feel like it was the "mildest" response that was left for the FCC.

If the FCC doesn't take a heavy-handed approach with it in the future (which seems to be the tone that Wheeler has set), then this will work out just fine, despite some hiccups.