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."
http://www.dailydot.com/politi...
Tom Wheeler is actually a human being, not a faceless bureaucratic mouthpiece for the cable industry. Who would have thought it? I like his story about almost being the huge success that made AOL an also-ran in internet history, but for a rule that made the telephone network open, and the cable network closed. That is why so many people experienced the early internet at 1200 baud or 2400 baud, rather than 1.5 megabaud. Wheeler's early failure due to an FCC reg made a lasting impression on him. Now he has a chance to fix the problem that tripped him up. While the devil is always in the details, I like the direction he says he is going in. Kudos.
Join the IParty!
for reference: http://crosscut.com/2014/12/29...
There's only one place in the article that specifically mentions mobile broadband. The rest talks about the internet and broadband in general.
Although it's not completely clear, I'm assuming Title II will apply to both mobile and non-mobile broadband, but he's calling out mobile broadband because the most ignominious examples of abuse (data caps, throttling, prioritization, etc) have been by mobile operators.
Except I noted the no last-mile unbundling bit.
In other words, they still won't require broadband providers to open up the public infrastructure to competing ISPs.
You'll still be stuck using their IPv4 protocol or Ethernet service, whichever they choose... and innovation in network technology from competing providers, or innovating with different networking technologies won't be possible like you can do with an unbundled loop and a competing carrier.
Correct. He's not talking about applying these rules only to Mobile Broadband, he's differentiating this proposal from some of the FCC's earlier proposals, which would have exempted mobile internet, and only applied to landline service.
Our options:
A.) Incompetent government regulation causing some inconveniences and waste.
B.) A corporate boardroom full of sociopaths telling me what I can and can't do with an "unlimited" network connection that I require to do my job.
Option A is the lesser of two evils. Internet service is no longer a "luxury", it's basically required to do business and even attend public school now. It's a utility and needs to be regulated like one to keep those greedy bastards from gouging us, killing innovation and hampering network performance for profit.
As screwed up and brutal as our government is, and as much as I think regime change is necessary..... I trust Verizon and AT&T even less.
If only I had mod points. This is exactly my concern. It's as if they're dangling NN in front of us while slipping the rug out from under our feet.
From what I understand, the main problem is that we need to force the industry, kicking and screaming, to compete by "artificial" means because there is no naturally occuring free market (or anything close to it) in telecommunications. This is why the libertarian view of "if we only did away with franchise agreements granting territorial exclusivity..." wouldn't solve the main problem.
Works beautifully here. The government put in a large fiber network reaching businesses and homes all over. They will run it to your house for a 2 year contract at a low fee ($30 for me. Fee is based on income)
The network is open to any ISP that wants to use it. Actual service is decided by the market- which is by nature of this network, now an actual free market with no bullshit laws and high bar entry costs. there are, as of right now, 12 providers on it. it started with 5. Their prices are low, none have ANY caps or limits, and customer service falls just shy of fellatio. Several provide TV over fiber as well, and I hear that service is also great, with much smaller and cheaper bundle tiers than Comcast has.
Because they have to actually compete with each other.
Note: Comcast was also invited to use it. They refused. They are hurting bad out here now, really only servicing the pockets that fiber has not reached yet. they pour millions every year in to ad campaigns to oppose the annual fiber expansion proposals. They get laughed at a lot.
What magical land is this?
XDInd
Yes.
Don't underestimate how much the public outcry affected this. I am involved in politics, and have had discussions about this on the federal level. One thing I learned is that most leaders in congress only know what the people around them tell them. They don't have time to surf Slashdot and Reddit (and people wonder why I don't want to run for office), and for the most part don't understand technology. They are getting spoon fed industry lines from everyone around them, and rarely hear from ordinary people. So the protests and outcry got their attention, and they started asking questions. Many of them came to a much better understanding of the issue, and that's why you have seen the change.
It is so easy to be cynical these days, and this is probably the exception to the rule. Leaders of both parties are isolated in DC, and often aren't swayed. But they can be, and this is one case where they were.
Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a difficult battle. - Plato
UTOPIA in Utah, US. I have it in Orem. 13 cities considered fiber to the home rollouts. Provo decided to not roll with the group and created iProvo. Greed and corruption screwed it up. Was unprofitable. Provo sold all of it to Google for $1. Google fiber in provo rocks!
The other 12 cities currently are trying to figure out how to get the buildout completed, since many do not yet even have fiber in front of their house. UTOPIA is amazing and I currently pay SUMO Fiber $35/mo for 100Mb up/down. I haven't seen my ping to Google go above 25ms. It is normally rock solid at 13ms with spikes randomly up to 14ms. I am ALWAYS able to pull 93-98% of my advertized service rate. Oh man, it is great!!!