Slashdot Mirror
Confirmed: FCC Will Try To Regulate Internet Under Title II
An anonymous reader writes: FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler has published an op-ed explaining how and why the FCC will "use its Title II authority to implement and enforce open internet protections." He says, "These enforceable, bright-line rules will ban paid prioritization, and the blocking and throttling of lawful content and services. I propose to fully apply—for the first time ever—those bright-line rules to mobile broadband. 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. ... To preserve incentives for broadband operators to invest in their networks, my proposal will modernize Title II, tailoring it for the 21st century, in order to provide returns necessary to construct competitive networks. For example, there will be no rate regulation, no tariffs, no last-mile unbundling. Over the last 21 years, the wireless industry has invested almost $300 billion under similar rules, proving that modernized Title II regulation can encourage investment and competition."
It could have been easy to get along and keep doing what they were doing, but no, Verizon has to go and sue in court. They had to challenge the weaker rules, force Wheeler's hand and cause this to happen.
It's their own fault here.
They brought it on themselves in a very real, legally binding way.
I couldn't be gloating any harder than I am right now.
I do worry about what the whole "lawful content" thing is about and will really mean down the road.
I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
As a Libertarian fucktard - I support net neutrality.
Would I have preferred corporate America came to that decision on their own? Sure! And I'll take a unicorn, as long as you have enough for everyone.
Keep in mind, before you go whining about those more fiscally responsible than yourself, that that the very abuses that net neutrality address exist because of government interference - Giving the telecoms local monopoly powers, limited right of eminent domain (an outright abomination in any context), and in many states, flatly banning public competition even in towns (like my own) that won't see cable or DSL until the next infernal ice age because the telecoms have zero interest in serving the "last mile". Not to mention that whole "incorporation" bullshit in the first place.
Rant on, though! Never let facts stand in the way of demonizing your political enemies.
While it is a nice thing to allow all the startups which may challenge Netflix, etc to have a level playing field, I am puzzled as to how this is going to help the consumer.
I read "no last-mile unbundling" as a continuation of the virtual monopolies which exist today. Without competition, I am stuck with my current ISP as it has a geographic monopoly for all broadband.
Lost in space at an early age. Survived the vacuum. Now rebuilding castle in air.
No last mile unbundling! That's the core issue. That's what causes this nonsense is no real competition in the marketplace! This means you still have to deal with shitty companies like Comcast and Verizon because in many cases you have no other choice. It's a broken market. They should have forced last mile competition that would not only solve the net neutrality issue it would have lowered cost and increased speed and access.
I feel like he's really saying well look ISPs looks like our swindle is not going to fly with the icky proles but at least I will protect your duopolies so be thankful for that.
Yeah, that's very much in line with what I'm pointing out.
I don't have a problem with a private contractor being used to actually build and maintain the road. I would be very uneasy allowing the private company to then "own" vital sections of road and charging whatever tolls they like. It would be so much worse if they could block some vehicles, charge different tolls for different vehicles, and set different speed limits for different vehicles, without even needing to provide a reason or rationale.
So imagine that I own a company called "Road America Inc." and we own the roads going in and out of your town. Imagine I'm allowed to say, "Tolls for Ford cars are $1, and Ford cars can go 70 MPH. Tolls for Dodge are $20, and Dodge cars have a speed limit of 35 MPH." You see, I'm not owned by Ford, but I've made a deal with Ford where I get a payoff to promote their brand.
I do, however, own some of the grocery stores in your town, and I'm charging very high tolls on any vehicles that carry groceries. Somehow, all of my grocery stores have cheaper goods. Maybe it's because I use the tolls on groceries to fund those grocery stores. I've outright blocked any incoming shipments of electronics, so my electronics stores are doing very well.
Now does that seem fair?
If it is public infrastructure the existing broadband companies won't have any control over it. Companies cannot open up a public resource.
The telephone network copper lines are considered public infrastructure, because the public helped pay for it both in the form of subsidies, and in the form of subscription fees generated through selling a service as a government-sponsored monopoly.
Fiber.... not so much. Although, the government did pay big telcos in the form of huge grants to build out fiber, they never did. They pocketed the money, essentially. Then went and built out new fiber-based networks, and those are not being regulated.
So the telcos stole an unfairly generous deal, and all the fiber laid by the incumbents really is and ought to be considered public infrastructure.
"People are getting confused because it appears to be a win for net neutrality on the surface. Really now, do you think a former telecoms lobbyist would put that on the table if service providers didn't have something to gain from it?"
I'm pretty sure, unless this is some ultra-elaborate ruse, that the major Telecoms are not going to waste money trying to fight this in the courts if they ultimately ended up benefiting from it. One of the things the telecoms hated about Title II regulations when it came to the telephone system is that they were REQUIRED to provide telephone service equally without cherry-picking the high profit areas of the nation.
I promise you they do not want to be forced to deliver high speed broadband to these same rural areas because it will absolutely kill their profits.
The broadband industry has been strongly opposed to using Title II, arguing it would saddle companies with outdated regulations and depress investment in upgrading their networks.
The irony here is that it was precisely the lack of Title II regulation which has allowed US cable companies (and mobile broadband) to pocket all that cash, rather than invest in better infrastructure to the extent the rest of the Western world has.
The result has been slower internet, for more money, than elsewhere.
No wonder they oppose it. It would mean much of their free lunch is over.
The only thing I care about is unbundling the last mile. Once that is done most of the other problems resolve themselves.
Once you unbundle the last mile ISPs can get access to customers and competition happens.
Do you remember that time in the early 2000s when people had a choice of ISPs? That was because of unbundling. Too bad the FCC lost their court case or we'd still have unbundled services today.
I really shouldn't have used someone else's email address for this account.