FCC Passes Net Neutrality

[connor_in]

FCC Passes Strict Net Neutrality Regulations On 3-2 Vote | TechCrunch

As expected, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) passed new net neutrality regulations today on a vote of 3-2, with the Commission’s two Democratic appointees joining Chairman Tom Wheeler in voting yes. The Commission’s two Republican-appointed members both voted no.

Notably, the FCC’s plan is now known to have undergone a last-minute revision to remove a potential weakness in its formation, pointed out by Google, that might have allowed for some paid prioritization. If you were curious about Google’s take on net neutrality, that fact should settle the question.

The CEO of Etsy, an online marketplace, spoke before the commission voted to “applaud” the FCC for putting into place “bright line” rules, and “voting to protect the Internet.”

Up first from the commission, Commissioner Mignon Clyburn said in her remarks that the “framers” of America “would be pleased” with the FCC’s plan. The commissioner went on to call today’s vote the FCC’s “third bite at the apple.” Clyburn also disclosed, as was previously reported, that she had helped shape part of the order, and also listed a number of changes she would have preferred to see in the order itself. The commissioner wrapped by arguing that individuals who are worried about rate regulation are worrying unnecessarily.

Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel argued that the United States’ “Internet economy is the envy of the world. We invented it. The app economy began right here on our shores.” She went on to call the Internet “our printing press” and “our town square.”


The Internet is too important to allow broadband providers to make the rules.
— FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler
Rosenworcel also called attention to the massive outpouring of public response to net neutrality: “Four million Americans wrote to this agency…Whatever our disagreements are on net neutrality, I hope we agree that this is democracy in action and something we can all support.”

Commissioner Ajit Pai said that it was “sad to witness” the FCC replacing Internet freedom with “government control.” Pai continued, saying that the FCC only voted on the rules that it did due to intrusion into the agency’s processes by President Barack Obama.



Pai was typically terse: “The plan is not a solution to a problem,” he said, going on to call the plan itself “the problem.”

Commissioner Michael O’Reilly criticized the proposal to reverse Title II: “I see no need for net neutrality rules. I am far more troubled the commission is charting for Title II.” He continued, calling the move a “monumental and unlawful power grab.”

O’Reilly then called the forbearance of certain Title II provisions “fauxbearance.”

“No one, whether government or corporate, should control free and open access to the Internet,” Chairman Wheeler said. “The Internet is too important to allow broadband providers to make the rules.” He then said it was nonsense that this was a secret plan to regulate the Internet. “This plan is no more a plan to regulate the Internet than the First Amendment is a plan to regulate free speech,” he said.

Legal action in response to the new rules is expected. Chairman Wheeler decided to invoke Title II to reclassify broadband service, something that has long been anathema to ISPs. So, while this vote was important, the life of net neutrality is not yet safe. Congress has agitated against the FCC’s plan in recent weeks.

This story is developing.

 

[connor_in]

Cuban: FCC Net Regs Will Spill Over, 'TV As You Know It Is Over' - Breitbart

Dallas Mavericks owner and investor Mark Cuban predicted that proposed FCC Internet regulations will end up impacting TV and “your TV as you know it is over” on Thursday’s “Squawk Alley” on CNBC.

Cuban began by predicting “the courts will rule the Internet for the next however many years.” He then explained, “let’s just take it all the way through its logical conclusion. All bits are bits, all bits are equal. If all bits are equal, then let’s look at what a stream bit is an example. So when Henry and I do an interview, and it’s streamed lived on the Internet, there’s a camera, it goes through an encoder, it sends it out via server or some manner to the Internet, you click on Business Insider and you watch the stream, right? Now, let’s look at CNBC on Comcast. There’s cameras right in front of you, they go through a switcher, they go through an encoder, it’s put through a server, it goes to Comcast, and it’s streamed in a managed service environment to television. It’s the exact same thing. And if it’s the exact same thing technologically and all bits are equal, then why shouldn’t CNBC and all TV networks that are delivered on cable, and Telco, and fiber like Verizon, why shouldn’t they be part of the open Internet as well? And if they are and all bits are equal, now, let’s take it one step further. It’s the purview of the FCC now. The FCC, right? So, the FCC now has to apply their same standards to content, don’t they, that they do to television content because that’s where it is and there’s going to be certain citizens who think ‘well now, since all content is delivered over the Internet because all bits are bits, and it’s a fair, and open, and equal Internet — decency standards.’ And remember the FCC is the same agency that fought Nipplegate for eight years over a wardrobe malfunction.”

He added, “your TV as you know it is over.”

Cuban further said that due to court and regulatory battles that will ensue if the proposed regulations are adopted, innovation online will be halted, declaring “if you love the Internet the way you know it today, this is what you’re going to have for a long time. But, if you’re like me, and you think the best is yet to come, then you don’t the FCC involved because of all the uncertainty.”

Cuban also commented on the transparency regarding of the FCC’s regulation process, sarcastically remarking “lots of transparency, right? Yeah, Lots of transparency.” And “that’s the FCC, that’s the Department of Internet that we’re going to get, no transparency.”

 

[Rizzophil]

Is there anything that the US Government doesn't control?

 

[IrishLion]

The spirit of net-neutrality is aimed to protect the users, keeping certain services/companies/etc. from being granted "fast lane" access...

However, the issue that some have is that the government will be able to regulate the entire internet now?

Am I understanding the very basics of both sides here?

 

[IrishLax]

The spirit of net-neutrality is aimed to protect the users, keeping certain services/companies/etc. from being granted "fast lane" access...

However, the issue that some have is that the government will be able to regulate the entire internet now?

Am I understanding the very basics of both sides here?

Yeah, but I don't buy that slipper slope argument in this case. The FCC just passed regulation to protect the freedom of the internet... it's a big leap from that to North Korea/China.

IMO, it's ISP/media conglomerates that simply bought these FCC players and gave them that spin to use. The truth is, if the FCC ever tried to censor/regulate the Internet there'd be outcry like there was over net neutrality and hopefully #democracy would work.

 

[woolybug25]

Why do you think Cuban is against it? Really, I mean...

Net neutrality is an effort to stop the fascist corporate state from effectively controlling what we can and cant do on the internet and extorting us for even more cash to access a rotten, unsupported system in substandard fashion. A system they received shit tons of govt largesse to build out in the first place. it does give govt control (which I dont like either), but the control is over comcast etal, not us per se. when corporations are so strong that they can bring us all to our knees and we have to just accept it visavis their contracts of adhesion, govt is an acceptable use of coercive retribution to FORCE them to shove it up their asses and accept that OUR tax dollars put them into the positions they are in.

Pick your poison...

 

[wizards8507]

The spirit of net-neutrality is aimed to protect the users, keeping certain services/companies/etc. from being granted "fast lane" access...

That's not the spirit of net-neutrality. Net-neutrality is old media versus new media, and new media is winning.

The most basic example is to consider Netflix versus Comcast. Netflix accounts for 35% of the internet traffic in terms of total bandwidth. They're using Comcast's "pipes" to deliver a product that, essentially, screws Comcast's business model in terms of selling cable packages and on-demand content. Comcast, as the owner of the pipes, would like to charge Netflix a premium for this privilege. The FCC is essentially telling Comcast (and the like) that they must let "New Media" use their pipes to destroy them and they're not allowed to get paid for it.

Why do you think Cuban is against it? Really, I mean...

Net neutrality is an effort to stop the fascist corporate state from effectively controlling what we can and cant do on the internet and extorting us for even more cash to access a rotten, unsupported system in substandard fashion. A system they received shit tons of govt largesse to build out in the first place. it does give govt control (which I dont like either), but the control is over comcast etal, not us per se. when corporations are so strong that they can bring us all to our knees and we have to just accept it visavis their contracts of adhesion, govt is an acceptable use of coercive retribution to FORCE them to shove it up their asses and accept that OUR tax dollars put them into the positions they are in.

Pick your poison...

This isn't a judgment against the "fascist corporate state," it's simply naming Netflix and Google our new corporate overlords instead of Comcast and Time Warner.

 

[MNIrishman]

This is a very good thing for small business. I'm not sure I buy Cuban's argument about the extent of the regulation here. This just says that when you pay for data, the cable company doesn't get to double bill to decide who gets access to the 50gb a month or whatever you're paying for. Amazon doesn't get to pay extra to have preferred bandwidth while the local bookstore down the street has a website that you can't load since he can't afford to pay the cable company's rates.

All you gotta know is that Comcast and Time Warner were against this. Screw them.

I also consider myself conservative/libertarian and it really pisses me off that the Republicans stuck in like this. There are many regulations that hurt the American people. This is not one of them.

 

[DonnieNarco]

This topic usually goes over my head and ramifications concern me, but Comcast being against it pushes me towards being in favor of it.

 

[wizards8507]

This is a very good thing for small business. I'm not sure I buy Cuban's argument about the extent of the regulation here. This just says that when you pay for data, the cable company doesn't get to double bill to decide who gets access to the 50gb a month or whatever you're paying for. Amazon doesn't get to pay extra to have preferred bandwidth while the local bookstore down the street has a website that you can't load since he can't afford to pay the cable company's rates.

All you gotta know is that Comcast and Time Warner were against this. Screw them.

I also consider myself conservative/libertarian and it really pisses me off that the Republicans stuck in like this. There are many regulations that hurt the American people. This is not one of them.

You just regurgitated political talking points in summarizing what this is about. It is NOT about protecting the "little guy."

 

[MNIrishman]

That's not the spirit of net-neutrality. Net-neutrality is old media versus new media, and new media is winning.

The most basic example is to consider Netflix versus Comcast. Netflix accounts for 35% of the internet traffic in terms of total bandwidth. They're using Comcast's "pipes" to deliver a product that, essentially, screws Comcast's business model in terms of selling cable packages and on-demand content. Comcast, as the owner of the pipes, would like to charge Netflix a premium for this privilege. The FCC is essentially telling Comcast (and the like) that they must let "New Media" use their pipes to destroy them and they're not allowed to get paid for it.


This isn't a judgment against the "fascist corporate state," it's simply naming Netflix and Google our new corporate overlords instead of Comcast and Time Warner.

Comcast sells data to users. There is no legal basis for them to be upset at content providers for providing legal content the users want to see. The fact that a large fraction of their costs are associated with streaming video is just a fact of the 21st century. They don't get to turn around and bill content creators for preferred access too. That's horsecrap and screws all small player content. Hope you don't like any blogs, personal websites, or mom and pop shops.

 

[IrishLion]

it's simply naming Netflix and Google our new corporate overlords instead of Comcast and Time Warner.

If that truly is what it boils down to, I still think it's a win haha.

 

[MNIrishman]

You just regurgitated political talking points in summarizing what this is about. It is NOT about protecting the "little guy."

That's my own opinion as both an engineer and someone who's read a lot about the issue. It IS about protecting the little guy. There's really no way you can argue it's not.

 

[woolybug25]

This isn't a judgment against the "fascist corporate state," it's simply naming Netflix and Google our new corporate overlords instead of Comcast and Time Warner.

That's BS. Sorry to be frank, but it is indeed just that. Acting like this is just some money grab between two large corporations is a complete falacy. It's a simple stop-gap to avoid the inevitable monopoly of megatelecom (Comcast, AT&T, etc) who want to tier service and create an artificial market of their choosing. In turn, letting broadband providers abuse their market power to affect access to competing applications or content.

It's not making Netflix a winner over Comcast. It's making public access and user rights triumph over corporate greed.

 

[GowerND11]

It's funny that the government passed a regulation to essentially allow "free access." Usually the government wants to regulate by impeding a lot of things.

I for one am all for it. Comcast and the likes are crying that they will lose money and wah wah wah. How much in NET profit did they make last year? Please, none of these telecommunication conglomerates are hurting for money.

This will allow all of us unimpeded access to the sites we want to go on without risk of these companies throttling the speeds. Totally a plus.

 

[IrishLax]

You just regurgitated political talking points in summarizing what this is about. It is NOT about protecting the "little guy."

Except that it is. It's 100% about protecting the little guy. Sorry that it isn't in ABC/Disney/ESPN's best interest with how vested they in their cable rights $$$.

Let's use your example. Netflix, because they are innovative and successful, uses a ton of bandwidth. Comcast wants to charge them a going rate for said bandwidth. It follows that Comcast will want to charge EVERYONE a going rate for bandwidth ... not just Netflix. It's either a toll-road or a freeway... no corporation is going to optionally forgo profits if they have the option.

So then what you have is an environment that will stifle innovation and growth by "little guys" who can't afford to pay the going rate per bit to be delivered over Comcast's cables.

 

[Woneone]

Just in case it doesn't show up: John Oliver explains it the best.

<iframe width="640" height="390" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/fpbOEoRrHyU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[Buster Bluth]

Is there anything that the US Government doesn't control?

God forbid that we regulate against monopolies exploiting their unethical leverage over us all.

That's not the spirit of net-neutrality. Net-neutrality is old media versus new media, and new media is winning.

That's still certainly qualifies as progress.

I do think it's a great point though, and worth mentioning that the reason things like SOPA failed weren't because of public outcry, but because Hollywood and Silicon Valley went to war behind closed doors and Silicon Valley won.

This isn't a judgment against the "fascist corporate state," it's simply naming Netflix and Google our new corporate overlords instead of Comcast and Time Warner.

I don't quite agree with that, only because the corporations behind the progress aren't "overlords." Comcast and Time Warner are two of the most hated companies in America, who happen to be monopolistic and against progress. I don't lose any sleep over the market determining that their business model (read: highway robbery) is toast.

If anything it's an indication that nothing will get done in DC without some sort of corporate backing. Today the corporations favoring progress for Americans (or in corporate terms, "consumers") won.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

I also consider myself conservative/libertarian and it really pisses me off that the Republicans stuck in like this. There are many regulations that hurt the American people. This is not one of them.

Very telling, isn't it? Aptly demonstrates whose interests the GOP is representing.

 

[connor_in]

I think one of the biggest things for those against it is that they voted on a document containing the regulations that was over 300 pages long, but was never fully released for public review and the head of the FCC refused to be questioned by Congress about it ahead of the FCC vote.

Many people seem to be scared by the repeated mentality of we have to pass it to find out what is in it.

 

[wizards8507]

Comcast sells data to users. There is no legal basis for them to be upset at content providers for providing legal content the users want to see. The fact that a large fraction of their costs are associated with streaming video is just a fact of the 21st century. They don't get to turn around and bill content creators for preferred access too. That's horsecrap and screws all small player content. Hope you don't like any blogs, personal websites, or mom and pop shops.

They're not going to bill bloggers or personal websites or mom and pop shops. They're going to bill Netflix. Bloggers and personal websites and mom and pop shows would be protected by allowing discriminatory pricing against those who "clog the pipes."

It's no different than an 18-wheeler paying a higher toll on the George Washington Bridge than a minivan. The minivan (i.e. the blogger) is the one paying the lower rate, not the one being penalized.

 

[IrishLax]

They're not going to bill bloggers or personal websites or mom and pop shops. They're going to bill Netflix. Bloggers and personal websites and mom and pop shows would be protected by allowing discriminatory pricing against those who "clog the pipes."

This is truly absurd. Why would they not bill everyone per bit? Just "because"?

It's no different than an 18-wheeler paying a higher toll on the George Washington bridge than a minivan. The minivan (i.e. the blogger) is the one paying the lower rate, not the one being penalized.

LOL. You just contradicted yourself and proved the point everyone else is making.

 

[Buster Bluth]

They're not going to bill bloggers or personal websites or mom and pop shops. They're going to bill Netflix. Bloggers and personal websites and mom and pop shows would be protected by allowing discriminatory pricing against those who "clog the pipes."

It's no different than an 18-wheeler paying a higher toll on the George Washington Bridge than a minivan. The minivan (i.e. the blogger) is the one paying the lower rate, not the one being penalized.

That's just it, there are no pipes being "clogged." Internet data is in no way comparable to road construction. Internet data is getting cheaper to provide every year.

It's more like Standard Oil having monopolies in both oil and railroads, and charging ridiculous shipping rates to oil competitors. If you want to be in the railroad business, you're not going to use it to support an oil monopoly. If they want to be in the ISP business, they aren't going to use it to support their cable monopoly and stifle content progress.

 

[wizards8507]

This is truly absurd. Why would they not bill everyone per bit? Just "because"?

That's exactly my point. They WOULD bill everyone per bit and the people using LESS bits (i.e. everyone EXCEPT Netflix) would benefit.

Netflix uses 35% of bandwidth but does not pay 35% of the bill. That means YOUR Comcast bill is subsidizing a part Netflix' use of Comcast's infrastructure. Discriminatory pricing would see Comcast billing Netflix for what Netflix uses and IrishLax for what IrishLax uses.

 

[wizards8507]

That's just it, there are no pipes being "clogged." Internet data is in no way comparable to road construction. Internet data is getting cheaper to provide every year.

It's more like Standard Oil having monopolies in both oil and railroads, and charging ridiculous shipping rates to oil competitors. If you want to be in the railroad business, you're not going to use it to support an oil monopoly. If they want to be in the ISP business, they aren't going to use it to support their cable monopoly and stifle content progress.

Sorry, why are there regional cable monopolies in the first place?

Government regulation.

 

[MNIrishman]

They're not going to bill bloggers or personal websites or mom and pop shops. They're going to bill Netflix. Bloggers and personal websites and mom and pop shows would be protected by allowing discriminatory pricing against those who "clog the pipes."

It's no different than an 18-wheeler paying a higher toll on the George Washington Bridge than a minivan. The minivan (i.e. the blogger) is the one paying the lower rate, not the one being penalized.

Why the heck wouldn't they bill for small ecommerce? Why would they turn down the money? But even if they did, it's important to note that it's not just billing for equal access, but speed. Imagine if you could pay $100 to not obey a speed limit, but if you paid less than $50, your speed limit was 20mph. THAT's the correct analogy, and it really screws most people.

 

[IrishLion]

They're not going to bill bloggers or personal websites or mom and pop shops. They're going to bill Netflix. Bloggers and personal websites and mom and pop shows would be protected by allowing discriminatory pricing against those who "clog the pipes."

It's no different than an 18-wheeler paying a higher toll on the George Washington Bridge than a minivan. The minivan (i.e. the blogger) is the one paying the lower rate, not the one being penalized.

And what happens when Netflix gets billed in order to access the internet speeds that their users need?

Surprise! Their rates go up. Hurting Netflix users, for no reason.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Netflix uses 35% of bandwidth but does not pay 35% of the bill. That means YOUR Comcast bill is subsidizing a part Netflix' use of Comcast's infrastructure. Discriminatory pricing would see Comcast billing Netflix for what Netflix uses and IrishLax for what IrishLax uses.

I am the one paying the bill. My internet access bill pays for the pipes. Comcast would be using their ISP monopoly to hold a gun to Netflix's head and make them pay to even be available. It's using an infrastructure monopoly to prop up their content monopoly.

 

[Pops Freshenmeyer]

That's exactly my point. They WOULD bill everyone per bit and the people using LESS bits (i.e. everyone EXCEPT Netflix) would benefit.

Netflix uses 35% of bandwidth but does not pay 35% of the bill. That means YOUR Comcast bill is subsidizing a part Netflix' use of Comcast's infrastructure. Discriminatory pricing would see Comcast billing Netflix for what Netflix uses and IrishLax for what IrishLax uses.

Perhaps I am confused, but isn't net neutrality preventing priority of data rather than discriminatory pricing?

EDIT: and why would charging Netflix more result in other paying less?

 

[woolybug25]

They're not going to bill bloggers or personal websites or mom and pop shops. They're going to bill Netflix. Bloggers and personal websites and mom and pop shows would be protected by allowing discriminatory pricing against those who "clog the pipes."

It's no different than an 18-wheeler paying a higher toll on the George Washington Bridge than a minivan. The minivan (i.e. the blogger) is the one paying the lower rate, not the one being penalized.

How do you know what they are going to do? My guess, with unlimited power to do as they please with the resource, they will do whatever benefits their bottom line. They would have the power to restrict press, restrict access to whomever they chose.

To use your analogy. It's like the toll road being able to restrict cars off of their highways in order to get more trucks through for the higher tolls. Then restricting cars to a slow, traffic filled side road at peak rate. Meanwhile, making whatever traffic rules they deem fit.

No matter how you try to rationalize this, it's an encroachment on our freedoms and against every competitive market principle of our system.