The FCC Net Neutrality Comment Deadline Has Arrived: What Now?

blottsie writes After months of heated debate, viral campaigns, deliberate "slowdowns" and record-breaking public responses, the Federal Communications Commission is finally set to decide how "net neutrality"—the principle that all data must be treated equally by Internet service providers (ISPs)—should look in the U.S., or if it should exist at all. Today, Sept. 15, the FCC officially closes its public comment period on its latest net neutrality proposal. The plan enables ISPs to discriminate against certain types of data, in certain circumstances, by charging extra for broadband “fast lanes” between content providers—like Netflix or YouTube—and users.

Comments

Spoilers

[GameboyRMH]

And now that all our objections have been duly noted, they'll go ahead and end net neutrality anyway.

Re:Spoilers

[Jason Levine]

The problem is, right now, we have the choice of letting the ISPs decide their own Network Neutrality policies or letting the FCC decide it.

If the ISPs decide it, you can be sure that they would enact Fast Lanes and Slow Lanes. Any content that competes with them (e.g. Internet Video Services) would get tossed into the slow lane and would be unusable unless the service paid the ISPs big money for fast lane access. As the ISPs are monopolies/duopolies, customers couldn't switch to another ISP. Requiring people to move to a different part of the country for Internet access isn't reasonable. Especially since there would be no guarantee that the ISP whose area they moved into wouldn't either get bought out or wouldn't go fast lane themselves. Letting the ISPs decide is effectively kissing Network Neutrality goodbye.

If the government decides, there's the chance of corruption (ISPs "lobby" Wheeler to make the "right" decision), but at least the government is somewhat answerable to the people. If a million people wrote to Comcast telling them not to do X and Comcast did X anyway, there would be no consequences. If a million people told the government not to do X and they did it anyway, there's a chance of consequences.

I'll agree that, ideally, it would be best if the government didn't have to get involved. Unfortunately, I don't see any scenario in which "non involvement" doesn't immediately result in Network Neutrality being killed off.

Now nothing

[jbohumil]

Easy. Now that they've given us a chance to "participate" by commenting, that bothersome necessity is taken care of, and the FCC will now ignore the comments and proceed to do whatever they are told to do by their rich friends.

A million for...

[JWW]

Now they notice that its a million comments for Net Neutrality and a few hundred for and then screw us over by:

Giving us a watered down version of Net Neutrality "regulations" that the ISPs and Carriers can drive huge trucks through

or

They just let the mask slip and enable the fast and slow lanes exactly like the ISPs and Carriers want.

This truly will make me sick. I have no hope that the Internet will be regulated as common carrier like it should be. No hope at all.

What now?

[gstoddart]

My guess, the FCC chair will do whatever his former employers tell him to do so that he can guarantee when he's done pretending to be the regulator he can go back to his cushy lobbying job.

Does anybody really believe they're going to do anything not endorsed by the cable, wireless and content cartels?

Having that guy in there is pretty much the definition of regulatory capture.

Bad way to conduct policy

[magarity]

Whether you like or dislike net neutrality, you should NOT like government regulatory agencies setting public policy unilaterally without legislators involved. Name one person at the FCC you can vote out of office at the next election based on your feelings over how they rule on this issue.

Re:Bad way to conduct policy

[gurps_npc]

In general, making positions 'electable' makes things WORSE. Because most people don't care about anything short of President. So they vote the party, not the person, IF they bother to vote at all.

Judges for example. When judges are appointed they tend to have high qualifications - experience in the law, an actual law degree, etc. When you vote for them, you get whatever joe shmoe has put in the most time at the political party doing paperwork.

Voting is great for high end positions, but people just don't get excited about anything less than Supreme Court Judge.

Having the FCC get voted on would make things much much worse, not better.

Re:Now they Ignore It

[Jason Levine]

From: Tom Wheeler
To: All My Friends At Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, etc.
Subject: Network Neutrality

Message:

I thought you guys could use a laugh... or a couple hundred thousand laughs. I've attached a file containing all of the pro-Network Neutrality comments the FCC received. The idiots actually thought we'd take their comments into consideration!

Which reminds me, let me know when you finish touching up that FCC Network Neutrality Policy so we can publicly release it.

Your humble servant,

Thomas Wheeler