FCC brings down the hammer: Title II proposed for Internet

LincLinc OwnerDetroit Icrontian
edited February 2015 in Internet & Media

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.

LincMiracleManSAnnesGnomeQueenRydergeorgehUPSLynxmaliaGargcolaHero
«13

Comments

  • ThraxThrax 🐌 Austin, TX Icrontian

    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.

    MiracleManSHero
  • MiracleManSMiracleManS Chambersburg, PA Icrontian

    I am shocked but overjoyed to see this happening.

  • RyanFodderRyanFodder Detroit, MI Icrontian

    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.

  • aspieRommelaspieRommel Icrontic politico Indianapolis, IN Icrontian

    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.

  • aspieRommelaspieRommel Icrontic politico Indianapolis, IN Icrontian

    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?

  • mertesnmertesn I am Bobby Miller Yukon, OK Icrontian

    @Thrax said:
    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

    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.

  • LincLinc Owner Detroit Icrontian

    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:

    Hero
  • ThraxThrax 🐌 Austin, TX Icrontian

    @aspieRommel said:
    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?

    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.

  • aspieRommelaspieRommel Icrontic politico Indianapolis, IN Icrontian

    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?

    midga
  • RyanFodderRyanFodder Detroit, MI Icrontian

    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.

    cola
  • ThraxThrax 🐌 Austin, TX Icrontian

    @aspieRommel said:
    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?

    No. That would take a mountain of additional regulation.

    midga
  • Creeperbane2Creeperbane2 Victorian Scoundrel Indianapolis, IN Icrontian

    @CannonFodder said:
    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.

    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.

  • RyanFodderRyanFodder Detroit, MI Icrontian

    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.

    georgehGargcolaBobbyDigiHeroTushonJBoogaloo
  • ThraxThrax 🐌 Austin, TX Icrontian
    edited February 2015

    @Creeperbane2 said:
    Evidenced by SOPA PIPA ACTA and PRISM. I'm waiting until it's done to pass judgment, but I don't trust it.

    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."

  • GargGarg Purveyor of Lincoln Nightmares Icrontian

    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.

    from engadget:
    Wheeler pointed out that the rise of the internet probably would have looked very different if the FCC didn't open up access to networking equipment in the '60s. He also related the tale of his own company, NABU, which provided high-speed cable internet during the '80s, but ultimately failed because it relied on getting access to networks from cable operators. Meanwhile AOL (which owns Engadget) managed to succeed because it was taking advantage of open phone networks -- despite being hundreds of times slower than NABU. "The phone network's openness did not happen by accident, but by FCC rule," he added.

    midga
  • Creeperbane2Creeperbane2 Victorian Scoundrel Indianapolis, IN Icrontian

    @Thrax said:
    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."

    KK, in that case

  • GargGarg Purveyor of Lincoln Nightmares Icrontian

    @Gargoyle said:
    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.

    It didn't take long.

    quoted from The Verge:
    "Despite November’s landslide election results rejecting larger and more intrusive government, President Obama moved even further to the Left and openly demanded that the FCC take the most radical action imaginable," wrote Phil Kerpen of American Commitment, a conservative group with ties to the Koch brothers. "Reducing the Internet to a ‘public utility,’ imposing sweeping new taxes and destroying private investment, competition, and innovation while putting bureaucrats firmly in control."

    I apologize for any lingering sensations of vomit in your mouth you may have at this time.

  • aspieRommelaspieRommel Icrontic politico Indianapolis, IN Icrontian

    @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.

  • Creeperbane2Creeperbane2 Victorian Scoundrel Indianapolis, IN Icrontian

    @aspieRommel said:
    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.

  • ardichokeardichoke Icrontian
    edited February 2015

    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.

  • Creeperbane2Creeperbane2 Victorian Scoundrel Indianapolis, IN Icrontian

    @ardichoke said:
    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 former 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!

    GargUPSLynx
  • RyanFodderRyanFodder Detroit, MI Icrontian

    Its been tactful so far. Keep it that way... ;)

    LincRahnalH102TushonBuddyJCreeperbane2RyderThraxJBoogalooUPSLynx
  • aspieRommelaspieRommel Icrontic politico Indianapolis, IN Icrontian

    @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)

  • georgehgeorgeh Canton, MI Icrontian

    I can't imagine a free market conservative looking at the current broadband market and thinking "This market sure is efficient. Lots of competition."

  • AlexDeGruvenAlexDeGruven Wut? Meechigan Icrontian

    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.

    georgeh
  • 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.

    Creeperbane2
  • AlexDeGruvenAlexDeGruven Wut? Meechigan Icrontian

    Personally, I think this is a fairer shake

    UPSLynxCreeperbane2
Sign In or Register to comment.