FCC brings down the hammer: Title II proposed for Internet
Linc
OwnerDetroit Icrontian
The FCC will seek to reclassify the Internet as a utility, which essentially maxes out the level of net neutrality protections available AND says wireless counts:
"I propose to fully apply — for the first time ever — those bright-line rules to mobile broadband"
Some backstory: the FCC chairman's recent change of heart.
If this does come to pass (and I think it will), it will be a spectacular conclusion to a story we've been following as a community for nearly a decade. Big props to @Thrax who did a ton of reporting on net neutrality for us over the years.
17
Comments
I cannot even begin to describe how elated I am that Title II provisions may finally be applied to the most important public service in 100 years. It has been a dreadfully long time coming, and this is what America deserves.
I am shocked but overjoyed to see this happening.
This is amazing. I can only imagine thinking of fiber / cable lines being controlled under common use laws...
About effing time.
I'd also like to see strict separation rules applied to ISPs (basically, stating that ISPs cannot have any sort of financial interest in companies that provide content), but that would require actual legislation and is not going to happen in this Congress.... or probably any in the near to mid future.
I know what the rules will do, but can someone explain the effects on net neutrality to me please? I'm a bit confused on if this is good or bad.
Not to shill my own history lesson, but this is a good primer: http://icrontic.com/article/a-net-neutrality-history-lesson-how-us-telecom-became-such-a-trainwreck
Okay, I got the basics (a bit). So here's my next question, if I heard correctly, does this mean that, for example, AT&T cannot "throttle" internet speeds based on payment?
readmyshit
I'll believe it when I see the (soon to be launched) cable ISP lawsuits dismissed or settled and congress is told to let the FCC do its job.
The FCC vote isn't final, so it is important to back the proposal while there is still time.
This is the funny version of what the fuss is about:
Correct. Under the proposed rules by AT&T, Verizon and other major US ISPs, they would be able to charge you for service, then turn around and charge companies to make their website appear faster for you. This is a dishonest double-dipping system, because you already pay the ISP to deliver websites to you as quickly as their network will allow. The companies are paying for Internet service, too. Presumably, these payments pay for all the necessary upgrades to keep the network growing and running at top speed.
ISPs say those payments do not cover their costs, and have tried to claim financial hardship if they are not allowed to double dip. However, Time Warner's financial filings clearly reveal 97% profit on the service you are buying.
Other ISPs have similar financials.
The other side effect if Verizon and AT&T get their way: they could deliberately impede the service of third party companies, like Netflix, in favor if their of their own video services. Don't know about you, but that sounds harmful to free market enterprise.
Okay. That sounds great. But I have one concern: Would this possibly pave the way for the government to be able to control the internet, like they do in China?
It would be more like thinking of internet service as electricity or water. The government would set standards for what should be delivered, but companies still provide it to you.
No. That would take a mountain of additional regulation.
However they also have the authority to seize control of electricity and water in states of emergency, so call me a conspiracy nut, but doesn't this mean that they would have the theoretical kill switch they have been after for a while?
Evidenced by SOPA PIPA ACTA and PRISM. I'm waiting until it's done to pass judgment, but I don't trust it.
They have the same authority to close roads and regulate air traffic. This is the power the people give the government, how governments work in general.
That power is BALANCED by being voted for by the people. If the government shut down the internet, it would cause repercussions for those that did so.
Right now, your ISP has the power to shut you down without repercussions. Just because they don't like you.
The proposal clearly does not provide any of the power you are referring to. Title II is brief and clear, concerning itself only with requiring service providers so classified to interoperate without "any unjust or unreasonable discrimination in charges, practices, classifications, regulations, facilities, or services."
You can be sure net neutrality opponents are going to paint this as a government overreach, even though Wheeler himself provides a great example of how Title II enabled the consumer Internet as we know it today.
KK, in that case
It didn't take long.
I apologize for any lingering sensations of vomit in your mouth you may have at this time.
@Gargoyle I am a conservative myself and I believe that this will allow more freedom instead of less. Making sure that access to the internet is fair among all, for lack of a better term, "class types" will make sure that everyone now has a voice in today's internet-based political environment.
I am also conservative, and as such this people are idiots. All this legislation is doing is saying if you are an ISP PROVIDE GOD DAMN SERVICE. No different than we say to phone companies, water companies, etc today.
I think you guys are confusing actual conservatism with Republican corporate kleptocracy Jeebus pandering conservatism.
I don't subscribe to either political philosophy, but I find the former to be a bit more palatable than the latter. Unfortunately, the latter is what passes for conservatism in the US political debate these days.
I severed all ties to the republicans 2 years ago, I now am in the realm of "Right of Center Conservativeism" possibly Constitutionalism, althought that has it's flaws. Also, MODS ARE ASLEEP, DISCUSS POLITICS!
Its been tactful so far. Keep it that way...
Now this thread has mods. Police state confirmed. Bring on Title II Internets for me plz.
@ardichoke What I meant by conservatism is I believe in limited federal government, but I also believe in making sure everyone has a fair shake. (Now I am expecting food jokes)
I can't imagine a free market conservative looking at the current broadband market and thinking "This market sure is efficient. Lots of competition."
True. But they are not the ones that made the decisions. Municipalities and the Federal gov't did while the service providers were stuffing $100 bills down their pants.
Now THIS is a pretty fair shake. If they added some hot fudge to the top, it would push it over the line from fair to good.
Personally, I think this is a fairer shake