Slashdot Mirror


FCC Approves Net Neutrality Rules

muggs sends word that the U.S. Federal Communications Commission has voted 3-2 to approve an expansion of their ability to regulate ISPs by treating them as a public utility. Under the rules, it will be illegal for companies such as Verizon or Cox Communications to slow down streaming videos, games and other online content traveling over their networks. They also will be prohibited from establishing "fast lanes" that speed up access to Web sites that pay an extra fee. And in an unprecedented move, the FCC could apply the rules to wireless carriers such as T-Mobile and Sprint -- a nod to the rapid rise of smartphones and the mobile Internet. ... The FCC opted to regulate the industry with the most aggressive rules possible: Title II of the Communications Act, which was written to regulate phone companies. The rules waive a number of provisions in the act, including parts of the law that empower the FCC to set retail prices — something Internet providers feared above all. However, the rules gives the FCC a variety of new powers, including the ability to: enforce consumer privacy rules; extract money from Internet providers to help subsidize services for rural Americans, educators and the poor; and make sure services such as Google Fiber can build new broadband pipes more easily.

21 of 631 comments (clear)

  1. nice, now for the real fight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    4-5 years in the courts...

    1. Re: nice, now for the real fight by thaylin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes, because what we have now is really working...The ISPs brought this on themselves, they are trying to at like toll boths to me, I dont pay them to be that, and I dont have the ability to stop it. If they had not acted in this way then this would not have happened.

      --
      When you cant win, ad hominem.
    2. Re: nice, now for the real fight by amiga3D · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm not happy about government intervention usually but with the way the ISP's were going something had to be done. The greedy bastards at AT&T and Verizon and Comcast and others caused this.

    3. Re: nice, now for the real fight by kenai_alpenglow · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And now the greedy AT&T/Verizon/Comcast/etc will now just bribe^h^h^h^h^hcontribute to politicians and business will go on as before--unless you want to try and compete with them. Good luck!

    4. Re:nice, now for the real fight by aaron4801 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In an ideal world, the free market would step in and protect consumers in place of the government having to do so. The Republicans are right on that point (IMHO), but what they re missing, and this is big: broadband is NOT a free market! Municipal governments grant monopoly access to cable and phone companies who double as ISPs. 85% of the country has access to two or fewer choices, and that's at 4Mbps. Faster speeds offer even more pathetic "choice." For a party that decries government monopolies in other sectors, they don't seem to understand that monopolies of ALL kinds are dangerous in their own ways.

    5. Re: nice, now for the real fight by Dragonslicer · · Score: 5, Funny

      I hope so. The longer the fccstays the fuckout of t he Internet, th e better.

      You see, if we already Net Neutrality rules in place, your ISP wouldn't be able to screw up your connection so badly that your text isn't even making it through in the right order.

    6. Re:nice, now for the real fight by mjm1231 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Given that this ideal world is completely imaginary, and the things that the free market is supposed to do in it never actually happen in the real world, why imagine a world where it's specifically free markets that have these magical powers? Why not an imaginary world where these things happen without free markets? Why not one where elves come in the middle of the night and solve everything?

      Or, if this ideal world you've imagined doesn't map to the real one, why not try to imagine one that does?

      --
      Ideology: A tool used primarily to avoid the bother of thinking.
    7. Re: nice, now for the real fight by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 5, Informative

      Comcast is fighting against this tooth and nail and has promised to file lawsuits to stop it.

      But don't let facts get in the way of your political bullshit.

    8. Re: nice, now for the real fight by ckatko · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Government intervention should be "as necessary" and "no further." Note how that doesn't mean "all government intervention is bad." The telecoms have a huge history of being assholes and they brought this on themselves.

    9. Re:nice, now for the real fight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Municipal governments grant monopoly access to cable and phone companies who double as ISPs.

      The harsh reality of building physical infrastructure is that you MUST have government force involved, for the power of eminent domain. Otherwise it would be impossible to negotiate contracts with individual landowners for rights-of-way, easements, etc for every single plot of land that needs to be traversed. And one person could block construction (or make it too expensive to route around) for everyone else.

      The only real answer to this is having the government (i.e. the public) own all infrastructure, and lease it out for service providers. That would have required some long term planning to contract out all the building work but retain ownership.

    10. Re:nice, now for the real fight by maligor · · Score: 5, Informative

      Given that this ideal world is completely imaginary, and the things that the free market is supposed to do in it never actually happen in the real world, why imagine a world where it's specifically free markets that have these magical powers? Why not an imaginary world where these things happen without free markets? Why not one where elves come in the middle of the night and solve everything?

      Or, if this ideal world you've imagined doesn't map to the real one, why not try to imagine one that does?

      I find it odd that there's the sort of idea that government regulation is somehow inherently anti-competitive in the US. If the government wants to be anti-competitive, they'll just say that business isn't allowed to do X and monopolize that function themselves.

      If there were no limits to free market, the majority of the population would be morphine addicts, or possibly something even more addictive.

    11. Re: nice, now for the real fight by Jason+Levine · · Score: 5, Informative

      They literally did. The FCC tried to put into place weak rules that would have done nothing. Verizon sued (over the objections of the other major ISPs) and got the rules thrown out. However, the courts said if the FCC wanted to put network neutrality rules into place, they needed to use Title II.

      So Verizon is either to blame or to thank (depending on which side of the debate that you're on) for these rules.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
  2. The big thing that is missing by Crashmarik · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Is there is no local loop unbundling. This was the real solution. With competition to supply the service who cares if comcast or time warner are pieces of crap. You can drop them like hot potatoes. Instead we have more control and less freedom.

    1. Re:The big thing that is missing by dywolf · · Score: 5, Insightful

      local loop unbundling may have been a better choice, but just like actual single payer socialized healthcare, it's likely a bridge too far in the current political climate.

      more control is not the same as less freedom. they aren't antithetical.
      in this case, we are simply preserving the current status quo of the internet, which is that Comcast cant block Netflix and force you to use hulu.

      which by the way is still a concern even if actual forced competition were to occur.
      in an ideal free market, the companies wouldn't be able to force you to use their service, but an ideal free market along with ideal competition doesn't exist regulatory intervention anyway, because by their very definition free markets inevitably devolve.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
  3. Re:How do we know? by thaylin · · Score: 5, Informative

    What process has been in secret? He has been open from the start. Just because republicans state it has been a secret does not actually mean it has been, unless you watch Fox news.

    --
    When you cant win, ad hominem.
  4. is it 4/1 already by Some_Llama · · Score: 5, Funny

    this seems to good to be true... it's what the populace wants, what the corporations didn't, and it makes sense.

    I can't correlate this with being a current government agency that interfaces between the public and commerce...

    after so many time being disappointed by the choices our government makes i guess im in battered wife syndrome type shock.

  5. Re:Gonna see a Net Neutrality Fee by nobuddy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No need. Taxpayers already gave Comcast and Verizon $2.5Bn to ensure that rural broadband is set up.
    Of course, they immediately used it to increase executive salaries and pay out bonuses to themselves- but they will do as they promised eventually, right? Its only been 10 years, it would be absurd to expect some sort of progress on this already.

  6. Re:Gonna see a Net Neutrality Fee by Dragonslicer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Because of course they've avoided raising their rates out of the kindness of their hearts, but all of this new regulation is forcing them to do it against their will.

    I keep hearing from free-market capitalists that prices would naturally trend towards whatever the market will bear. If that's true, then regulation would never increase prices. After all, if the sellers could get away with raising the price, they would have already done so.

  7. Re:Can't be enforced. by anegg · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As I understand it, the FCC and the description of common carriers under "Title II" of the Communications Act of 1934 was created by Congress. The FCC is ruling that Internet Service Providers are "common carriers" under the language of Title II, and not "information service providers" under the language of Title I. This ruling includes adjustments/interpretations of the Title II language as the FCC envisions it would be applied to Internet Service Providers.

    The FCC didn't give themselves this authority, the FCC was created by Congress to have this authority.

  8. How Time Warner, et al, Will Defeat This by Dredd13 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How companies like Time Warner will defeat Net Neutrality: Self-divestiture.

    The "Time Warner Cable/Internet" you know of today becomes a myriad of companies specifically designed to continue on with business as usual while still adhering to the letter of the law:

    - Time Warner Broadband - a company which does nothing more than operate Hybrid-Fiber-Coax outside plant (the actual wires on the actual poles).

    - Time Warner Cable - a company which leases spectrum from TWB (above), and provides cable-video service on that outside plant

    - Time Warner Transit - a company which does nothing more than provide wholesale (non-retail, non-mass-market) internet connectivity to ISPs and other service providers. As a wholesaler, TWT is not encumbered by net neutrality regulations.

    - Time Warner Internet - a company which leases spectrum from TWB (above) to provide IP connectivity to end-users. It obtains *all* of its internet connectivity from TWT (above), and charges metered billing to all its end-users (you pay a flat rate PLUS you pay "by the bit", the same way you pay for water or electric today).

    Netflix, et al, will have to tithe properly to TWT if they want access to TWI's customers, since TWT is the only path to GET to TWI's customers. The FCC can't really punish TWI for this move, without opening up an even messier Pandora's box of trying to tell ISPs "which upstreams they HAVE to obtain connectivity from".

    Yes, it'll all be a LITTLE more complicated than that, but they've got teams of lawyers to work out the details.

  9. Re:How do we know? by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Informative

    Rush Limbaugh remembers the days of the fairness doctrine. There are a handful of politicians who think it should make a comeback. I'm not a big fan of Mr. Limbaugh's but in his defense if you read what has been said by supporters of the Fairness Doctrine it would send shivers up your spine:

    The shooting is cause for the country to rethink parameters on free speech, Clyburn said from his office, just blocks from the South Carolina Statehouse. He wants standards put in place to guarantee balanced media coverage with a reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine, in addition to calling on elected officials and media pundits to use 'better judgment.'

    Most people, left or right would recoil whenever a politician starts talking about a need to rethink the "parameters of free speech."

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.