Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 126.96.36.199
Forum Moderators: incrediBILL
Pai asked in May for public comment on whether the FCC has authority or should keep any regulations limiting internet providers’ ability to block, throttle or offer “fast lanes” to some websites, known as “paid prioritization.” Several industry officials told Reuters they expect Pai to drop those specific legal requirements but retain some transparency requirements under the order. Report: FCC Head Plans to Overturn U.S. Net Neutrality Rules [reuters.com]
This was his plan all along. He's been very clear about this from the start; setting up the groundwork to lift regulation that protects consumers.Without meaning to sound political, that seems to be the goal of the current administration.
Federal regulators unveiled a plan Tuesday that would give Internet providers broad powers to determine what websites and online services their customers can see and use, and at what cost. FCC plan would give Internet providers power to choose the sites customers see and use [washingtonpost.com]
In a news release, Pai said his proposal would prevent the government from “micromanaging the Internet.” Under the new rules, he said, the FCC would “simply require Internet service providers to be transparent about their practices.”
Before my fellow FCC members vote to dismantle net neutrality, they need to get out from behind their desks and computers and speak to the public directly. The FCC needs to hold hearings around the country to get a better sense of how the public feels about the proposal.
if this goes into effect in the USA, it will surely affect internet users in Canada, Britain, the EU, Australia
ISPs that attempt to set gate keeping will face the wrath of consumers and exodus to providers who don't do this. The market will correct any overeachNope. Doesn't work that way with most all broadband providers where there is only that one company servicing the area. Nowhere for the customer to "exodus" to.
ISPs that attempt to set gate keeping will face the wrath of consumers and exodus to providers who don't do this. The market will correct any overeach.
two-thirds of American consumers have at most one choice as to who they can get their Internet access from
COASTAL areas with more than one provider and are more than 80% of the population (thus the majority of users) would pitch a significant hissy fit.
There is really no ideological argument here. This is not about big or small government. This is about the public and the small business website owner getting screwed.
I think the stat I quoted was pretty clear 66% of US consumers have at most the choice of one service provider. Not 20%, 66%. I assume that you do not own your own ISP, so as an independent webmaster your business is at risk.
Even these numbers overstate the amount of competition, because an ISP might offer service to only part of a census block. The percentage of households with choice is thus even lower.
Judging by what has happened in other countries, the likely most result is the reverse of what keyplyr suggests. There will be cheap packages that only offer access to certain sites, or unlimited usage for those sites and low limits on the rest of the internet. Customers who want general access, or to use services other than the web, will have to pay extra.No, that's exactly what I'm suggesting, or at least one of the things I'm saying.