Slashdot Mirror
Confirmed: FCC Will Try To Regulate Internet Under Title II
An anonymous reader writes: FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler has published an op-ed explaining how and why the FCC will "use its Title II authority to implement and enforce open internet protections." He says, "These enforceable, bright-line rules will ban paid prioritization, and the blocking and throttling of lawful content and services. I propose to fully apply—for the first time ever—those bright-line rules to mobile broadband. My proposal assures the rights of internet users to go where they want, when they want, and the rights of innovators to introduce new products without asking anyone's permission. ... To preserve incentives for broadband operators to invest in their networks, my proposal will modernize Title II, tailoring it for the 21st century, in order to provide returns necessary to construct competitive networks. For example, there will be no rate regulation, no tariffs, no last-mile unbundling. Over the last 21 years, the wireless industry has invested almost $300 billion under similar rules, proving that modernized Title II regulation can encourage investment and competition."
Where's the "suddenoutbreakofcommonsense" tag? Actually useful for once!
"I'd just like to emphasise that taking a million years isn't a metaphor here..." -Rich Bradshaw
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.
> 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.
I'm not sure I'd be bragging about the FCC making AOL possible. Just saying...
http://www.dailydot.com/politi...
I do worry about what the whole "lawful content" thing is about and will really mean down the road.
I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
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?
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.
Good people go to bed earlier.
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.
Scruting the inscrutable for over 50 years.
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?
Where nothing was actually blocked?? Bullshit. You never tried hosting a mail server on a Comcast residential cable modem, did you?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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."
While it is a nice thing to allow all the startups which may challenge Netflix, etc to have a level playing field, I am puzzled as to how this is going to help the consumer.
I read "no last-mile unbundling" as a continuation of the virtual monopolies which exist today. Without competition, I am stuck with my current ISP as it has a geographic monopoly for all broadband.
Lost in space at an early age. Survived the vacuum. Now rebuilding castle in air.
No last mile unbundling! That's the core issue. That's what causes this nonsense is no real competition in the marketplace! This means you still have to deal with shitty companies like Comcast and Verizon because in many cases you have no other choice. It's a broken market. They should have forced last mile competition that would not only solve the net neutrality issue it would have lowered cost and increased speed and access.
I feel like he's really saying well look ISPs looks like our swindle is not going to fly with the icky proles but at least I will protect your duopolies so be thankful for that.
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?
Correct. He's not talking about applying these rules only to Mobile Broadband, he's differentiating this proposal from some of the FCC's earlier proposals, which would have exempted mobile internet, and only applied to landline service.
Our options:
A.) Incompetent government regulation causing some inconveniences and waste.
B.) A corporate boardroom full of sociopaths telling me what I can and can't do with an "unlimited" network connection that I require to do my job.
Option A is the lesser of two evils. Internet service is no longer a "luxury", it's basically required to do business and even attend public school now. It's a utility and needs to be regulated like one to keep those greedy bastards from gouging us, killing innovation and hampering network performance for profit.
As screwed up and brutal as our government is, and as much as I think regime change is necessary..... I trust Verizon and AT&T even less.
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.
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
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?
They are not enacting a decree. They are, under Executive direction, enforcing a law passed by Congress long ago that has been ignored previously.
Are water, gas under title II?
No.
love the taste, hate the texture
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.
The road to tyranny has always been paved with claims of necessity.
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.
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...
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.
Shouldn't this be awful news for Comcast?
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.
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.
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.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
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.