Ramblings of an old Doc

 

Well, there must be the gnashing of teeth and moaning in the inner sanctums of telcos and ISPs (probably Congress, as well): The Chairman of the FCC has come down supporting the classification of the internet as a Title II public utility (which it truly is), and the FCC will relate to it as such. This means the business interests of the telco/ISPs will come second to those of the public, and that there will be no further receiving subsidies they receive to maintain net neutrality, while trying to profit on the other side by rate differentials for broadband width:

“Specifically, Wheeler says the new rules will ban paid prioritization, which lets ISPs charge for faster access to its networks, as well as the slowdown of "lawful content and services." – engadget

Also: Mobile users, rejoice: These open internet protections will apply to you as well! Wheeler reminded everyone that the internet would look radically different had the FCC not opened up access to networking equipment in the early 1960s. Also, he reminded everyone that the phone network’s didn’t happen by accident, but by FCC rule.” Wheeler is making a very clear choice that he is favoring consumers more than businesses.

"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," Wheeler wrote. "All of this can be accomplished while encouraging investment in broadband networks." – FCC Chairman Wheeler

There’s lots of industry pushback based on “over-regulation” calling it a European styled internet with overly protective regulations [right, because business has proven government shouldn’t protect the pblic – lol]. The industry also stated this would likely “balkanize” the net into private networks and specialized services…whatever…seems to me political entities such as China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, etc. have already done that.

So how will all this affect you? The FCC will apply provisions of Title II that allow for enhanced consumer protections and tighter controls against "unjust practices" and "discrimination," for instance, while legally ignoring ones that make other Title II companies subject to "tariffs or other form of rate approval, unbundling, or other forms of utility regulation". Hopefully not with a heavy hand.

So, a great couple of weeks for consumers: Redefinition of “broadband services” to 25Mbps/3Mbps from the laughable 4Mbps/1Mbps and Title II definition and protection of the net.

Good job, Mr. Wheeler. Thank you for listening to the public, and thank you for having the public good foremost in mind.

To the industry: This will continue to encourage innovation and HOPEFULLY some competition for a change. Don’t feel bad. This is “trickle up” for a change.

Source:

http://www.engadget.com/2015/02/04/fcc-net-neutrality/?utm_source=Feed_Classic_Full&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Engadget&?ncid=rss_full


Comments (Page 2)
7 Pages1 2 3 4  Last
on Feb 07, 2015

What I want is an internet open to all without a 2 tier system: Fast lane for those who can pay big bucks and the slow lane for those who can't or don't. This is the same reason I oppose socialized medicine unless it grants equal access and usage to all people without economic discrimination.

on Feb 07, 2015

We have a multi-tier system for cars, homes and other products and services.  I have no problem with the same for internet.  

on Feb 07, 2015

Allowing that to happen to the net is not the same as homes and cars with different prices. Allowing that to happen to the net will create an immutable caste system of businesses which will prevent innovation as well as growth of small business.

I don't agree with much the President has to say, but in this? 100% correct.

on Feb 07, 2015

Instead of Title II what I would like to see is local loop unbundling of all wired connections to the home - copper telephone wires, coax, and fiber, and then these assets combined into a single nonprofit corporation, where the shareholders were the people connected to the system.

 

If Comcast, Time Warner, Suddenlink, Cox, (on the tv side) AT&T, Verizon, Frontier, CenturyLink, (on the phone side) and Google all compted with each other, y\I'm sure competitive forces would shake up the American ISP industry.

on Feb 07, 2015

I agree strongly with making the internet a public utility. 

I am so tired of people arguing we need to get the government out of the way. 

If the sandbox we all share only had mom and pop main street business entities dwelling along with us individuals - that position would be fine.  However, the reality is that the sandbox of life has many giants lumbering about -seeking to implement their own agendas.  We are ants compared to them.  The government is the only entity that has any hope of advocating for us ants.  Please don't cry free market place - when you haven't examined who controls the 'invisible hand' that supposedly guides market activities. 

Bottom line, make the internet a public utility and stop the greedy giants from taking government money on one said, and pleading government interference on the other - like when a town (municipality) decides to set up a public web service and the giant uber size corporation sues (or merely threatens to sue - backed by its very deep pockets) - just to eliminate a pocket of 'resistance' to its profits. 

I agree strongly with making the internet a public utility. 

on Feb 07, 2015

I agree there should be no government subsidies given to telecom companies.  They are entitled to the same business tax breaks as other entities but keeping more of their own money is not the same as getting a subsidy (taxpayer money). The more government controls something the moew you are going to see graft, in the form of campaign contributions and less legal means, to politicians.  

on Feb 07, 2015

We don't have "net neutrality: now and yet there is no problem going anywahere on the internet.  It's telling that giants such as Netflix and Google support the FCC's efforts.  Neither wants to pay more for internet traffic.  As is typical in the Alice through the Looking Glass world of government, words mean the exact opposite of their clear meaning.  The fear by giant corporations is not that they can buy faster bandwidth but that they will be charged in proportion to the bandwidth they use.  If the ISPs can't charge more for higher use, who else but the consumer will be charged for that use?  Does it make more sense for Netflix to pay for their traffic or you?

on Feb 07, 2015

Comcast is buying TWC.  TWC is swapping St. Louis for DFW with Charter.  I have 1 way to get internet and that is satellite.  I live in a 10-12K city but the cable co. decided not to run cable down on the streets around me.  TV, the same as internet.  I can't even get AT&T's crap TV as my town is Verizon.  I get 5 1/4 DL speed and 2 1/4 upload.  So I'll wait and see what that does for me.

on Feb 08, 2015

Sounds more like the NBA or NFL, Mike. 

on Feb 09, 2015

It should already be troubling that this 332 book of "rules" cannot be seen by the public, and probably won't be allowed until well after the vote.

 

on Feb 09, 2015

I agree that should be accessible online in pdf form.

Why doesn't Commissioner Pai put them online?

on Feb 09, 2015

They're not allowed to.  That's the problem.

 

on Feb 09, 2015

If that's true, then where's the promised "transparency"?

Imho, that just sucks: "We'll learn all about it after we pass it."? Nope! Sorry. That's just totally wrong.

on Feb 09, 2015

Has there ever been  "transparency"?

on Feb 09, 2015

Transparency is very important to the government, especially this administration, except when it isn't.

I highly anticipate some very unpleasant surprises buried in those 332 pages.  I have a feeling 'neutrality' is about to get very expensive.

7 Pages1 2 3 4  Last