FCC votes to begin return to 1996 ie, nix Net Neutrality

[tangor]

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) voted to start the process to repeal the controversial net neutrality regulations on Thursday.

Internet freedom was once a decades-long, bipartisan consensus. In 1996, President Bill Clinton and a Republican Congress passed the Telecommunications Act of 1996, stating that the United States would “preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet . . . unfettered by Federal or State regulation.”

Net neutrality passed under former Democrat Tom Wheeler’s FCC in 2010. The rule, known as the Open Internet Order, reclassified the internet as a public monopoly. Critics chided the rule, stating that it would diminish the freedom of the internet. Proponents argue that the regulations prevent Internet service providers from discriminating against content providers.

[breitbart.com...]

Net neutraility has been confusion from day one, and the USA gov (under the past admin) reclassifying the net to Title II has created all kinds of unintended consequences. This action will restore the web/net in USA to where it was in 1996 when things weren't broken, privacy was covered under the FTC and gangbusters was pretty much the rule of the day.

That said, there are a few bad actors out there that need to be curbed and that can be done on a case by case basis.

Wild and wooly works for me. Others might have different opinions. Air them, if desired, but let's keep it civil. Do note this is an opportunity for all to express what they think is the need and direction for the web that we want to share with the gubermint (sic) mucky mucks.

[keyplyr]

Despite the overwhelming requests from the public to leave it alone.

[tangor]

That's correct, keyplyr, the public wants the web left alone AS IT WAS in 1996.

[keyplyr]

No, that's not what the letters, emails & phone calls were about. Hundreds of thousands asked Pai to *not* change Title II.

Verizon, the driving force behind the movement to roll back regulation protecting users from being overcharged by the big behemoths, has announced on numerous occasions they feel they are owed money from streaming services like Netflix, HBO and Youtube who use more bandwith (which seems reasonable.)

However, if they are sucessful at this, the end-user (you and I] will be the ones that will end up paying for it through increased subscriptions rates.

Oh yeah, Chairman Pai worked for Verizon prior to coming to the FCC. Coincidence...?

[tangor]

Entirely opposite take than reality. Title II allows the GOVERNMENT to set rates, enforce compliance and in so many other ways degrade the service. Look at your local electric/water/waste PUCs for examples.

In a free and open market gougers are ignored it there's an alternative, and if there is no Title II there's competition all over the place and a burning desire to include more by expanding networks and availability.

What brought this about was a row between two companies playing games---to the detriment of both--- AT THE EXPENSE of the end user who is paying for full access (at whatever tier they contracted for).

And the secondary, not quite hidden, threat by the past admin to introduce FAIR REPORTING (politics, etc) into the ecosystem. The last thing needed is that!

[tangor]

Aside: Hundreds of thousands of letters by a select (small) group of folks. Today's computer/bot world. :)

[keyplyr]

Tangor, saying things like "Entirely opposite take than reality" is insulting and not productice to having a civil discussion.

I remind you of your opening statement

Others might have different opinions. Air them, if desired, but let's keep it civil.

[tangor]

Secondary aside: I never got that Netflix/Verison problem. The users (who pay the bills) contract for x, they provide x. Where is the y and z?

In other words, when the money runs out you bill more. The end user either modifies behavior or opts for a different plan.

The net is not free, never has been, but all to many, now approaching THREE generations think the web is free. It ain't. Period.

[tangor]

Your humor in keeping things academic (see other remarks you've recently made) suggested I might reply in the same humor. If you failed to enjoy, then my bad.

So far it has remained civil.

[graeme_p]

@tangor, the problem is that the big telcos do not want to leave the net alone as they did in 1996. Back then, they provided equal access to all services. Now they want to be able to do deals, and block or slow sites that refuse to do deals with them. It will make life impossible for anyone who wants to start new sites and services that compete with established ones.

They also want to be paid twice for the same service - once by their customers, and again by the providers of the services their customers use.

[Marshall]

You do realize Breibart news was run by Steve Bannon, Trump's right-hand man, and is an alt-right news source. I am not saying they are not providing accurate quotes from an interview, but what they present will be very selective and always bias.

As for net neutrality in itself, I submitted my opinion to the FCC during their recent public comment period. In short I said "I pay a lot of money for internet access, access that I expect to be equal and fair, not selective access as determined by my ISP." But sadly, the general public does not understand all this and, in the end, I fear the ISPs will win especially with the current conditions in Washington.

[martinibuster]

That Breitbart news quote is 100% propaganda and a lie.
That quote is a reminder of why Breitbart is not considered an authoritative news source. They quote a U.S. Code out of context in order to make it fit its own alternate-reality narrative. They are explicitly spreading propaganda, not news.

That Breitbart quote was taken from a part of the regulation dealing exclusively with parental blocking of offensive material.
47 U.S. Code § 230 - Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 [law.cornell.edu]

Do not allow others to brainwash you. Investigate the context of any citation before accepting it as truth.

The purpose of Net Neutrality is to preserve a competitive free market by stopping ISPs from double charging for their services. ISPs want to charge content publishers (that's YOU tangor) for delivering your content to your site visitors, a service that has already been paid for by your site visitors. Net Neutrality is good for publishers. It stops the greedy ISPs from taking money out of the pockets of publishers (that's YOU tangor).

Net Neutrality was good legislation and the only reason Republicans are against it is because of corruption and politics, i.e. this good idea happened under Obama's watch.

Now ISPs will be free to double charge to satisfy their greed. Make no mistake, this is not good for the consumer.

[not2easy]

It is certainly not correct, the part about "reclassified the internet as a public monopoly." has it all wrong - (what is a "public monopoly." anyway?) the 2010 changes classified the internet as a "public utility" the same as electric or water service. Which means that it is a service to be regulated so that provider companies (ISPs) do not get to abuse their customers by charging different fees for the same services.

[tangor]

Public utilities are recognized monopolies as there is generally only one or two of each in any location, thus controlling the public's access to a goods or service.

Semantics are causing problems, but the end results do eventually get there.

Some want the internet to be a public utility, which means government control, some want an open marketplace where the customer makes the choice, and the provider either gives what is desired or loses business. There's little incentive for competition in Title II industries, or need to expand infrastructure as the govt determines winners and losers by price fixing, or as commonly referred to as rates allowed.

As for news sources, let's all agree that the messenger is not the bad guy (though the NYT "lies" like a rug).

[Marshall]

Some want the internet to be a public utility, which means government control, some want an open marketplace where the customer makes the choice, and the provider either gives what is desired or loses business. There's little incentive for competition in Title II industries, or need to expand infrastructure as the govt determines winners and losers by price fixing, or as commonly referred to as rates allowed.

Most service areas are too small for competition. I live 30 miles outside a major city and there is only one ISP: Comcast. They are only here as years ago they bought up the small company that serviced this area. The only other choice for people around here is DSL or Dish. As a web designer, I seriously doubt I could stay in business if I did not have high speed internet and, no matter what may come of net neutrality, the ISPs are monopolies and will dictate pricing. There is no choice and no matter how much you pay, everything will always have this disclaimer "internet speeds are not guaranteed may vary," their "get out of jail free" card, so to speak.

Bottom line: as long as people are hooked, addicted, reliant upon, or otherwise must have access to the internet, something every ISP knows, they will charge what they want and dictate the service you get, but always with a disclaimer. We created this animal, now we have to live with it. It's no AT&T and Baby Bells situation.

And do not forget, the FCC Chairman, Pai, was a lawyer for Verizon. Which way do you think he is going to lean.