Bear Down Wildcats

After more than a decade of debate and a record-setting proceeding that attracted nearly 4 million public comments, the time to settle the Net Neutrality question has arrived. 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. This proposal is rooted in long-standing regulatory principles, marketplace experience, and public input received over the last several months.

Broadband network operators have an understandable motivation to manage their network to maximize their business interests. But their actions may not always be optimal for network users. The Congress gave the FCC broad authority to update its rules to reflect changes in technology and marketplace behavior in a way that protects consumers. Over the years, the Commission has used this authority to the public’s great benefit.

The Federal Communications Commission approved the policy known as net neutrality by a 3-2 vote at its Thursday meeting, with FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler saying the policy will ensure "that no one — whether government or corporate — should control free open access to the Internet."

The policy helps to decide an essential question about how the Internet works, requiring service providers to be a neutral gateway instead of handling different types of Internet traffic in different ways — and at different costs.

"Today is a red-letter day," Wheeler said later.

The dissenting votes came from Michael O'Rielly and Ajut Pai, Republicans who warned that the FCC was overstepping its authority and interfering in commerce to solve a problem that doesn't exist. They also complained that the measure's 300-plus pages weren't publicly released or openly debated.

Our original post continues:

The new policy would replace a prior version adopted in 2010 — but that was put on hold following a legal challenge by Verizon. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled last year that the FCC did not have sufficient regulatory power over broadband.

After that ruling, the FCC was left to reclassify broadband in a way to gain broader regulatory powers.

WASHINGTON — The Federal Communications Commission voted Thursday to regulate broadband Internet service as a public utility, a milestone in regulating high-speed Internet service into American homes.

The new rules, approved 3 to 2 along party lines, are intended to ensure that no content is blocked and that the Internet is not divided into pay-to-play fast lanes for Internet and media companies that can afford it and slow lanes for everyone else. Those prohibitions are hallmarks of the net neutrality concept.

Mobile data service for smartphones and tablets is being placed under the new rules. The order also includes provisions to protect consumer privacy and to ensure Internet service is available for people with disabilities and in remote areas.

The F.C.C. is taking this big regulatory step by reclassifying high-speed Internet service as a telecommunications service, instead of an information service, under Title II of the Telecommunications Act. The Title II classification comes from the phone company era, treating service as a public utility.

ASUHATER! wrote:i like how the far right and fox news are all abuzz about how this ruling means that obama and the gubmint is now going to rule the internet with an iron fist and that there are going to be all kinds of secret taxes and price increases to satisfy obama's dictatorial sensibilities.



or...it just means that this is a blow to big telecom and it makes the lobbyists and companies that back the republicans super mad and now the internet can be better than ever before.

PieceOfMeat wrote:I wonder how many years in the courts this will be spending.

doubt anything changes any time soon.

ASUHATER! wrote:well it may still go to courts, but it prevents big telecom from making anything currently worse.

84Cat wrote: Gives Google time to make Google fiber a reality for everyone and then big cable is screwed anyway.

ASUHATER! wrote:well this ruling by the fcc is as good as law (actually is a law...was given that power by congress) so i'm not sure how that would change things in the future if republicans win.

ASUHATER! wrote:well this ruling by the fcc is as good as law (actually is a law...was given that power by congress) so i'm not sure how that would change things in the future if republicans win.

The new rules, known as "net neutrality," act to provide equal opportunity for Internet speeds and access to websites.

The central question was whether network owners -- like Comcast (CMCSA) or Time Warner Cable (TWC) -- can discriminate what runs on their cables. The FCC's answer on Thursday was: No.

The Democratic-led commission approved 3-to-2, split along party lines, to assert extra government authority over the Internet.

Now for the wild claims on both sides: "We saved the Internet!" or "We've destroyed it with government bureaucracy!"

Don't believe the hype. Take a deep breath. It's a long, tricky road ahead.

The FCC rules won't be official until maybe summertime. Then major telecom companies will challenge new rules in court. A judge might put the rules rules on hold. The next president, if Republican, could let this fizzle away.

That's why, in the near term, nothing changes. No, Netflix won't suddenly stream any faster. No, AT&T and Comcast won't abruptly stop laying down high-speed fiber cables in your neighborhood as retaliation. And yes, Netflix can still cut deals with broadband companies for faster access to a network.

So what just happened, exactly? The FCC just granted itself the power to defeat a raging, fire-breathing monster: the monopolistic network owners who can kill Internet freedom by blocking websites -- or by creating an Internet fast lane for the privileged, few, rich tech companies that can pay for it.

But this monster is actually a phantom menace. Sure, in the past, telecoms have been bullies. Verizon blocked Google Wallet. AT&T blocked video chatting apps. Comcast slowed down file-sharing services like BitTorrent. Rural telephone provider Madison River blocked Vonage's over-the-Internet phone calls. However, the FCC used existing rules to fix those problems.

The new rules essentially maintain the status quo. The Internet sure feels free today. It'll feel the same way tomorrow.

That's why some worry about how the FCC just ensured net neutrality. To enforce fairness rules, the agency will regulate network owners by scooping them up under Title II of the 1934 Telecommunications Act, a specific set of regulations that apply to phone companies. Telecoms say the rules don't match the services they provide. They don't trust the FCC's promise that it will apply only a tiny fraction of those rules and won't regulate rates and increase taxes.

"Assurances like these don't tend to last very long," warned Republican FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai. "Expect ... regulation to ratchet up as time goes on."

Meanwhile, Tom Wheeler, the FCC chairman who ditched his original dialed-back plan for this one, assured this isn't a government power grab.

"This is no more a plan to regulate the Internet than the First Amendment is a plan to regulate free speech," he said. "They both stand for the same concept: openness, expression and an absence of gatekeepers."

How did we start caring about this? Credit comedian John Oliver, who got enough viewers of his HBO show that a record 4 million Americans sent comments to the FCC.

He framed it from the point of view of the average person dealing with their Internet service provider. Plans are expensive, service is inexplicably spotty and you have little choice. Clearly, the network owners are the bad guys.

During Thursday's hearing, the testimony of those who spoke in favor of the FCC's new rules all took that populist tone. Etsy CEO Chad Dickerson thanked the FCC for "protecting the Internet as an engine for economic opportunity." Celebrated technologist Sir Tim Berners-Lee said this ensures modern entrepreneurs the same opportunity he had when he created the World Wide Web 26 years ago.

After the vote, President Obama issued this statement via Twitter: "Today's FCC decision will protect innovation and create a level playing field for the next generation of entrepreneurs."

But wait, there's a third option. As this fight makes its way through the courts, Congress has the opportunity to stand up and write rules that work too.

After all, both network owners and the websites that flow data through them have a point. Outright blocking and anti-competitive behavior is unfair and should be illegal. On the other hand, for technical reasons, network owners need to manage traffic. Your video stream needs to move faster than your email for your experience to feel smooth.

That's why critics call the Title II approach -- what the FCC did today -- a blunt instrument. But it's not clear that it's as wonderful -- or terrible -- as everyone says.

Rob Atkinson, president of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, a technology policy think tank, laments how the conversation has spiraled out of control.

"This has become a debate about a false choice: letting carriers do whatever the heck they want and overly burdensome regulations," Atkinson said.

ASUHATER! wrote:huh? i never said anything that contradicts what that article says...


try to keep up saltsters.

ASUHATER! wrote:appointed by the POTUS and confirmed by the Senate

Salty wrote:

ASUHATER! wrote:huh? i never said anything that contradicts what that article says...


try to keep up saltsters.

Bolded part.

ASUHATER! wrote:

Salty wrote:

ASUHATER! wrote:huh? i never said anything that contradicts what that article says...


try to keep up saltsters.

Bolded part.

yup. didn't contradict any of the bolded parts.

ASUHATER! wrote:except, it didn't. keep up saltsters


but anyway, mark cuban is going bonkers over the decision and making up a bunch of whiny fake complaints like "how long until youtube and streaming internet videos are censored like network tv now!!"

(btw mark cuban is the chairman of a cable network..)

ASUHATER! wrote:except, it didn't. keep up saltsters

Salty wrote:

ASUHATER! wrote:except, it didn't. keep up saltsters

You said that you didn't understand how a republican president would impact this.

I showed that by the time the courts figure this out, a republican could be in office and this all would be irrelevant.

ASUHATER! wrote:

Salty wrote:

ASUHATER! wrote:except, it didn't. keep up saltsters

You said that you didn't understand how a republican president would impact this.

I showed that by the time the courts figure this out, a republican could be in office and this all would be irrelevant.

that's not what i said or meant....

ASUHATER! wrote:fox news headline:

"CONTROLS ON 'NET Critics roar as FCC OK's Obama backed regulations"


sure to fire up the oldtimers. what? obama backed something? it must be evil!!!

gumby wrote:U.S. way behind on this issue. Slower and costs more. American exceptionalism!

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/31/upsho ... 0002&abg=0

Salty wrote:

gumby wrote:U.S. way behind on this issue. Slower and costs more. American exceptionalism!

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/31/upsho ... 0002&abg=0

I think this has more to do with the fact that the United States installed interest technology over a decade ago, and that infrastructure is still being used. That was far before many of the other places had high speed internet.

The big Internet providers have little reason to upgrade their entire networks to fiber because there has so far been little pressure from competitors or regulators to do so, said Susan Crawford, a visiting professor at Harvard Law School and author of “Captive Audience: Telecom Monopolies in the New Gilded Age.”

There are signs of a growing movement for cities to build their own fiber networks and lease the fiber to retail Internet providers. Some, like San Antonio, already have fiber in place, but there are policies restricting them from using it to offer Internet services to consumers. Other cities, like Santa Monica, Calif., have been laying fiber during other construction projects.

In certain cities, the threat of new Internet providers has spurred the big, existing companies to do something novel: increase the speeds they offer and build up their own fiber networks.

gumby wrote:

Salty wrote:

gumby wrote:U.S. way behind on this issue. Slower and costs more. American exceptionalism!

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/31/upsho ... 0002&abg=0

I think this has more to do with the fact that the United States installed interest technology over a decade ago, and that infrastructure is still being used. That was far before many of the other places had high speed internet.

I think it's because of the reasons in the article. In the few places where competition exists, providers are getting off their duffs and improving infrastructure.

The big Internet providers have little reason to upgrade their entire networks to fiber because there has so far been little pressure from competitors or regulators to do so, said Susan Crawford, a visiting professor at Harvard Law School and author of “Captive Audience: Telecom Monopolies in the New Gilded Age.”

There are signs of a growing movement for cities to build their own fiber networks and lease the fiber to retail Internet providers. Some, like San Antonio, already have fiber in place, but there are policies restricting them from using it to offer Internet services to consumers. Other cities, like Santa Monica, Calif., have been laying fiber during other construction projects.

In certain cities, the threat of new Internet providers has spurred the big, existing companies to do something novel: increase the speeds they offer and build up their own fiber networks.

Plus, your explanation doesn't cover why it costs American customers so much more.

The Butcher wrote:So did we win or lose? I still don't understand it. What the hell was I supposed to be hoping for?

Salty wrote:

gumby wrote:

Salty wrote: But most of the Internet infrastructure in this country was built before the dot com bubble burst. At that time, the United States was unquestionably the global leader in Internet speeds and access.

gumby wrote:

Salty wrote:

gumby wrote:

Salty wrote: But most of the Internet infrastructure in this country was built before the dot com bubble burst. At that time, the United States was unquestionably the global leader in Internet speeds and access.

And Spain once had the most powerful navy.

Bruins01 wrote:Every single time I inexplicably click the "display this post" when salty writes something, I think, "holy sh*t, that is incredibly stupid." It is like clockwork.