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

Now they Ignore It

[Anonymous Coward]

Sadly, they do not care.

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

Spoilers

[GameboyRMH]

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

Re:Spoilers

[Cabriel]

I don't see why this is such a huge deal in the US. Why not both allow so-called "Fast Lanes" and also mandate a high minimum for the "Not-so-fast Lanes" which will prevent ISPs from serving subpar rates to customers?

Re:Spoilers

[Smidge204]

This doesn't address what is the true threat: It's not about ISPs choking bandwidth to individual consumers, it's about ISPs choking bandwidth to their competitors.

For example, Comcast offers, internet, streaming video, cable television and telephone services.

If I, as a third party, want to offer telephone services that use broadband internet (VoIP), Comcast will be able to make my access to their consumers so crap that I can't compete with their telephone service. The only way around that would be to pay them for "fast lane" access which will also ruin my ability to compete as it cuts deeply into my budget.

The end user can have all the bandwidth the infrastructure can provide, and it won't mean a damn thing because my traffic, specifically, will be choked by the monopoly ISP guarding the gates.
=Smidge=

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.

Re:Spoilers

[Charliemopps]

I don't see why this is such a huge deal in the US. Why not both allow so-called "Fast Lanes" and also mandate a high minimum for the "Not-so-fast Lanes" which will prevent ISPs from serving subpar rates to customers?

Because our country was founded to escape the fascist oppression of and English king that used arbitrary rules/laws/policies to oppress us. People at the time were extremely upset that these laws were getting passed and we had no say in what laws were passed. We were taxed, sent to jail, required to serve in the military, yet had no say in English parliament. Thats where the American saying "No taxation without representation" comes from.

Similarly, laws recently in the US, including Net Neutrality, seems to be getting enacted by comity despite vast and overwhelming opposition by the public. Given the way our laws work here... the government does not get into the nitty gritty of how a thing works usually. So, more likely than not, this ruling will be as simple as net neutrality is Ok or its not ok. Much like Gun control... guns are legal here with few limitations. Freedom of speach in this country is so extreme here is shocking to most of the rest of the world. For good or for ill that's how it turns out.

So the problem is, if the feds give them an inch, the ISPs will take a hell of a lot more than a mile. The FCC will find it impossible to enforce any particular form of net neutrality given their current power. They can either green light it as a whole and hope the ISPs play nice (yea right) or just say "NO!" and be done with it once and for all.

Re:Spoilers

[HiThere]

I call it fraud, but the contract says "up to" some speed or other, so technically they're only breaking the contract if they provide you faster service than you paid for.

I still call it fraud. And a contract of adhesion.

Re:Spoilers

[neminem]

If your supermarket doesn't carry the kind of mustard you like, you can find another supermarket. If none of them around you carry the kind of mustard you like, you might pay more in shipping, but you can probably still get it shipped from somewhere else where that mustard is more popular.

If your ISP blows, you can... move to a different city. Maybe. If they aren't the only ISP there, too.

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.

this is where we find out

[Rinikusu]

(store-comments comment /dev/null)

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.

Re:What now?

[Krishnoid]

Get Steve Ballmer hired to the FCC?

Re:What now?

[Andy_R]

You could always try the RICO Act.

Net neutrality is what ought to prevent racketeering in the digital age. In the old days the Mafia turned up on your doorstep and said "nice warehouse you have here, it would be a shame if it 'burned down', give us some money and we can make sure that doesn't happen." Without net neutrality, Comcast can turn up on your doorstep and say "Nice website you've got here, it would be a shame if it 'slowed down', give us some money and we can make sure that doesn't happen."

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.

What now?

[Anonymous Coward]

So, let's say this passes...What do we do then? How can I continue to fight this?
How can I start a campaign to eject Tom Wheeler from his chair if he doesn't listen to the overwhelming response from the public?
`A concerned internet user.

Strange

[Anon-Admin]

It does not seem that hard to me, apply the common carrier requirements to ISP's and be done with it.

No lengthy committee meetings, findings, reports, etc.

If the ISP wishes to be a contract carrier and not a common carrier then so be it, but by turning it down they are legally responsible for all the content including the child porn, the pirated software, etc. Accept common carrier and you can not choose but you get legal protection.
 

The outcome is guaranteed

[irrational_design]

We the Corporations have replaced We the People.

The slippery bandwidth slope

[Cantankerous Cur]

John Oliver made a really good point about Netflix (especially if you look at that nice bandwidth chart with Comcast before and after the deal -- http://knowmore.washingtonpost...). Ending net neutrality will give internet providers the freedom to extort anyone and everyone who needs significant bandwidth. And there's absolutely nothing to stop them.

Now the Monied Powers That Be Decide

[WillAffleckUW]

Now that everyone has commented, the monied Powers That Be will weight it accordingly, and rule in favor of the Biggest Lobbyist donations to the corrupt Congress.

What? You thought you weren't actually Serfs?

Yeah, sure.