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."

Comments

Well damn

[magsol]

Where's the "suddenoutbreakofcommonsense" tag? Actually useful for once!

Re:Well damn

[Strangely Familiar]

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.

Re:Well damn

[Drethon]

Does this actually prove that enough people complaining about injustice does in fact produce results with our government?

Re:Well damn

[Faw]

I actually thought he was a dingo.

Re:Well damn

[Austerity Empowers]

I wouldn't get too excited. He's basically doing something that is going to involve years of fighting, during which nothing is going to happen. Politically it looks better for Obama, economically the telecoms don't want to upgrade or change things anyway, and maybe in a few years we forget that we want faster broadband (right).

Re:Well damn

[Ralph Wiggam]

No, because this doesn't do what you think it does. It's about wireless only,

Which bullshit site is telling you this? Because it's not true. This covers both mobile and fixed cable internet service. Comcast is fighting against it tooth and nail.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2015/02/04/383520623/after-months-of-debate-fcc-poised-to-unveil-internet-rules

Re:Well damn

[fustakrakich]

Do you remember how successful AM stereo is because we let 'the market' decide?

Re:Well damn

[geminidomino]

It's about wireless only

it gets the government ever more involved in your life, and in managing how you can or must communicate

On what do you base either of those assertions?

Re:Well damn

[jordanjay29]

Huh? Are you drinking your own kool-aid? How does ensuring that corporations don't prioritize Internet traffic (and unfairly disenfranchise startups and direct competitors) get the government more involved in your life? The FCC isn't regulating the content of the Internet, just how it's delivered.

Re:Well damn

[jordanjay29]

Feel free to forget. The North Remembers!

Re:Well damn

[Strangely Familiar]

You are just wrong about this. It is about making all broadband carriers "common carriers" under Title II so that they must open their networks to competitors, and not favor their own services. So, Comcast can't throttle down packets from vonage, while passing their own voip signals just fine, or throttling down Netflix while providing their own video on demand service at a blazing speed. It pertains to mobile broadband, but it is not about wireless only. Where did you get that idea? If you read the article, you would see that the government is involved in your life anyway, like it or not. You should study game theory. It might clue you in why sometimes broadly applicable rules (aka laws) are necessary. Or do you think everyone would function perfectly fine without these crazy things called "laws"?

Re:Well damn

[mysidia]

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.

Re:Well damn

[WheezyJoe]

it gets the government ever more involved in your life, and in managing how you can or must communicate

FUD. Either our government does the managing, or the corporations do. The government, at least, is accountable to the ballot box and the press. Comcast and their ilk are not. And don't say anything about free enterprise and competition. Competition is for small fry and suckers. Once you reach the size of Comcast, it benefits shareholders more to merge and acquire than to compete. Once monopoly status is achieved, hell with consumers and employees alike.

Markets without regulation are like sports without referees... there's nothing to prevent a nice pick-up game from turning into an all-out brawl, because who's to say it wasn't your fault for putting your face in the path of my elbow? Without rules and enforcement, you're a fool if you DON'T cheat like hell, because there's no downside and if you don't the other guy will.

Re:Well damn

[lgw]

The FCC isn't regulating the content of the Internet

No, that's step 2. There's always a step 1 with emotional appeal to create the regulatory power, so that that power can then be used for steps 2-N without further involvement from anyone elected.

Call me cynical, but we've seen this pattern so often with other country's mandated-at-the-ISP internet filers "for the children", followed after a while by "oops, how did all the political sites opposing the party in power end up in the porn filter, total mystery really". Over and over, country by country.

Before Snowden, I too used to laugh at the tinfoil hat brigade when it came to the internet. But that was the Before Time.

Re:Well damn

[Obfuscant]

In other words, they still won't require broadband providers to open up the public infrastructure to competing ISPs.

If it is public infrastructure the existing broadband companies won't have any control over it. Companies cannot open up a public resource.

or innovating with different networking technologies won't be possible like you can do with an unbundled loop and a competing carrier.

There is still nothing stopping a competing carrier from bringing you your token ring or whatever technology you want to compete with Ethernet and IPv4.

I was most interested in the statement that there would be no rate regulation. Deregulating the cable industry rates worked out SO well for the consumer, let's make sure everyone is deregulated.

Re:Well damn

[nobuddy]

How can you have existed and be on the net and not have heard of the throttling and net neutrality issues? You hide under some mighty deep rocks.

Re:Well damn

[diamondmagic]

What's the worst that happens when you say "No" to Comcast? What, they change your name to "Asshole McDouchebag"? Please.

What's the worst that happens when you say "No" to the government? Oh yeah, that's right, they kick in your door, armed to the teeth.

Re:Well damn

[OhPlz]

The summary mentions wireless a couple of times but it doesn't explicitly mention wired connections. That's probably what is meant by "broadband", but that's a somewhat non-specific term. You actually have to read the article.. but we all know that no one here does that.

Re:Well damn

[lgw]

I just wish I shared your optimism. But the FCC is firmly in the content-regulation business for other media, and the people orchestrated **PA will have a new place to apply their skills at bribery and blackmail.

Re:Well damn

[Talderas]

They're not putting in rate regulation or doing any last-mile unbundling so they don't have to open their networks to competitors. That's a fun combo for insanity. Comcast can still throttle Netflix while having their competing service at lightning speed by just simply allowing the connection through which 95+% of Netflix traffic passes get congested. A more nuanced version of rules would need to be seen but I see very little positive changes in the proposal and more that entrenches the status quo.

Re:Well damn

[dj245]

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.

Giving the man Kudos on Slashdot is certainly not a bad thing, but if you want to encourage this kind of reasonable pro-consumer behavior, you need to write your comments to people that matter. I sent an email to Chairman Wheeler's account (tom.wheeler@fcc.gov) thanking him for his courage with my senate and house representatives on cc.

Maybe (probably) my email will come to nothing. But remember that all sorts of companies will be trying to defeat and bury his proposed regulations. Someone needs to make arguments contrary to the lobbyists, loudly and often.

Re:Well damn

[Talderas]

There has been throttling to individual users that are high bandwidth users but that's about the extent of throttling. Everything else I've heard that has been blamed on throttling has turned out to be congested routes, something which the FCC statement does not address.

Re:Well damn

[xaotikdesigns]

Why not both?

Re:Well damn

[dj245]

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.

Small steps. Writing letters to the FCC and your congressional representatives in support of these proposed regulations is the best way to encourage more pro-consumer internet legislation in the future. Internet openness isn't a big issue in American politics. That doesn't mean we can't make it one, but it takes time. In the last 10 years we have witnessed gay rights and marijuana decriminalization make HUGE advancements. They used to be fringe issues too, but now they are two of the hottest topics in politics. It wasn't a sprint, but a long marathon.

Re:Well damn

[mysidia]

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.

Re:Well damn

[BronsCon]

Why not Zoidberg?

Re:Well damn

[Strangely Familiar]

I love what you have done with your homepage. Did you tile that whole backround yourself? Very shrub-like. It must have been a lot of work. You can't even see any grout lines!

Re:Well damn

[Strangely Familiar]

Ignorance seems to spring from an eternal well. I believe there must be some force operating that removes knowledgeable people, and replaces them with ignorant ones!

Re: Well damn

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is you aren't cynical enough. Every evil you attribute government doing?

Comcast would do the same. Without hesitation or qualm.

Re:Well damn

[citizenr]

nowhere, because he specifically EXCLUDED unbundling last mile

Re:Well damn

[blackomegax]

Did the government ever try to censor POTS? What precedent is there they'd fail to apply that lack of censorship going forward?

Re:Well damn

[TheSync]

How does ensuring that corporations don't prioritize Internet traffic (and unfairly disenfranchise startups and direct competitors) get the government more involved in your life?

Because there is no way to prove traffic prioritization and this will simply benefit the incumbent providers who have better government connections, while providing zero consumer benefit. Competition will be hampered, not improved.

Re:Well damn

[jordanjay29]

Yes, public media. Public airwaves for radio and TV. But that's physical (geographically limited) space that the US agencies can control.

The FCC has no legal authority over Internet content. They'd be laughed at if they tried. Seriously, look at other nations that have attempted to censor content and see how successful they've been. The only ones that are truly successful are Iran and North Korea, but that's due to how their Internet is set up. They're basically on one big LAN, so outside access can be easily filtered. Think something like that would ever work in the US, where we've got multiple access points outside the country?

Re:Well damn

[jordanjay29]

It seemed to be pretty easy to figure it out with the Netflix debacle. Netflix speed and bandwidth on Verizon and Comcast were high. Then they weren't. Then Netflix paid Comcast and they were high again. Then Netflix paid Verizon, and after a bit, they were high again.

Re:Well damn

[WaffleMonster]

It turns out Adam Smith invented this thing called a utility to solve the problem of monopoly pricing power when he invented capitalism. This is literally a common sense move by regulators. The only issues are whether loop holes get snuck in and whether it survives the flood of court challenges and lobbying to congress to kill it.

Major difference there are no practical physical barriers to competition in the ISP space as exists with other utilities. There is no practical technical reason there cannot exist a diverse and competitive ISP market and so it is invalid to use "utility" banner as an excuse for government to manage monopolies when robust competition always does a better job.

If anything what government needs to do is stop getting in the way of decoupling ISP from the last mile and provide framework for incentives / subsidies to make it happen. Breaking massive ISPs up along the way would be swell.

The role of government should be to accelerate restoration of ISP industry to a functioning competitive market rather than acting to police monopolies who will enviably capture the regulators.

Re:Well damn

[lgw]

The FCC could easily regulate all US companies/orgs in this regard, which would accomplish a lot (not so much for, say, porn blocking, but for suppressing political speech it would work well, since all politics is local). Just doing the same trick that other nations do with screwing with DNS for the Pirate Bay? I could totally see that, given some time for the bad guys to work.

Re:Well damn

[BitZtream]

It doesn't apply. If you pay closer attention to what he said, he's going to let them get by with so many things that this is effectively toothless.

Breaking bundling and separating content provider from data provider are a must if you actually want fair play.

All that'll happen now is that Comcast will manage their network equally. Low rates outside their network so Netflix sucks, but their cable service on the internal network will function most of the time. And of course you'll have to buy that and phone service as well.

There really is no good in these statements, it's just lip service to shut the public up.

Re:Well damn

[blue9steel]

Major difference there are no practical physical barriers to competition in the ISP space as exists with other utilities.

Really? So you have a choice of 30 competing ISPs in your area then? No?

Re:Well damn

[amRadioHed]

Except there was no emotional appeal to create this regulatory power. This was done only after years consumers demanding it.

Re:Well damn

[605dave]

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.

Re:Well damn

[ewieling]

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.

Re:Well damn

[Specter]

Had anyone been interested in solving the problem you describe it could have been done very easily: it's flat out fraud to sell me access to the entire Internet and then go behind my back to the sites I want to visit and demand a ransom for my traffic. If the ISPs were legally liable for that kind of bait-and-switch then the problem would quickly sort itself out.

Instead you've nearly guaranteed that you're going to get traffic prioritized in ways you don't like. The only difference is that now you have absolutely no recourse as the traffic shaping you fear will have been blessed by your well greased and totally captured government regulators. You know, for the children or the terrorists or something.

Re:Well damn

[sumdumass]

It won't last. In 98 or so, the FCC submited one of its bianual reports to congress that had a detailed analisys of why the internet is not a title 2 entity and squarly falls within the intended meaning of information services. Congress has not changed any laws since 96 concerning this so the first court challenge that brings it up will likely end it.

I'm posting from phone so cannot post a link but you can google FCC report to congress internet not covered and should be able to find it. I belive it was the second week of april 1998. Anyways, it actually names members of congress, their communications on the floor and to the FCC as well as other things to get to their conclusion.

Re:Well damn

[sumdumass]

Yes, they did censor POTS. Wire fraud is a special law specifically to address POTS. There are similar for gambling and anything that may be illegal in any juridiction it gets terminated in. Also, threatening or harrasing phone calls and a do npt call list.

Re:Well damn

[BrennanPratt]

Little confused why he told that anecdote while unvieling regulations that won't unbundle last mile. Is that a threat of some kind?

Re:Well damn

[WheezyJoe]

Major difference there are no practical physical barriers to competition in the ISP space as exists with other utilities.

How?

If you are talking about wireline broadband, the physical barriers are exactly the same as exists with other utilities: utility poles, underground conduits, and all the rights-of-way necessary to get your wire through.

Sure, theoretically, another electric, gas, water, sewage, or cable company can step in to your town and lay all their own new pipes and wires. But the city is not going to let them clog the streets with all new utility poles or new underground conduits; you gotta use the ones already there. And someone, probably your competition, is already leasing them, or owns them outright.

Unless you're google, or the city itself, that's enough barrier to keep all new competition out.

But perhaps you are considering wireless as being free from physical barriers to competition. Not so. Spectrum is a scarce resource; you have to buy, at auction to the highest bidder, the right to use it, which excludes anyone else from using it. And wireless is no replacement for wireline in performance or reliablility.

So much for robust competition. I say again, competition is for small fry and suckers. Once a company has reached a critical mass (e.g., Comcast-size), it becomes more cost-effective to simply crush competition or buy them out. Why compete, risk revenue on innovation that might fail, when you don't have to?

Re:Well damn

[WaffleMonster]

Really? So you have a choice of 30 competing ISPs in your area then? No?

My point not evident in a single sentence quoted out of context is you *should* have a choice. It wasn't uncommon to see many local competing ISPs in the early dial-up days of the network where there existed effective decoupling of Internet from last mile. It can be done you just need to decouple the physical infrastructure from the service provider.

Re:Well damn

[WaffleMonster]

How?

If you are talking about wireline broadband, the physical barriers are exactly the same as exists with other utilities: utility poles, underground conduits, and all the rights-of-way necessary to get your wire through.

What needs to and I believe inevitably will happen physical infrastructure needs to be effectively managed as a utility separate from the provision of services over that infrastructure where there can be local competition on FRAND basis to "light up" the last mile with services. In *some* ways similar to operation of CLECs or ISPs delivering DSL service thru Telco ATM cloud.

In summary decouple the physical last-mile infrastructure from service delivered over that infrastructure.

But perhaps you are considering wireless as being free from physical barriers to competition. Not so. Spectrum is a scarce resource; you have to buy, at auction to the highest bidder, the right to use it, which excludes anyone else from using it. And wireless is no replacement for wireline in performance or reliablility.

I currently agree wireless can't and probably will never be able to compete with wired service. I will just stipulate there is some crazy shit coming down the pipe lots of R&D in wireless space that will improve density without increasing spectrum.

So much for robust competition. I say again, competition is for small fry and suckers. Once a company has reached a critical mass (e.g., Comcast-size), it becomes more cost-effective to simply crush competition or buy them out. Why compete, risk revenue on innovation that might fail, when you don't have to?

Given Comcast's ever increasing rates providing reasonable barriers to entry for new ISPs good luck maintaining that strategy over the long haul.

Re:Well damn

[Drethon]

Thanks for the post, it is good to hear what is actually going on rather than going off the assumptions we generally make.

Re:Well damn

[electrosoccertux]

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)

that's actually a good point I hadn't considered that makes me discredit them less, which helps me think more positively about life and the future in general.

Re:Well damn

[605dave]

Happy to help...

Re:Well damn

[david_thornley]

The laws may not have changed, but the Internet has. That may change the application of the law.

Re:Well damn

[david_thornley]

I don't think you're addressing the proposal. You're addressing the fact that ISPs and last-mile delivery are pretty much the same thing nowadays. That's not what the FCC is looking at.

Re:Well damn

[macpacheco]

Gay rights and drugs deregulation are cultural issues. I would not put those in the same pot as economical issues.
I hope you're right thought, but I wouldn't bet on it.
Realize deep red states are also those with the lowest education and lowest internet penetration levels. It's what corporations want for customers, dumb, uninformed people they can lie to easily.

Re:Well damn

[micahraleigh]

Ah, I forgot slashdot was only for people to promote downloading GoT.

Re:Well damn

[electrosoccertux]

I'd like to sign up for your newsletter

Re:Well damn

[sumdumass]

No, it will not change the application of the law. Sorry for such a late response. Here is the doc I was referencing (PDF warning)

They specifically state things like

39. In addressing the difficult interpretation issues posed by the conflicting positions, we start by observing that the 1996 Act effected landmark changes in a variety of areas of communications policy. We recognize that the interpretation presented by Senator Stevens would serve the goal of eliminating distinctions that result in different regulatory
treatment for firms that arguably provide similar functionalities based on whether firms provide "telecommunications" or "information services." We find, however, that in defining "telecommunications" and "information services," Congress built upon the MFJ and the Commission's prior deregulatory actions in Computer II. After careful consideration of the
statutory language and its legislative history, we affirm our prior findings that the categories of "telecommunications service" and "information service" in the 1996 Act are mutually exclusive. 77 Under this interpretation, an entity offering a simple, transparent transmission path, without the capability of providing enhanced functionality, offers âoetelecommunications.â By contrast, when an entity offers transmission incorporating the
âoecapability for generating, acquiring, storing, transforming, processing, retrieving, utilizing, or making available information,â it does not offer telecommunications. Rather,
it offers an "information service" even though it uses telecommunications to do so. We believe that this reading of the statute is most consistent with the 1996 Act's text, its legislative history, and its procompetitive, deregulatory goals.

And

45. In addition, in considering the statutory history of the 1996 Act, we note that at the time the statute was enacted, the Computer II framework had been in place for
sixteen years. Under that framework, a broad variety of enhanced services were free from regulatory oversight, and enhanced services saw exponential growth. 95 Accordingly,
a decision by Congress to overturn Computer II, and subject those services to regulatory constraints by creating an expanded "telecommunications service" category incorporating
enhanced services, would have effected a major change in the regulatory treatment of those services. While we would have implemented such a major change if Congress had required
it, our review leads us to conclude that the legislative history does not demonstrate an intent by Congress to do so. 96 As
a result, looking at the statute and the legislative history as a
whole, we conclude that Congress intended the 1996 Act to maintain the Computer II framework.

IT gives a pretty competent and detailed analysis of why congress never intended the internet to be regulated as a common carrier. The law would need to be changed in order to change the status and have it survive a court ruling.

They brought it on themselves

[H3lldr0p]

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.

Re:They brought it on themselves

[x0ra]

Carriers didn't create any local cable monopolies. Municipalities did. You want cheap and ultra fast internet access ? Give out license to use utility poles for free.

Re:They brought it on themselves

[OzPeter]

Tom "Dingo" Wheeler used to work for the cable companies.

I know the cable companies were bad, but why pick on a poor guy just because he wants to eat a baby every now and again?

Re:They brought it on themselves

[x0ra]

for reference: http://crosscut.com/2014/12/29...

Re:They brought it on themselves

[Richard_at_work]

It remains to be seen whether this is legally binding or not - just declaring an existing, established market to suddenly, over night be regulated under a title which has existed alongside that market for decades? That's ripe for a legal battle if I have ever seen one.

Re:They brought it on themselves

[sandytaru]

I believe it was the FCC that granted them exemptions in the first place, so the FCC has the rights to take them away.

Re:They brought it on themselves

[bhcompy]

This isn't going to stop local cable monopolies, either. I have access to one gas utility, one electric utility, and one water utility. Where is my competition? The only place I actually have choices is internet/tv: cable or fiber or DSL(where I have dozens of options from DSL resellers).

Re:They brought it on themselves

[Holi]

Seeing as it was the FCC who originally classified them as Enhanced Service Providers, (oh god I'm having flash backs to when 1/2 the people on this site thought ISP's were common carriers) I fail to see why it is now illegal for them to reclassify them.

Re:They brought it on themselves

[Richard_at_work]

I'm afraid not even the FCC is god - this is going to court, mark my words. Unilaterally changing the rules of a multi billion dollar market? Yeah, not without a decade of fighting.

Re:They brought it on themselves

[spire3661]

What we need to do now is shame the shit out of ISPs to drop their lawsuits and accept Title II. Paint their shareholders as greedy fucks hampering human progress. .

Re:They brought it on themselves

[jordanjay29]

We already know it's going to court. Verizon and AT&T have been threatening it for months. AT&T just published its future lawsuit against the rules. But the courts ruled initially in favor of Verizon's lawsuit from 2010 that the FCC couldn't regulate carriers like Title II without using Title II. Now you expect the courts to say that the FCC can't use Title II? That's hardly going to be any semblance of legal interpretation of the existing telecom laws.

Re:They brought it on themselves

[fustakrakich]

That is why we are supposed to obligate the municipality to step in and provide the infrastructure and let the carriers compete

Re:They brought it on themselves

[fustakrakich]

Where is my competition?

Use the voting booth. Work the system

Re:They brought it on themselves

[JWW]

Well judging by the Aereo decision where they were just like a cable company in front of one court and not at all like a cable company in front of another court, I'm not counting on the courts being logically consistent.

Re:They brought it on themselves

[Muad'Dave]

I'm not sure where you live, but only the DISTRIBUTION of power in my area is a monopoly. I can buy power from any number of producers, but it's all sent to me over Dominion Power's wires. It's clearly separated on my power bill.

Re:They brought it on themselves

[killfixx]

My question is, was this a strategic move by Comcast/Verizon, et al?

They pay people enormous sums of money to run scenarios like this and forecast business decisions.

Would really suck if we all somehow played the patsy.

Re:They brought it on themselves

[jacks smirking reven]

Agreed it likely varies by state and city, but at the end of the day your municipality had to grant some form of monopoly to someone for utility delivery. Where i am (Central FL) if you live in one part of the city you have OUC and in the other parts you have Duke and that's that for power. The system you describe is hopefully part of what we'll see in internet delivery. Comcast could in theory be forced to wholesale their cable lines for other ISP's to compete with service over.

Re:They brought it on themselves

[OhPlz]

Congrats, you have just defined government.

Re:They brought it on themselves

[nobuddy]

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.

Re:They brought it on themselves

[Immerman]

Well, I'm sure they'll fight a little - I mean earn an honest profit when you can buy a dishonest politician instead.

Really though, I imagine that they're actually fairly okay with this - the really big problem is when you get regulated while the competition does not - in this case though it sounds like a move to expand regulation to cover everyone in the ISP business, wired and mobile alike, while also loosening some of the existing regulations. Maybe not a win for the cable companies, but with public opinion turning against them and getting loud enough to influence politics it may be the best they can realistically hope for.

Re:They brought it on themselves

[xaotikdesigns]

What magical land is this?

Re:They brought it on themselves

[Talderas]

Wheeler's statement contains very few things to be positive about. They're not going to do last-mile unbundling which means the monopolies are secured. There won't be any rate regulation so without the competition there's nothing to stop them from raising rates without improving service. End user throttling has been the majority of throttling issues while the big published ones alleged to be throttling are actually congested routes so this statement doesn't address that. I just don't see very much that's positive.

Re:They brought it on themselves

[xaotikdesigns]

And they care because? Want to really hurt them, cancel your subscription.

Re:They brought it on themselves

[fustakrakich]

...customer service falls just shy of fellatio.

Then the city should step in there also. We want full service

Re:They brought it on themselves

[fustakrakich]

Bullshit. You vote for people that will disband them first. The choice is yours, take it or leave it. You either follow through, or make a complete mockery of your own complaints.

Re:They brought it on themselves

[bhcompy]

Rates are more or less unregulated. An individual under LA DWP pays less than an individual under SCE. SDGE has the highest rates in the nation. If I lived across the street in the next city, my rates would be much less(SCE rates rather than SDGE rates).

Re:They brought it on themselves

[blue9steel]

Sounds like a great initiative petition.

Re:They brought it on themselves

[Anonymous Coward]

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!!!

Re:They brought it on themselves

[nobuddy]

Utopia in Salt Lake City area.

Re:They brought it on themselves

[butlerm]

Under any reasonable interpretation of the law, Internet access providers always have been common carriers. The FCC, in a classic example of regulatory capture, simply decided to interpret the law in a relatively perverse manner, by pretending that broadband Internet access providers were "information services" rather than "telecommunications services", which is flat out ridiculous, and the Supreme Court decided to defer to them.

This is the legal definition of telecommunications for example:

The term "telecommunications" means the transmission, between or among points specified by the user, of information of the user's choosing, without change in the form or content of the information as sent and received. (47 USC 153)

Sound familiar? Sounds just like Internet access. How about this one:

The term "telecommunications service" means the offering of telecommunications for a fee directly to the public, or to such classes of users as to be effectively available directly to the public, regardless of the facilities used.

Justice Scalia pointed this out several years ago, but he was in the minority on this one. The justices in the majority said, well it may not make any sense, but we will let the FCC decide. Now rationality has returned to the FCC and they are revisiting the question.

Re:They brought it on themselves

[hexadecimate]

>Then the city should step in there also. We want full service

If you think fellatio is "full service", you probably have Comcast as your ISP.

It gets better.(tm)

Re:They brought it on themselves

[Dr.Boje]

I guess they didn't want to go the the last mile either.

Re:They brought it on themselves

[Specter]

AT&T also played a role with their brain dead CEO stomping around huffing and puffing in outrage that people would dare to use the bandwidth he sold them.

Re:They brought it on themselves

[Bengie]

Verizon shareholders told Verizon's CEO to shut up because he's making the company look bad. Yet he kept on opening his mouth.

Re:They brought it on themselves

[q4Fry]

The term "telecommunications" means the transmission, between or among points specified by the user, of information of the user's choosing, without change in the form or content of the information as sent and received. (47 USC 153)

And the telcos reply with "But we do change the form, content and/or 'points specified by the user' of the information. How else could we inject tracking http headers and ads, and clone the information to Room 641a?"

Clearly they are not a telecommunication service.

Re:They brought it on themselves

[jwhitener]

Probably Utah - http://www.utopianet.org/about-utopia/

thank the gods of the intertubes

[Anonymous Coward]

srsly

Here Comes SOPA

[Anonymous Coward]

> my proposal includes a general conduct rule that can be used to stop new and novel threats to the internet

Confirmed for SOPA 7.0.

AOL?

[Drethon]

I'm not sure I'd be bragging about the FCC making AOL possible. Just saying...

Re:AOL?

[michaelwigle]

AOL may have been awful but the side effect of having so many households suddenly all start driving up demand for Internet content and features certainly didn't hurt the early growth of the Internet as we know it.

AT&T, Verizon reportedly ready to sue FCC over

[JoeyRox]

http://www.dailydot.com/politi...

Lawful Content

[hondo77]

I do worry about what the whole "lawful content" thing is about and will really mean down the road.

Re:Lawful Content

[msobkow]

It obviously means that they're still allowed to block illegal sites, which won't be getting a "free pass" from the "any service" aspects of the legislation.

Re:Lawful Content

[bleh-of-the-huns]

Well, that can be a little ambiguous. For example, The Pirate Bay (yes we all know 99% is illegal content), it provides a service, that has legal uses, albeit very very small. So blocking a legal service with illegal content might not fly. The fact that TPB is not in the US might make things difficult, since as long as the service complies with requests to remove illegal content (even if they are slow about it), it is still technically complying with requirements of a legal service, and therefore should not be blocked.

I guess we will see.

Re:Lawful Content

[nine-times]

I don't think that's a concern for this discussion. They're not making it any easier or more allowed for ISPs to mess with illegal content. The ISPs are already allowed to block illegal content, and will always be allowed to do that. The news here is that they aren't allowed to block or throttle anything else.

So yes, I would be concerned if they were talking about increasing the ability of ISPs to monitor and restrict questionable content, or if they were talking about expanding the definition of "unlawful content" to include other things. However, that doesn't seem to be relevant here. They're basically saying, "You're not allowed to throttle or block anything anymore. The only exception is if it's child pornography or something equally illegal, in which case, yes, we'll still let you block that."

Re:Lawful Content

[Danathar]

Who determines what IS and IS NOT lawful content?

Re:Lawful Content

[michaelwigle]

If you are in the U.S. then that would be Congress...

Re:Lawful Content

[thaylin]

More likely the SCOTUS. Congress can make a law, but the SCOTUS will determine if it is valid and if the content is protected or not.

Re:Lawful Content

[michaelwigle]

Valid point. The line between freedom of expression and hate/porn/libel/threat/terrorism does tend to keep getting shifted around in the courts. So I guess that does put the final decision more in SCOTUS than congress at the end of the day (unless congress decides to make a law declaring everything legal).

All internet providers, or just mobile?

[bulled]

I propose to fully apply—for the first time ever—those bright-line rules to mobile broadband.

Anyone worried that this is already starting to water down?

Re:All internet providers, or just mobile?

[drgould]

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.

Re:All internet providers, or just mobile?

[Dutch Gun]

Question: Will Title II prevent mobile companies from charging different rates for different types of data? For instance, because I choose the lowest level, bare bones plan, Verizon currently charges me $0.20, or over $1300 per MB, which is pretty fucking ridiculous. No industry with any sort of legitimate competition would be able to charge people for that, when there's absolutely no justification for that sort of predatory pricing (other than to gouge their customers for lots of money).

Re:All internet providers, or just mobile?

[bulled]

Unfortunately, that is also the only section that mentions anything close to specifics of what Mr. Wheeler wants to do.

Re:All internet providers, or just mobile?

[Strangely Familiar]

It is a rather difficult problem for mobile carriers. Because their bandwidth is so limited, they are constantly looking for little games to play with packets, to make sure that people get the maximum use of the available carrier signals. Mobile carriers prioritize and throttle packets all the time. Most of it is to just reduce wasted bandwidth. The easiest example for anyone who hasn't worked in the industry to understand is voice packets vs. static data packets. The mobile carrier wants to make sure that your voice packets are not dropped, and delivered quickly enough to keep up with the sound wave data rate. If keeping your voice signal clear means making some other customer's web page load a tiny bit slower, then oh well. Video is smilar. You don't want your youtube playback interrupted, because it will ruin the experience, but if an excel spreadsheet takes .3 seconds longer to load, it won't much matter. But there are tens of thousands of these optimizations. There has probably already been substantial optimization to give advantages to packets from the mobile carriers. In the long run, it is better to cut this stuff off now, rather than wait until it grows into an intolerable monopoly situation. Mobile broadband is becoming increasingly relevant, and a direct competitor to cable broadband. There really are people who don't need their home computer anymore, and just use their phone. When 5G-LTE arrives, it may make the cable companies less relevant. So, Wheeler is right to address the problem now.

Re:All internet providers, or just mobile?

[thaylin]

Yes and no. Yes it could, but Wheeler specifically stated they would not interfere with rates

Re:All internet providers, or just mobile?

[Strangely Familiar]

OK, I dislike Verizon's business practices probably more than your typical person, but let me give you Verizon's perspective. Verizon is really trying to get a monthly minimum somehow or another. They have costs, whether or not you use your phone. Just walking around with your phone turned on, there is all kinds of signalling between your handset and various towers, using up some bandwidth. So, if you carried around your powered on phone all month, and sent just one text, how does Verizon make money charging you just 20 cents? However you paid for your bill, e.g. with your visa card, would probably end up taking more than 20 cents away from Verizon. You wouldn't be a profitable customer for them. So, why should they agree to make a deal with you that is unprofitable for them? I don't think you will find too many companies that will give you a flat rate per gigabyte (say $30), and then say, "Well, good afternoon, Mr. Gun, you sent just 30 texts and only used 50 kilobytes or .00005 gigabytes this month, so that will be $30.00 X .00005 = $0.0015. Are you putting that on Visa, or sending a personal check?"

Re:All internet providers, or just mobile?

[Dutch Gun]

The few dollars they charge for text messages in addition to my normal $60 bill is not the difference between profitability and non-profitability for Verizon. I'm not arguing that we should be charged only by bandwidth, but that SMS messages should not be treated separately than other data when being charged by the GB.

It's an unbelievable scam, and I'm not sure why we let them get away with it, to be honest. There's no justification for it other than "we can bilk people out of a significant amount of money by doing this", and the fact that every carrier does the same thing (really?). SMS puts so little pressure on the network, you can pretty much round it down to zero.

Someday, when we have so much bandwidth that they can't possibly justify these pricing practices, we'll probably have some sort of Congressional hearings or federal investigation about collusion among these companies. I'll point back to this post and say "I told you so". :)

Re:All internet providers, or just mobile?

[butlerm]

The FCC doesn't have a problem with prioritization per se. The FCC has a problem with paid prioritization, which on a congested network can starve other traffic, and cause other problems, depending on how it is done.

Re:Cue the libertarian fucktards

[x0ra]

The current mess is mostly due to local government (municipalities) imposed monopolies. So yes, government can do no right. This whole net neutrality is just trying to regulate the regulation, ie. bad policing.

Does this imply...

[unixisc]

...that the FCC now endorses Net Neutrality? It was unclear from reading the above. Will I still have to buy a TV service to view footage available on the internet?

Re:Does this imply...

[BlueStrat]

[Does this imply]....that the FCC now endorses Net Neutrality? It was unclear from reading the above. Will I still have to buy a TV service to view footage available on the internet?

"If you don't eat your meat, you can't have any pudding! How can you have any pudding if you don't eat your meat!?"

- Pink Floyd: 'Another Brick In The Wall'

Strat

what is this sorcrery.

[nimbius]

The government actually did something people wanted, the president actually supported, and the FCC actually agreed with that a republican controlled house and senate couldn't shit on? Im shocked but I think i can shed a little light on what this regulation actually means for us Americans.

1. "Its Comcastic" can no longer be a punchline or an exclamation of furious rage
2. the libraries of congress will download at the same speed, but the ghost of Grover Cleveland will no longer be present to slow down the ASICS in the switch fabric.
3. healthcare.gov will now work for up to 9 simultaneous connections at speeds of up to 14.4kbps
4. Myspace's "Tom" will now attend funerals in person and apply blingies to the casket at no extra charge
5. The Supreme Court will now be given actual tubes of fresh, warm internet to help learn what it is. Clarence Thomas will now be rotated twice during his naps to prevent sores.

Re:what is this sorcrery.

[rock_climbing_guy]

They could declare encrypted traffic unlawful today. They have been agitating for that for years. Today for the terrorists, in years past, for the paedophiles.

Great News

[some old guy]

Now let's see if it actually happens. There's plenty of time yet for lobbyists and donors to flood the final process with blood money. The D.C. news (not talk) radio station WTOP already runs big biz shill organization ads carping about "innovation" and "serving our customers".

Of course, we'll also get a big dose of nonsensical Randian rhetoric about the Imaginary (oh, sorry, "Invisible") Hand of the marketplace, all .gov is teh evilz, etc.

So it remains to be seen if this is a real prelude to a long-overdue action or just a PR stance designed to quiet the lowing populist herd and get the money pumps running again.

Re:Great News

[gstoddart]

Now let's see if it actually happens. There's plenty of time yet for lobbyists and donors to flood the final process with blood money.

They already have .. in the form of Tom Wheeler.

And since most people expect him to return to being one of those lobbyists ... it seems highly unlikely he's actually going to do anything which imposes regulations on the industry he's a paid shill for. At least, not if those regulations don't have loopholes you could drive a bus through.

I may at some point be pleasantly surprised, and this guy won't turn out to be a dancing monkey beholden to the cable/wireless companies ... but I seriously doubt it.

Re:Great News

[bleh-of-the-huns]

WTOP actually has been running ads from both sides of the argument. They are somewhat impartial (for now).

Re:Great News

[some old guy]

Indeed, they usually are in terms of editorial outlook, and noone can blame them for who buys airtime; it's their business, after all. It comes as no surprise, though, that Verizotimewarcomcast (their boards of directors are so incestuous they might as well be one company) can buy a lot more spots than, say, the EFF.

Re:Great News

[fustakrakich]

Oh, don't give it a second thought. The pumps have never slowed down. Congress is still guaranteed their 95% reelection rate, with one, maybe two non-republican/democrats. Both sides throw out the occasional bone to keep the vote perfectly divided down the middle.

Re:Great News

[nehumanuscrede]

True statement, however the FCC also has some big money and gorilla-sized heavyweights behind it in the form of Google.

This should be an entertaining event at the very least.

Re:Great News

[antdude]

Yep, it's all talks now. Let's see some results. Prove it, FCC!

How will this affect peering agreements?

[Maltheus]

If paid prioritization isn't permitted, does this mean Netflix has to pull their servers and routers from Comcasts' data centers? And how does that benefit me again?

Re:How will this affect peering agreements?

[bleh-of-the-huns]

My guess is that existing contracts will remain in place till they expire.

Re:How will this affect peering agreements?

[suutar]

I would expect there's supposed to be a distinction between making content available from a server inside Comcast's network and having one site not in Comcast's network pay to get better traffic shaping than another site not in Comcast's network. If nothing else, "a server inside Comcast's network" is a rough description of any of Comcast's business customers. Of course, how it actually gets implemented (and how the little details of difference between netflix colo pods and business customers get handled) may vary.

Re:How will this affect peering agreements?

[bigpat]

Bingo... this doesn't provide net neutrality unless providers are required to upgrade peering arrangements when services their customers request routinely saturate the connections. So a new service comes along and the big providers can simply de facto block/throttle it by refusing to upgrade the peering connection to the other network...

Re:How will this affect peering agreements?

[Qzukk]

Does having a Netflix server in Comcast's data center cause Comcast to slow down Hulu? If so, Comcast probably ought to fix that. If not, then how is it prioritized?

Re:How will this affect peering agreements?

[Maltheus]

Yeah, it looks like they didn't exactly allow the netflix's servers in their data centers, but they are establishing a direct connection to those data centers as part of a paid deal.

Since they can't do that with everybody, I'm assuming they'll have to stop doing this for Netflix and we go back to lower quality/slower buffering times.

Re:How will this affect peering agreements?

[Ryanrule]

that is NOT paid prioritization.
that is edge caching.

come back when you know things.

Re:How will this affect peering agreements?

[butlerm]

since traffic from isp customers to those edge caches do not get counted against monthly caps

If that is true, the FCC is likely to frown upon that sort of thing.

Re:How will this affect peering agreements?

[Bengie]

Logically, being closer isn't prioritization. If paying to have your servers closer is against the law, then the logical conclusion would be you have to make sure your servers are as far away from the customers as possible.

Re:How will this affect peering agreements?

[locketine]

I would be surprised if the ISP did not count internal network traffic against a customer's data cap. It would be easiest to track the data flow at the customer connection side since full information about the customer is still available in the packets at that point. Also, if they tracked it at the peering nodes like you're suggesting then a large percentage of torrent traffic would be uncounted for large ISPs.

Re:Bye Bye Bitorrent

[Narcocide]

Where nothing was actually blocked?? Bullshit. You never tried hosting a mail server on a Comcast residential cable modem, did you?

Mind the gaps

[Dracos]

I've been following this rather passively, but all of this talk seems to only mention specific internet access methods: broadband and/or mobile broadband. However, we know there are a myriad of parallel methods, from satellite to dial-up. Unless all US Internet access is brought under Title II, the market will attempt to shift toward whichever methods are most exploitable for profit.

Re:Mind the gaps

[jdschulteis]

However, we know there are a myriad of parallel methods, from satellite to dial-up.

Satellite has unacceptable latency, and dial-up has unacceptable throughput. They aren't even in the same league as cable, fiber, and LTE.

Re:Cue the libertarian fucktards

[pla]

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.

Re:Bye Bye Bitorrent

[msauve]

That wasn't blocked due to any government action.

"Bread and circuses

[future assassin]

how will they freely spy on the peasants and they need the internet to provide the entertainment needed to keep the peasants occupied while they do they spying and rights eradication.

Re:Bye Bye Bitorrent

[Drethon]

Bingo. Bitorrent is not and never has been illegal. What people put on it might be but the protocol is not. Just like someone hacking into the white house does not make my computer an illegal device due to it having the ability to do something illegal.

I don't trust Wheeler for a second...

[PeeAitchPee]

...but we already know that Comcast and Verizon are the Antichrist in corporate form. I am concerned about the details of the implementation but this *should* be a very positive thing for those who actually use the Internet instead of just acting as its tolltakers.

Re:Bye Bye Bitorrent

[BCtoo]

Against your terms of service by any chance?

Re:MOBILE BROADBAND. Helps Comcast in relation

[Maltheus]

Interesting, given that he used to lobby for Verizon and Verizon just pulled the plug on FiOS expansion. Not sure what to make of that.

More government control is terrible!

[Anonymous Coward]

That is the last thing we need is the government interferring and not allowing us to get service or upgrades. Here in Seattle we have probably the strongest control of access by any city, and much of the city is still on dial-up. The block where I live can't get cable TV or cable Internet because of the city's iron-fisted rule. Google for "director's rule seattle internet" and you'll find millions of results. Not all are valid, but there are thousands and thousands of complains about the government not allowing us to have fast access. I have 160 kbps CenturyLink DSL at home:

http://www.speedtest.net/my-result/3840461248

And, that is the fastest connection I can get. As in most of Seattle, satellilte is not an option because you need a very low line of sight to the southern horizen. The city knows that isn't an option.

Re:More government control is terrible!

[d34thm0nk3y]

Here in Seattle we have probably the strongest control of access by any city, and much of the city is still on dial-up.

Complete and utter bullshit.

Source: living in Seattle.

Re:Bye Bye Bitorrent

[Narcocide]

Oh, so its ok then if your ISP blocks it as an anti-competition measure and claims its "for your protection?" That's the exact type of crap to which Title II is meant to put a stop.

Re:MOBILE BROADBAND. Helps Comcast in relation

[93 Escort Wagon]

Wheeler is talking about applying these rules to MOBILE BROADBAND. That means Sprint and others are at a disadvantage compared to Comcast, who will benefit from the more intense regulation of their competitors.

Except it also makes it more likely we'll eventually have mobile-based broadband options that can be used to replace Comcast's cable internet service.

No last mile unbundling?

[rabbin]

Don't want to rain on the parade, but I'm hoping someone more knowledgeable can chime in here: Isn't last mile unbundling the main thing we need? Doesn't this reduce competition? (the main thing that the FCC needs to artficially induce in the natural monopoly that is telecommunications?)

I'm really hoping these "modernizations" of Title II aren't just a "compromise" where the industry makes out better anyway.

Re:No last mile unbundling?

[TraumaFox]

What you're seeing is the typical conservative notion that deregulation promotes investment, which deliberately draws attention away from the fact that the reason the US broadband infrastructure leaves so much to be desired is not because of a lack of investment but because there is nothing enforceable in place which requires them to spend the money they already receive on the necessary upgrades. Government subsidies, your monthly rates; only the barest minimum of any of that goes toward upgrades which are deemed absolutely necessary, while the rest accounts for billions of dollars in profits.

Regarding last mile bundling, one of the arguments against it is that more competition would stifle innovation. That might hold water except that the only "innovation" these companies are investing in are new and better ways to curb your bandwidth consumption. Thankfully for the millions who simply have no choice of provider because of location, fiber has already been invented. Don't worry folks -- as soon as we guarantee that no competition is ever able to enter your area, your ISP will be at your door the next morning to run high speed fiber straight into your home!

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? It's simply being used as a bargaining chip here to win people over into supporting the very reason our infrastructure is a global embarrassment. A decade from now, when you are paying $120/mo for 10down/1.5up Super Premium High-Speed Internet Turbo Boost Plus, they'll expect you to smile and be happy with your "open internet." To remind those with poor short-term memories, deregulation is what led to the whole Comcast BitTorrent debacle in the late 2000s; what a great win for net neutrality that turned out to be.

Rest assured that "no rate regulation, no tariffs, no last-mile unbundling" will only benefit the bottom line of service providers. This is a compromise, one that wants you to accept long-term mediocrity for a temporary victory. How satisfied will you be when there's nothing left but the good graces of monopolistic corporations to stop your rates from skyrocketing and nowhere else to turn when they finally do?

Re:No last mile unbundling?

[nehumanuscrede]

"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.

Re:No last mile unbundling?

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

What you're seeing is the typical conservative notion that deregulation promotes investment

Deregulation in practice just becomes another vehicle for crony capitalism and rent seeking, that's why we're screwed with more regulation and we're screwed with most forms of deregulation. I expect "net neutrality" will simply result in raising barriers to entry further and encourage providers to use more proprietary and non-IP protocols.

What would actually help is to expand the free WiFi/WiMax spectrum 1000 fold and increase permitted power levels for WiFi/WiMax 10 fold; then, people could actually start building up meaningful competition to existing providers without all the regulatory headaches.

Read it carefully

[__aakybi683]

He says "Mobile Broadband" That suggest to me that DSL, Cable and Fiber are not included. Which, in turn means that google and the likes cannot hang their Fiber on the existing poles and towers free of charge, or a minimal controlled or reasonable charge. Let's wait until 2/26 for the full-story before over exercising those knees? :)

Re:Read it carefully

[Holi]

Since during the beginning of this argument mobile broadband was being excluded, I think the mentioning of mobile broadband means it is going to be included with the wired variants. I am not sure why this idea that it would only effect mobile broad band got started. It's either you haven't been following the discussion or you have been confused by, or are trying to start some FUD.

Re:Cue the libertarian fucktards

[halivar]

Well, if this was high school debate, you'd get a point for that. Meanwhile, in the real world...

Re:Bye Bye Bitorrent

[Narcocide]

The point being that it will be illegal to make standard usage against the terms of service going forward.

Hidden agenda that might bite us?

[cyberjock1980]

This sounds too good to be true. And we all know what that means...

So I've got this suspicious feeling that there's some devil in the details that is gonna be a major drawback to this. Anyone got any insight into some key word or tricky phrase that might indicate an ulterior motive?

Re:Hidden agenda that might bite us?

[Shatrat]

He didn't address peering at all, so it's possible that Comcast/VZ/ATT could still bottleneck their peering links to Google/Netflix/Amazon to reduce the amount of bandwidth their customers have access to without doing anything in 'the last mile'.

Re:Hidden agenda that might bite us?

[bigpat]

On first reading the lack of mention of peering is a major red flag... the way netflix and others have been blackmailed into pay to play schemes have been through the peering arrangements. Basically the links between networks become saturated whenever there is a popular service and if Comcast or Verizon decide they don't want to upgrade those links then the service is effectively throttled. Unless the regulations mandate upgrading the bottlenecks between networks when they happen then it won't be an effective policy change and the Internet will continue to fragment.

Re:Hidden agenda that might bite us?

[tacokill]

Duh. Regulation gives power to politicians and takes decision-making out of the hands of the citizenry. It should come as no suprise that politicians will use that power to further their own goals and not necessarily those of the public.

For a good example of how this could clusterfuck, consider this: what happens if the FCC sees CONTENT they don't like? Do you think they will stand back with hands off screaming "Freedom!"? No, they will find a reason to intervene and thus, the slippery slope will begin. Of course, that is unthinkable(!) now but give it a few years of regulation and I suspect we'll see that kind of action and more that we haven't even thought of.

Yes, the devil the definitely in the details.

Re:Hidden agenda that might bite us?

[iczer1]

From Coyote Blog: http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2015/02/sorry-but-all-you-internet-users-appear-to-be-idiots.html

...
The phones that were in my home at my birth in 1962 were identical to the one in my dorm room when AT&T was broken up in 1982. We are turning the Internet into a public utility -- name three innovations from an American public utility in the last 40 years. Name one.

And all you free-speech advocates, do you really think the Feds won't use this as a back-door to online censorship? We are talking about the same agency that went into a tizzy when Janet Jackson may have accidentally on purpose shown a nipple on TV. All that is good with TV today-- The Sopranos, Game of Thrones, Arrested Development, etc. etc. etc. results mainly from the fact that cable is able to avoid exactly the kind of freaking regulation you want to impose on the Internet.

Apparently the 1934 Telecommunications Act imposes a legal obligation on phone carriers to complete calls no matter who they are from. Sounds familiar, huh? Just like net neutrality. It turns out this law is one of the major barriers preventing phone companies from offering innovative services to block spam calls.

Re:Cue the libertarian fucktards

[nine-times]

The current mess is mostly due to local government (municipalities) imposed monopolies

No, the current mess is mostly due to the fact that we've been treating the Internet like a private entertainment service rather than public telecommunication infrastructure. You're never going to get real "free market" competition out of infrastructure. By its nature, public infrastructure needs to be treated as... well, public infrastructure.

FTFA

[Sir_Eptishous]

This week, I will circulate to the members of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) proposed new rules to preserve the internet as an open platform for innovation and free expression.

Keep your fingers crossed:

Originally, I believed that the FCC could assure internet openness through a determination of “commercial reasonableness” under Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. While a recent court decision seemed to draw a roadmap for using this approach, I became concerned that this relatively new concept might, down the road, be interpreted to mean what is reasonable for commercial interests, not consumers. That is why I am proposing that the FCC use its Title II authority to implement and enforce open internet protections. Using this authority, I am submitting to my colleagues the strongest open internet protections ever proposed by the FCC. 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.

Re:Cue the libertarian fucktards

[Talderas]

I don't see anything he made a declaration of addressing any real problem that exists, at least not any wide scale or high public problem. For example, the Netflix/Comcast or Netflix/Verizon spat that seems to be the darling child of why net neutrality is needed. In order for regulation to address that problem they would need to either prohibit direct connection between networks, which essentially breaks the Internet without highly nuanced rules on top of only preventing the direct connect arrangement between Netflix and Comcast from ever being established, or they have to mandate minimum bandwidth being necessary at interconnects unless you want to get into the assinine statement that an oversaturated link is throttling.

Re:MOBILE broadband. Wheeler is Comcast's hero

[Ralph Wiggam]

Wheeler is talking about applying these rules to MOBILE broadband.

That's utterly not true.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/fcc-chairman-proposes-utility-like-regulation-for-broadband-1423068563

"Mr. Wheeler’s plan would regulate mobile and fixed broadband providers under Title II of telecommunications law, the provision that applies to common carriers. 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."

Competition? - "no last-mile unbundling"

[Cycloid Torus]

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.

Re:Cue the libertarian fucktards

[radl33t]

Cheap, reliable, and sustainable telecommunications networks & services exist under virtually all regulatory environments imaginable from one end of the spectrum to the other. We can make any of them work as long as we aren't beholden to the few entities that stand in the way, which is essentially the current arrangement the pervades the US industry.

Apparently the opportunity to turn any and all workable solutions into an ideological shit show is more important than functioning government and quality services.

Tripwire

[ThatsNotPudding]

I fear that if the Right loses on this issue (and face it: siding with the most-hated corporations of a most-hated industry is awful retail politics), they have one arrow they will pull from their quiver.

If it is re/classified under Title II, the right will quickly insist there be bans on every type pornography (with a definition that will even encompass old National Geographics), hate speech (read: not approved by their paymasters), and of course: effective, non-backdoored encryption.

Got to pound those bibles while thinking of the children, after all. #CarefullWhatYouWishFor

Re:Tripwire

[thaylin]

Umm, I am sorry, but what? The right is the prohibitionist party, they like to tell you what you can and cannot do, not the left. Where are the dry counties in states, right wing bastions, who tries to stop the legalization of pot and other drugs, the right. Who tries to limit poke, the right. Who tries to regulate where stip clubs go, the right. I am not saying that no lefties do these things, but as a general party it is the right.

Re:Tripwire

[Rakarra]

Umm, I am sorry, but what? The right is the prohibitionist party, they like to tell you what you can and cannot do, not the left

Both parties like to interfere, but in different, yet occasionally overlapping subjects. For instance the 1996 Communications Decency Act, which attempted to legislate pornography off the Internet, was written by Democratic Senator Exon, passed by the Senate, opposed strongly by Speaker of the House Newt Gingritch who asked "how do you maintain the right of free speech for adults while also protecting children in a medium which is available to both?" Senator Exon characterized the online opposition as "a bunch of first-amendment belly-achers" who were more concerned with protecting pornographers than cooperating with his office. It was added to the 1995 telecommunications package, passed the House and Senate, and signed into law by President Bill Clinton.

On the other hand, it was also initially opposed by Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy, and after amendments were made to the bill, no one noticed when Republican Representative Thomas Bliley snuck in a rider stating that federal anti-obscenity laws also covered interactive computer services. Added the day of the vote, the House was not given the opportunity to analyze the ramifications before voting. The bill overwhelming passed both houses of Congress.

Both sides like to legislate in morality, but Democrats have traditionally been just as strong as Republicans when it comes to regulation of pornography.

Re:Cue the libertarian fucktards

[jordanjay29]

You mean just because my construction crew built the highway, we don't get to charge tolls for it and choose which traffic drives? How is that fair?!

Don't get too excited

[Sheik Yerbouti]

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.

Re:Don't get too excited

[rabbin]

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.

Re:Don't get too excited

[Bacon Bits]

That's the core issue for telecom competition. For physical net neutrality. This is for logical net neutrality. To keep Comcast from charging you extra for access to NetFlix, and to then turn around and charge NetFlix extra for access to you. It's a first step. Politics is a slow process.

Re:Don't get too excited

[PRMan]

This was my first reaction as well. The correct solution would be to split all home providers into 2 companies, one that ones the lines and one that owns the content. And then open up the lines to any of the other content providers at the same price.

Re:Don't get too excited

[605dave]

I think combined with the announcement on municipal fiber that competition could arise. If the service is really terrible, towns are now open to create their own infrastructure. I truly believe this would be the absolute best situation. If municipalities built a fiber backbone and allowed any company to lease bandwidth, you'd see true competition.

Re:Cue the libertarian fucktards

[jordanjay29]

I'm a little confused. You've recognized that the free market wouldn't have come to this conclusion on their own, implying that government intervention was necessary. But then you condemn the government for bowing to free market demands for things like local monopoly powers, banning public competition, etc? So you'd prefer that local governments boycott big business until they cow to the demands of Small Town USA, and deprive their residents of access to what is arguably a modern necessity?

Re:MOBILE broadband. Wheeler is Comcast's hero

[Fire_Wraith]

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.

ISP choice?

[jordanjay29]

No, you won't. Do you get a choice for power provider? Water? Gas? If ISPs are going to be regulated like utilities, expect they'll keep their monopolies.

This just prevents them from getting too tyrannical. (Some tyranny not excluded, only applies to offers available in your area, etc, etc)

Re:Finally the government has full control of the

[ogdenk]

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.

makes mobile more expensive than cable

[raymorris]

If Netflix and other content providers are paying the cable companies costs, but aren't allowed to pay the mobile providers' costs, that means mobile providers have to charge the customer more than Comcast does.

In other words, Netflix customers using mobile broadband pay Netflix, then Netflix uses that money to pay Comcast. In effect, mobile users will be subsidizing Comcast.

Dear FCC....

[Lumpy]

There is no TRY.... Only DO.

Get off your asses, tell the CEO of Comcast to stuff it in his pie-hole and just do it.

Re:Cue the libertarian fucktards

[Jason Levine]

Not only that, but the FCC originally had set in place extremely weak net neutrality regulations. Keeping those rules would have essentially meant the big ISPs would have had free reign to do whatever they wanted to do. Verizon didn't like this though. 99% free reign wasn't enough for them so they sued and forced the FCC to make new rules.

So not only would it have been preferable for the corporations to do this on their own, but one of them is to blame for these stricter regulations because they got too greedy.

Re:Cue the libertarian fucktards

[steelfood]

I don't think you're libertarian, even if you identify yourself as such.

Government regulation can be both bad and good. You know this. You've pointed this out in the very post I'm replying to. There are situations that deal with the public good and interest where government has to step in. There are situations where government should sit the fuck out. In this situation, even you recognize the government has to regulate. You've also recognized that the government shouldn't have regulated local communications monopolies into existence. The key is knowing when the government should regulate, and when it shouldn't.

The writers of the Article of Confederation found this out the hard way. That's why they rewrote it into what's now the Constitution. This country needs a strong central government. Just not too strong. Industries need government regulations. Just not too much.

That's not a libertarian ideal. But it is a sensical one.

Re:Cue the libertarian fucktards

[nine-times]

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?

Re:Bye Bye Bitorrent

[Narcocide]

Ironically, they actually let you SEND mail. They just don't let you *receive* it.

Re:Bye Bye Bitorrent

[Narcocide]

Ironically, they actually let you SEND mail. They just don't let you *receive* it, so while what you're saying is technically accurate, its actually also completely irrelevant to my argument.

Re:Cue the libertarian fucktards

[roman_mir]

As an anarcho-capitalist, libertarian / objectivist I support free market, thus any government intrusion into private affairs of individuals and their business is oppression and an unwelcome development, but obviously you are within your rights to support whatever government oppression you like but that conflicts with your 'libertarian fucktardness'.

Re:Cue the libertarian fucktards

[jordanjay29]

I did say I was only a little confused. But I do appreciate you looking out for me.

Re:This is a legislative issue. Period.

[nobuddy]

They are not enacting a decree. They are, under Executive direction, enforcing a law passed by Congress long ago that has been ignored previously.

What this really means for those not clued in.

[Anonymous Coward]

What this really means is this:

"What's that? Internet service? We don't sell an internet service, we sell a website service."
Goodbye the rest of internet services. They can block everything but port 80. No breaking anything.
Nobody needs to sell whole-internet access.

Re:ISP choice?

[jriding]

Are water, gas under title II?
No.

Re:He said MOBILE broadband, not Comcast

[Holi]

No, his statement says it will also apply to mobile broadband.

Re:Competition? - "no last-mile unbundling"

[Bacon Bits]

Yeah, that's exactly what I was thinking. Local loop unbundling is what enables competition between telecom companies.

I mean, ok, this is a step in the right direction, but without the requirement that local carriers must lease lines I'm not so sure this does a whole lot. I imagine if this goes through then some carrier will bring them to court over Title I of Telecommunications Act of 1996, wouldn't they? It's clear to me the competition the chairmen is talking about is new online sites like NetFlix or Twitch. They'll be free to start new services and not need to pay ISPs to carry their traffic, which is the big problem without net neutrality. It's competition of companies using the network, not competition of companies selling access to the network.

I suppose that will the next thing we'll have to do if this sticks.

Re:This is a legislative issue. Period.

[thaylin]

Actually this is a action of the legislative and executive branches. Title II gives them the authority to do this, guess who wrote that law. There is no slippery slope here. Also "what is currently the most infamous administration this country has had to endure." is an opinion, not a fact.

Found the flaw:

[pecosdave]

These enforceable, bright-line rules will ban paid prioritization, and the blocking and throttling of lawful content and services.

With that wording in place it opens the door to define the legality of content and regulate accordingly.

Re:This is a legislative issue. Period.

[Immerman]

Usurping nothing - the legislative branch specifically delegated those powers to them. Now whether the the legislative branch should be *allowed* to delegate so much power is a separate question - it certainly doesn't have the best track record, and gets downright ugly if you consider black-ops departments such as the various three-letter-agencies as well.

Re:Finally the government has full control of the

[Holi]

We are, because the current status of internet providers has always left a lot to be desired. Hell half of you thought internet providers were already common carriers at least that was the argument here 5 or more years ago. So we are finally going to get to the point that everyone was screaming for last decade.

Re:Cue the libertarian fucktards

[nobuddy]

And applying title II will invalidate these local rules and regulations. The FCC is already investigating them because the FCC has the authority to make such things, not local governments.

Re:ISP choice?

[nobuddy]

And is water and gas not available in some neighborhoods? Can they choose to throttle back your water because they sell Coke? Can your gas be cut off to promote their propane business?

When you over-simplify you look like a fool.

Re:Cue the libertarian fucktards

[thaylin]

Actually the interconnection fees between netflix and all dont need to exist. Again comcast in this case is acting as a last mile ISP, but charging netflix as though it is acting as a transit carrier. If the data was just crossing comcasts network and ending someplace else, say verizon, then the deal would make sense. But an ISP has an obligation to the customer to let them view what they want. It is their business model. Doing this is essentially having netflix pay for the infrastructure to support their shared customers. Great if you can get away with it, but totally immoral.

Re:Cue the libertarian fucktards

[thaylin]

As my current state rep said on TV, Thom Tillis, He supports removing regulations that force resturant owners from requiring their employees wash their hands, as long as they have to tell you if they dont enforce it via a sign.. To me that sounds like removing a sound and proper regulation with one that is really very silly.

Re:Finally the government has full control of the

[Yunzil]

such as requiring municipalities to grant franchise rights to new last-mile ISP entrants, for instance

And how exactly did you plan on doing that without the government getting involved anyway?

Crushing Small ISPs

[Cilin]

I fear that the one size fits all approach from the antiquated Title 2 will cause undue regulatory burdens on small ISPs and WISPs that provide internet service to the areas not covered by the bigger companies. At the very least customers will see a rise in prices due to filing fees and Universal Service Fund tax. If it is implemented as it is now, there could be much more serious upstream interconnection fees. How many small businesses will be put out of business and how many rural customers will be left without service? http://www.wispa.org/news/2015...

Re:ISP choice?

[thaylin]

We will see on the 26th about the municipal broadband preexemption.

Re:Cue the libertarian fucktards

[Zalbik]

Ahhh...so you only agree with government regulation when it supports your own agenda...I see.

That's the problem I have with many Libertarians (the fucktard variety or other). Rather than just state "these are the areas we believe should be regulated, and these not", they often scream nosily about any regulation when it is something they disagree with and just remain silent if it is something they support.

It'd be nice if there was an actual position they took that described how they expect the government to function that was something other than "government bad. less regulation good. free markets good. deficits bad".

Never let facts stand in the way of demonizing your political enemies.

Is that intentionally ironic?

Human Nature

[Danathar]

Both A) And B) are populated by human beings.

Being in one or the other does not change basic human nature. Option A would only be the lesser of two evils if it were not also run by people.

If a Republican wins the White House with Republican Majorities what's to stop a newly appointed FCC chairman from using Title II to the advantage of Verizon and AT&T?

Re:Finally the government has full control of the

[nehumanuscrede]

The Federal Government needs to get involved because it has been shown the Major ISP's are not interested in providing a quality network unless they make insane profits from doing so. Were it not for regulation, the POTS system would have been the same way. Telco's would have expanded the networks only to those areas where high profits were guaranteed and left the rest of the nation in the dark.

Considering the Internet and Voip are pretty much replacing the old telephone network as standard means of communication between folks, we need SOME regulation in place to make sure the Telcos / ISP's aren't just acting in their own be$t intere$t$.

If you prefer no regulation, then you must be ok with the whole " Paid Prioritization " thing. The throttling of specific types of data ( Bit-torrent ), and the degradation of other traffic because it's a competitive service to what the ISP offers. ( Netflix, Voip, Hulu, etc )

The major players have had more than ample opportunity to get their acts together. This is pretty much the end result when you let large Monopolies / Duopolies run things. They get away with it for a while but, in the end, they get to face the music.

Re:Bye Bye Bitorrent

[thaylin]

no it will not. The issue is not that they cannot block, but if they dont let it though then they cannot discriminate. There are other laws that dictate about blocking.

Re:Finally the government has full control of the

[ogdenk]

And you have no right to a landline phone but the populace considers it a basic need, thus Title II.

And if my kid HAS to have internet access to attend public school these days, that's also qualified as a "need".

AT&T and ComCast don't have the right to bully local governments into giving them monopolies either. So yeah, they can get bent. They brought this on themselves with scummy business practices and douchebaggery. If you do business unethically, it comes back to bite you. And since people have no options to switch in most areas for wired service, they have to go the legislation route to avoid being abused.

So yeah, fuck those bastards. They should be getting dinged for imposing limits on "unlimited" service anyway. If they can't even give me what I paid for without trying to screw me behind the scenes and degrade my service..... and I depend on them for my daily routine..... it's legislation time.

Re:Cue the libertarian fucktards

[spitzak]

Wow it sure didn't take long for a "ibertarian fucktard" to show up, just as the gp promised. Very good!

Will Title II do anything useful?

[WaffleMonster]

The problem is lack of competition. Title II does nothing to address the underlying problem. It only mask symptoms making it more difficult to gain consensus necessary to correct problem of monopolization of the last mile.

What are the downsides? Should we now expect USF line items on our bills? Do mom-and-pop operations have to deal with new red tape disproportionately favoring larger organizations? Will it be leveraged to provide cover for "information sharing" regimes affording customers no legal recourse?

How will Title-II prevent underhanded techniques to maximize leverage such as Comcast intentionally keeping links saturated? There must be an endless stream of "creative" ways to circumvent intent of net neutrality under other plausibly legitimate banners.

Whenever I find myself rooting for government to step in and fix a problem it makes me nervous. For all I know it may end up being better for everyone but I sure as heck wouldn't bet on it either way.

Comcast is up 3% today - wonder why?

[walterbyrd]

Shouldn't this be awful news for Comcast?

NetFlix is down 1.4% today - wonder why?

[walterbyrd]

Shouldn't this be great news for NetFlix?

Re:Cue the libertarian fucktards

[pla]

Ahhh...so you only agree with government regulation when it supports your own agenda...I see.

Force AT&T and Comcast and PG&E to legitimately negotiate for the land they've stolen from my front yard, and we can talk about the merits of "no regulation" vs "undoing damage already done". Until then, don't waste my time setting up some "purist Libertarian" strawman.

Net neutrality counts as a very small step in the right direction. Not because "these are the areas we believe should be regulated", but because we've already "regulated" them into nearly uncontrollable parasitic monopolies.

Re:ISP choice?

[stinerman]

Um...yes! I do get a choice for electricity and gas provider at least.

The old monopoly (AEP/Columbia Gas) is in charge of maintaining the physical infrastructure, but I can buy the actual electrons/gas from anyone who wants to provide them. Sounds like exactly what we need in terms of infrastructure. The old monopoly handles the wiring, but anyone can provide services over the wires.

Just catching up to this century

[sjbe]

No, that's step 2. There's always a step 1 with emotional appeal to create the regulatory power, so that that power can then be used for steps 2-N without further involvement from anyone elected.

Last I checked the FCC already exists. Furthermore no emotional appeal is necessary here. Treating the ISPs (Comcast, AT&T, etc) as the monopoly utilities they are is pretty much business as usual and frankly a good idea on its merits. We already do it for telephone service because a monopoly of a vital service without regulatory oversight = abuse. Plus the rules for telephone service regulation pretty much predate the internet. This is just catching up to the state of technology.

Re:Just catching up to this century

[lgw]

ISPs aren't a utility nor a natural monopoly. The last mile is a natural monopoly utility. Any plan that doesn't break off the "last mile" into a separate regulated utility company divorced from any content ownership or backhaul won't fix anything important. Further, it's obvious that it won't fix anything important, so I wonder at the real motive.

That is indeed the HUGE point to understand

[SuperKendall]

The point being that it will be illegal to make standard usage against the terms of service going forward.

This is a great point. It's a great point because it illustrates what absolute MORONS people are who back "network neutrality". They think every possible thing good they will imagine is covered by it, including running your own mail servers...

It will be QUITE enjoyable to watch unfold the realization just how very, very wrong you and others equally stupid as you, are on this point.

I personally don't care because I can afford the workarounds, both technically and financially. But OH how people like you will suffer. And I'm going to back the government the whole way as they twist the knife, so to speak. I fully welcome our authoritarian regulatory overlords.

Re:That is indeed the HUGE point to understand

[Narcocide]

I honestly think this is one case where your ultra-paranoid right-wing "all regulation is always inherently bad and packed with lies and subterfuge" view of things can't possibly live up to what reality will eventually pan out to be. Personally, due to the existing state of things, I *can't* actually suffer one bit more due to the outcome of this action by the FCC one way or another, because I'm *already* paying extra for business-class internet at my home just to avoid these types of shenanigans so that I can get real work done. I'm *already* in the worst-case scenario. Maybe *after* the FCC steps up and actually starts *doing their job* I won't be anymore.

And yea, I'm known as the MOST PARANOID of my people. So me telling you that you're irrational here means something.

Chose your overlord

[sjbe]

As an anarcho-capitalist, libertarian / objectivist I support free market, thus any government intrusion into private affairs of individuals and their business is oppression and an unwelcome development, but obviously you are within your rights to support whatever government oppression you like but that conflicts with your 'libertarian fucktardness'.

So what you are saying is you prefer to get raped by companies instead of governments. Fair enough. Personally I prefer approaches that minimize the chance of me getting raped by either governments or companies but to each their own.

Re:Bye Bye Bitorrent

[diamondmagic]

This is a perfectly legitimate concern. Remember the Broadcast Flag? Yeah, that was the FCC.

The FCC claiming it can regulate the privately owned individual networks, and the peering agreements between them, that make up the Internet, is totally illegal and unconstitutional.

Good grief, those Wired comments - what the hell?

[Optic7]

I guess I had never read their comments section before. It's a cesspool of ignorant, vicious comments!

Re:MOBILE broadband. Wheeler is Comcast's hero

[Jane Q. Public]

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.

Re:Cue the libertarian fucktards

[rjh]

As a fellow libertarian fucktard, I'm ashamed of you. Really? Really?

And I'll take a unicorn, as long as you have enough for everyone.

There's never going to be an infinite supply of unicorns! That's why we have markets, so that the buyers and sellers of unicorns can meet and negotiate prices at the intersection of the supply and demand curves, ensuring that everyone who's willing to pay the price for a unicorn is able to get one! Come on! Adam Smith! Invisible Hand! Milt Friedman! Nozick! Rothbard! PAUL KRUG--

-- wait, hold on, belay that last one. My bad. But the rest, yes, carry on!

(Note to the humorless: this is all tongue firmly in cheek.)

Re:Cue the libertarian fucktards

[Jawnn]

As a Libertarian fucktard - I can't really grasp the real issue

TFTFY.

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...

Riiiight. Because it totally makes sense to let all comers string their own wires, bury their own fiber, etc. That doesn't need any regulation at all.

Re:ISP choice?

[Jawnn]

Um...yes! I do get a choice for electricity and gas provider at least.

The old monopoly (AEP/Columbia Gas) is in charge of maintaining the physical infrastructure, but I can buy the actual electrons/gas from anyone who wants to provide them. Sounds like exactly what we need in terms of infrastructure. The old monopoly handles the wiring, but anyone can provide services over the wires.

And if the "old monopoly" only delivered third-party electricity at 80 VAC, what would be your proposed solution? Better question - What would be the response of all the other vendors? Come on, at least try to make an apples to apples comparison.

If you like your internet,

[reboot246]

you'll be able to keep your internet . . . period.

Yeah, sure. We're used to being lied to by now.

Re:MOBILE broadband. Wheeler is Comcast's hero

[rtb61]

Of course it could all be a very sneaky sly trick. Let's do mobile first and the suckers will accept those rules. Then of course a bit latter, but it's not fair if land line operators have to operate under different rules and yep 'SUCKED IN'. Make no mistake, there is a real reason why they did mobile first with a locked in last mile, excuse me but what the fuck, it's mobile there is no last mile. Oh I get it, 'last mile', you guys so funny, ha ha ha and the rest of us are just so stupid and gullible.

Re:Finally the government has full control of the

[ogdenk]

A.) can go off the deep end and try to do that now.

B.) can force me to buy services only through their approved "partners" and shut out companies I actually like by throttling them into oblivion if they aren't allowed to double dip and get money from both sides. B can also raise an Army pretty easily.

B scares me more than A.... though A scares the shit out of me, I can thwart their efforts through technological means and good security discipline if they get obnoxious. I can do so even better if B can't legally screw with my traffic.

Re:Cue the libertarian fucktards

[jdschulteis]

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.

Thankfully the real Road America only owns a road that goes around in a loop, does not price discriminate by manufacturer, and the speed limit is as fast as you can handle it.

Re:Cue the libertarian fucktards

[volmtech]

I always wondered about that. I was a contractor doing hookups for Comcast. In some housing developments the main cable ran through the backyards of adjacent houses instead of in front down the street. I had to go into one house's backyard to hook up cable for the house next door. One homeowner was very angry with me and the cable company because by law I was free to walk into her backyard and dig in a cable to her neighbors house.

Re:Cue the libertarian fucktards

[pla]

Riiiight. Because it totally makes sense to let all comers string their own wires, bury their own fiber, etc. That doesn't need any regulation at all.

Funny thing about that... I currently use 4G as my primary ISP, because the local cable monopoly decided my town won't make them any money. Not "my town won't let them steal my front yard to run wires", but "no one wants to steal my front yard to run wires". Except, adding insult to injury, I still have my front yard "occupied" by a utility pole, for power lines. Wow, best of both worlds!

So in this case, yes, the market has actually managed to beat the government-sanctioned monopolies in addressing the "last mile" problem, for me at least. Though make no mistake, I don't consider Verizon any better than Comcast - Just a rare example of two once-upon-a-time monopolies in different markets accidentally managing to compete with each other in an otherwise-unexpected ballpark. Make no mistake, I'd give my left nut to have Google offer FTTP in my town, but that detail does more to *make* my point than refute it.

That's been the thing all along

[Gazzonyx]

It means "hate speech" will be illegal (pretty sure it already is) and any site with hate speech will be blocked. The definition of "hate speech" will become "things we don't want people saying; think of the children". Oh, also, streaming sites. They're gone. Podcasts? You betcha'.

You'll notice that they've been using this wording for a LONG time. All of the proposals have featured "lawful content" and I'm sure that's not an accident.

Re:Bye Bye Bitorrent

[Bengie]

Self hosted mail servers, the #1 cause of spam prior to port 25 being blocked. Most ISPs I know allow you to unblock that port without question or cost.

Re:good intentions, but it's not going to work

[Bengie]

Wheeler is also looking to make changes to Title II. A simple way around your "loop hole" would be to say you cannot charge differently for non-internet services. Require that the these communication companies normalizes their prices for all services based on bandwidth consumed and features. An example would be VoIP compared to normal voice on your cell phone, VoIP would be cheaper because it has dynamic bandwidth while normal voice allocated a fixed bandwidth and consumes more.

Public Utility? WTF??

[LibertyMark]

Net neutrality supporters seem to have a static view of the internet, which is strange because they normally consider themselves "tech-savvy" people. This issue is about scarcity. People are demanding more bandwidth than is available. So, there are areas where prices might go up, or traffic more in demand than other traffic gets prioritized. But, even with the current not so perfect system, bandwidth is growing like crazy. The issues we're seeing now are growing pains for a still-young internet. Growing up can get a little bumpy. But people demand a smooth road, NOW! They want to permanently subject the internet to a huge regulatory apparatus in order to "solve" a transient problem. Tech-savvy people are supposed to be able to grasp the difference between static and dynamic systems. I guess impatience overcomes rationality.

Re:good intentions, but it's not going to work

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

A simple way around your "loop hole" would be to say you cannot charge differently for non-internet services. Require that the these communication companies normalizes their prices for all services based on bandwidth consumed and features.

Bandwidth measured how? Features measured how?

An example would be VoIP compared to normal voice on your cell phone, VoIP would be cheaper because it has dynamic bandwidth while normal voice allocated a fixed bandwidth and consumes more.

Except, of course, that your view of "normal voice" seems to be rooted in analog copper wire circuit switching. A carrier may well run much more efficient protocols for voice over their network than your average VoIP provider. And IP traffic is really quite bad for real time communications and requires lots of overprovisioning to make it reliable.

You're going down a rabbit hole of regulations here, piling one nonsensical rule on top of another.

Re:MOBILE broadband. Wheeler is Comcast's hero

[doccus]

Mobile broadband is much easier for the spooks to tap into. Probably why.