Slashdot Mirror


FCC Announces Plan To Reverse Title II Net Neutrality (theverge.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: The Federal Communications Commission is cracking open the net neutrality debate again with a proposal to undo the 2015 rules that implemented net neutrality with Title II classification. FCC chairman Ajit Pai called the rules "heavy handed" and said their implementation was "all about politics." He argued that they hurt investment and said that small internet providers don't have "the means or the margins" to withstand the regulatory onslaught. "Earlier today I shared with my fellow commissioners a proposal to reverse the mistake of Title II and return to the light touch framework that served us so well during the Clinton administration, Bush administration, and first six years of the Obama administration," Pai said today. His proposal will do three things: first, it'll reclassify internet providers as Title I information services; second, it'll prevent the FCC from adapting any net neutrality rules to practices that internet providers haven't thought up yet; and third, it'll open questions about what to do with several key net neutrality rules -- like no blocking or throttling of apps and websites -- that were implemented in 2015. Pai will publish the full text of his proposal tomorrow, and it will be voted on by the FCC on May 18th.

11 of 202 comments (clear)

  1. Money by nobuddy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Its whats for dinner. The cash votes of the lobbyists are far more valuable than your ballot vote will ever be.

    1. Re:Money by Rob+Y. · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, a better test would be "Anyone who voted for Trump and thought he was going to raise the price of Netflix and prevent the introduction of new streaming services, please raise your hand".

      --
      Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
  2. It's not just money by rsilvergun · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Trump was elected on a platform of clearing burdensome regulations. This is the result. If you're gonna take a buzz saw to bureaucracy you don't get to pick and choose the parts you like.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:It's not just money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      this has nothing to do with TRUMP specifically.. this has NOTHING to do with "clearing burdensome regulations".. this has NOTHING to do with being a 'burden' on small providers (if anything, it *levels the playing field)...

      it has EVERYTHING to do with campaign funding of republicans from major ISPs and EVERYTHING to do with the republican's fucked-up desire to simply UNDO everything obama championed for, regardless of what it was.

      (and before you toss health care into this.. obama wanted single payer. what we got, 'obamacare', is actually modeled after 'romneycare'.. a republican created fuck-up put in place in Massachusetts, the passing of which ENDED a 16 year hold that party had on the governor's office in that state).

  3. What utter shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Fucking republicans, wrecking the world and destroying western civilization, one bribe at a time.

    Sayonara America, it was nice while it lasted. (And yes, I know net neutrality is just one issue, and by no means the most important, but it is important, and in the broader context of what has happened these last 100 days or the America we knew and loved is dead, and the rotting corpse feeding the fat Republican billionaires club that Trump is figureheading).

  4. Haha by sit1963nz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As Nelson would say "Ha ha".

    The US already pays more for "health" by a VERY large margin than anyone else. How soon will it be before the "internet" follows suit.
    The rest of the world will be happy to stick with its Net Neutrality , get the same (if not better) service for a lot less money.
    Unlike health though, it is easier to host servers in other countries, which is all that will happen.
    Will this encourage investment, sure, just not in the USA.

  5. Re:Troglodytes by squiggleslash · · Score: 4, Insightful

    All of them, and make no mistake Hillary would have been just as bad.

    No, I'm pretty sure she wouldn't have been. I think it's reasonable to assume she would have continued the same kind of policies as Obama. And it was Obama's FCC that started to take Network Neutrality seriously to begin with.

    There is no justification for claiming a "Both sides" position here, just as there isn't with 90% of what Trump is doing.

    --
    You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  6. Re:Haha by macsimcon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How soon? Are you kidding? We already pay more for Internet than any other industrialized country, and some second world countries:

          http://www.pbs.org/newshour/up...

    Here's the truth that other countries have already figured out: when the government provides a service, it's cheaper. When private companies provide the same service, it's much more expensive, because they have to make a profit. And while it might have once been true that private industry could do a task better than the government, now private industry has realized that doing a poor job yields higher profit, so we end up getting worse services for more money when private industry provides them.

    The federal government should provide all funds for education, for Internet access, and for healthcare. We can start paying for it by cutting the Department of Defense by 10% every couple of years, and eliminating corporate welfare. No more privatized intelligence, no more privatization of military services, no more military, intelligence, or security "contractors".

    And eliminate DHS, what a fucking waste of money.

    If that's not enough money, let's return to a top marginal rate of 91%. It worked great in the 50s, and the economy was booming.

  7. This has everything to do with Trump by rsilvergun · · Score: 3, Insightful

    and the Republican party. We elected someone who took, as a pillar of his campaign, the notion that the free market can and would sort all this out. We gave him a Congress of 60% like minded individuals.

    Yes, I'm well aware of the campaign donations and who's paying them. But that doesn't change the fact that the Republican party takes as a basic ideological concept the notion that government interference with the market is inherently bad. If you're going to accept that as a truism then you're going to have to follow it to it's logical conclusion, which is that Net Neutrality stifles competition, innovation and raises prices by constraining how ISPs run their business.

    What I'm saying is that Net Neutrality is incompatible with one of the basic tenants of the Republican party. If you agree with Net Neutrality you disagree with the Republican party. Maybe not individuals, but with the party's ideals.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:This has everything to do with Trump by guises · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's too simple. You can certainly make the claim that removing a requirement for net neutrality increases market freedom by reducing a limitation on the market, but that limitation exists to increase market freedom. This is an old argument on Slashdot: is GPL'd software more Free or less Free than public domain software? It's not a question that you can answer definitively, the restriction increases freedom in some ways and decreases it in others.

      Likewise, Net Neutrality is not fundamentally at odds with Republican ideals. It's only at odds with the way that some people are interpreting those ideals.

    2. Re:This has everything to do with Trump by Dragonslicer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What I'm saying is that Net Neutrality is incompatible with one of the basic tenants of the Republican party. If you agree with Net Neutrality you disagree with the Republican party. Maybe not individuals, but with the party's ideals.

      And here I was thinking that having competitive markets was one of those basic tenets.