Well, there must be the gnashing of teeth and moaning in the inner sanctums of telcos and ISPs (probably Congress, as well): The Chairman of the FCC has come down supporting the classification of the internet as a Title II public utility (which it truly is), and the FCC will relate to it as such. This means the business interests of the telco/ISPs will come second to those of the public, and that there will be no further receiving subsidies they receive to maintain net neutrality, while trying to profit on the other side by rate differentials for broadband width:
“Specifically, Wheeler says the new rules will ban paid prioritization, which lets ISPs charge for faster access to its networks, as well as the slowdown of "lawful content and services." – engadget
Also: Mobile users, rejoice: These open internet protections will apply to you as well! Wheeler reminded everyone that the internet would look radically different had the FCC not opened up access to networking equipment in the early 1960s. Also, he reminded everyone that the phone network’s didn’t happen by accident, but by FCC rule.” Wheeler is making a very clear choice that he is favoring consumers more than businesses.
"My proposal assures the rights of internet users to go where they want, when they want, and the rights of innovators to introduce new products without asking anyone's permission," Wheeler wrote. "All of this can be accomplished while encouraging investment in broadband networks." – FCC Chairman Wheeler
There’s lots of industry pushback based on “over-regulation” calling it a European styled internet with overly protective regulations [right, because business has proven government shouldn’t protect the pblic – lol]. The industry also stated this would likely “balkanize” the net into private networks and specialized services…whatever…seems to me political entities such as China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, etc. have already done that.
So how will all this affect you? The FCC will apply provisions of Title II that allow for enhanced consumer protections and tighter controls against "unjust practices" and "discrimination," for instance, while legally ignoring ones that make other Title II companies subject to "tariffs or other form of rate approval, unbundling, or other forms of utility regulation". Hopefully not with a heavy hand.
So, a great couple of weeks for consumers: Redefinition of “broadband services” to 25Mbps/3Mbps from the laughable 4Mbps/1Mbps and Title II definition and protection of the net.
Good job, Mr. Wheeler. Thank you for listening to the public, and thank you for having the public good foremost in mind.
To the industry: This will continue to encourage innovation and HOPEFULLY some competition for a change. Don’t feel bad. This is “trickle up” for a change.
Source:
http://www.engadget.com/2015/02/04/fcc-net-neutrality/?utm_source=Feed_Classic_Full&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Engadget&?ncid=rss_full
It's funny that they indicated they aren't going to do rate regulation... one day after a news story about how TWC has a 97% margin on cable internet.
Keep the government out of it as much a possible. That's all we need is a bunch of unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats "regulating" the internet.
kryo - you mean this article? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-kushnick/time-warner-cables-97-pro_b_6591916.html
Not sure the FCC knew about that article...but they certainly know about the
Petition for Investigation: http://newnetworks.com/timewarnercomcastfcccomplaint/ since it was lodged on 1/5/15.
I think they won't have much choice because the State of N.Y. was petitioned as well...with what's alleged, I'm surprised a Federal Prosecutor/State Att'y General isn't involved.
But, Wheeler didn't get into enough detail, and he surely didn't talk about 'caps' and other 'creative' ways the industry might strike back...not to mention the legal wrangling and political shifts which might just gut the whole thing.
Still, it's a victory of sorts.
I.D. - We've all been witness as to the "self regulation" abilities of various industries. Sadly, there has to be regulation...take a look at the articles in this reply regarding TWC and its rapaciousness along with the subsidies it receives, and consider our experiences with all the other industries' actions and their results when regulations weren't enforced as they should have been. It's too easy to confuse "over-regugation" and enforcement of existing regulations.
It is true that Title II utilities are heavily regulated, but how heavy the hand is in applying all the regulations depends somewhat on the actions of the industry, the political "tone" and the abilities of the Chairman of the FCC in conveying the proper tone.
Direct operating costs are a small fraction of their budget. It's disgusting how badly TWC screws some of their monopoly markets, but crooked politicians are how they've kept them so it's not like government intervention is a cure for that. Those monopoly markets are also only a few percent of their customers.
They fall short of 10% in net profit margins, after the massive cost of infrastructure maintenance and upgrades take out most of their revenue. Considering the writer is an industry expert with a great deal of knowledge, he was just lying to push his agenda.
A perfect example of the phrase "Figures don't lie, but liars do figure."
In my last post about the change in the definition of broadband I dealt with that.
If corruption is the yardstick, then "free market" [there's a laugh] is no better than government. The problem with local/municipal broadband (as well as rural) had zero to do with D.C. It had everything to do with local politicians and municipal blocking...and the cable companies/telcos and their "campaign contributions".
At least with Federal regulation, the consumer will stand a better chance since the parties are subjected to far more scrutiny at that level than locally.
It bothers me that rates will not be regulated as telephone rates are, because this is inconsistent with Title II and because if it doesn't, there will be more abuse: This isn't a "free market"...at least not in any traditional sense where there's competition between providers, and pressure from consumer groups. Rates are not negotiable with any telco/ISP...don't believe me? Try to negotiate with them.
The FCC has no authority to enact rules that Congress has rejected. The US Court of Appeals already ruled that the FCC has no such power unless Congress explicitely delegates such power to it.
Yeah, that' Federal Regulation shit been working for me. Glad you agree.
And the world's richest person's occupation is .......
Well...if you enjoy getting cheated...keep it the way it is.
You may not enjoy getting cheated, but you sure do like the idea of shafting yourself with exactly the same circumstances as came before. The theoreticians blathering over how it wont really curb investment and slow down our infrastructure growth are apparently all under 20 years old.
I remember the internet back when they were reclassified away from common carrier, how utterly shit service was at the time, and how far behind we fell as a result of it. I was one of the few with a "recent" network, actually had a solid, reliable connection that was relatively up to speed at the time. Now we're supposed to get excited because going back to common carrier is some magical bullshit cure-all for the cable bill?
Fortunately, I find humor in the stupidity of humanity, so at least I'll get something positive in return for the hilariously shit service I'll have ten years from now.
Indeed...It was the reason Mr. Wheeler's company died. The reason AOL succeeded was because networking was allowed. Another of the FCC's mistakes, eh?
You want net neutrality or not? Realistic broadband definitions or not? An end to corrupt local politicians getting rich like feudal lords (including the ISPs) or not?
Yes, but in Oz, because of the lower population density we pay more for our shit-service....
Clearly you missed entirely that service was shit because of common carrier and that we're going back to common carrier....
It's okay, really. You can enjoy Comcast not making money while taking pride in your redefined word as corrupt local politicians get rich like feudal lords by milking their decaying infrastructure dry, and I can just enjoy the irony while the NSA spies on me for joining the NRA.
Edit: Yeah, I'm rural, so I pay lots for my shit service while listening to people whine about Comcast reaming them for their huge internet connections while they spend more than half their revenue on equipment upgrades each year...
Actually, the FCC's error in the Verizon suit was the "Common Carrier" thing and mis-classifying internet service that way - http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-01-14/verizon-wins-net-neutrality-court-ruling-against-fcc
To understand the why of Titile II and why WHeeler is pursuing it, this article might prove helpful - http://www.cnet.com/news/why-fccs-wheeler-is-defying-the-greatest-lobbyists-in-the-world/?tag=nl.e496&s_cid=e496&ttag=e496&ftag=CAD1c318f6
Not sure why you mix the NSA into all this when the argument has nothing to do with it.
Title 2 is Common Carrier. Title 2 is shit. Title 2 has nothing to do with net neutrality, it's purely a push to turn the internet into a pseudo public utility.
Telling a company they can't throttle Netflix is fine, but turning the internet into a public utility is going to backfire. We already have this, it's why land line phone service costs us 30 bucks a month to pass a few cents of data around 30 year old wiring. You want your internet service to be like your phone service apparently, I fail to see the benefit in that.
I mentioned the NSA because you keep talking about corrupt local politicians, and how having corrupt federal politicians run it will be so much better. Even if Wheeler is a saint, and clearly he isn't since he did what his boss in the white house told him to instead of resigning in protest over being pushed into Title 2 last year, he's gone inside two years. The next FCC chairman will be appointed by the next president and could just as easily be Comcast's CEO as some selfless purist interested only in protecting the freedom of the internet. It would hardly be the first time an industry insider used campaign funds to grow their own assets. It's even how Wheeler himself got the job, campaigning for Obama.
Do you really want things controlled by some random fuck political appointees at the federal level that 90% of the population has never even heard of, instead of your local politicians you can get rid of easier? You at least get to vote for the locals, the FCC chairman gets his job by donating to a campaign. It's insanity, and insanity we did before no less.
What I want is an internet open to all without a 2 tier system: Fast lane for those who can pay big bucks and the slow lane for those who can't or don't. This is the same reason I oppose socialized medicine unless it grants equal access and usage to all people without economic discrimination.
We have a multi-tier system for cars, homes and other products and services. I have no problem with the same for internet.
Allowing that to happen to the net is not the same as homes and cars with different prices. Allowing that to happen to the net will create an immutable caste system of businesses which will prevent innovation as well as growth of small business.
I don't agree with much the President has to say, but in this? 100% correct.
Instead of Title II what I would like to see is local loop unbundling of all wired connections to the home - copper telephone wires, coax, and fiber, and then these assets combined into a single nonprofit corporation, where the shareholders were the people connected to the system.
If Comcast, Time Warner, Suddenlink, Cox, (on the tv side) AT&T, Verizon, Frontier, CenturyLink, (on the phone side) and Google all compted with each other, y\I'm sure competitive forces would shake up the American ISP industry.
I agree strongly with making the internet a public utility.
I am so tired of people arguing we need to get the government out of the way.
If the sandbox we all share only had mom and pop main street business entities dwelling along with us individuals - that position would be fine. However, the reality is that the sandbox of life has many giants lumbering about -seeking to implement their own agendas. We are ants compared to them. The government is the only entity that has any hope of advocating for us ants. Please don't cry free market place - when you haven't examined who controls the 'invisible hand' that supposedly guides market activities.
Bottom line, make the internet a public utility and stop the greedy giants from taking government money on one said, and pleading government interference on the other - like when a town (municipality) decides to set up a public web service and the giant uber size corporation sues (or merely threatens to sue - backed by its very deep pockets) - just to eliminate a pocket of 'resistance' to its profits.
I agree there should be no government subsidies given to telecom companies. They are entitled to the same business tax breaks as other entities but keeping more of their own money is not the same as getting a subsidy (taxpayer money). The more government controls something the moew you are going to see graft, in the form of campaign contributions and less legal means, to politicians.
We don't have "net neutrality: now and yet there is no problem going anywahere on the internet. It's telling that giants such as Netflix and Google support the FCC's efforts. Neither wants to pay more for internet traffic. As is typical in the Alice through the Looking Glass world of government, words mean the exact opposite of their clear meaning. The fear by giant corporations is not that they can buy faster bandwidth but that they will be charged in proportion to the bandwidth they use. If the ISPs can't charge more for higher use, who else but the consumer will be charged for that use? Does it make more sense for Netflix to pay for their traffic or you?
Comcast is buying TWC. TWC is swapping St. Louis for DFW with Charter. I have 1 way to get internet and that is satellite. I live in a 10-12K city but the cable co. decided not to run cable down on the streets around me. TV, the same as internet. I can't even get AT&T's crap TV as my town is Verizon. I get 5 1/4 DL speed and 2 1/4 upload. So I'll wait and see what that does for me.
Sounds more like the NBA or NFL, Mike.
It should already be troubling that this 332 book of "rules" cannot be seen by the public, and probably won't be allowed until well after the vote.
Here is President Obama's 332-page plan to regulate the Internet. I wish the public could see what's inside. pic.twitter.com/bwwAsk8ZiB — Ajit Pai (@AjitPaiFCC) February 6, 2015
Here is President Obama's 332-page plan to regulate the Internet. I wish the public could see what's inside. pic.twitter.com/bwwAsk8ZiB
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
