President Obama urges the FCC to treat the internet as a utility

[aGameOfThrones]

President Obama has been a proponent of net neutrality for what seems like ages, which explains why he just did what he did. In a just-posted YouTube video (and Medium post) and he's just asked the FCC do what online activists have been hoping for -- he's urging the commission to officially classify internet service under Title II of the Telecommunications Act, which would essentially mean internet access would be governed the same way telephone service is. Doing so would also mean the potentially hairy legal loophole that could give rise of prioritized service and online fast lanes wouldn't be an issue anymore, either. Huzzah! As the president notes in that brief video address (which you can peek at after the jump) though, the FCC is an independent body and he can't make them do anything. It's on Chairman Tom Wheeler and his ilk to take a stand, though whether or not they will is still up in the air.

But let's back up for a moment: why all the fuss about Title II? The juiciest, most pertinent bit lives in subsection 202, which states that common carriers (in this case, ISPs) wouldn't be able to "make any unjust or unreasonable discrimination in charges, practices, classifications, regulations, facilities, or services." Not the densest legalese we've ever seen, but President Obama's breaks things down a bit more in a blog post -- if things go his way, ISPs won't be able to block access to legal content, create so-called "slow lanes" or intentionally manipulate data speeds on a whim. Since sunlight is the best disinfectant, he's also pushing for greater transparency for things like peering agreements (like when Netflix cut connectivity deals with Comcast and more), which have the potential to get a little too fraught for regulators' liking. Long story short, ISPs would start to resemble those vaunted "dumb pipes" many of us have been clamoring for, though AT&T once argued that not even a Title II reclassification would be enough to keep providers from prioritizing some customers over others.

While net neutrality advocates have a small victory to celebrate, we're starting to hear from service providers that are definitely less than pleased. Consider this tidbit from a new post on Verizon's Public Policy blog:

"Verizon supports the open Internet, and we continue to believe that the light-touch regulatory approach in place for the past two decades has been central to the Internet's success. Reclassification under Title II, which for the first time would apply 1930s-era utility regulation to the Internet, would be a radical reversal of course that would in and of itself threaten great harm to an open Internet, competition and innovation."

http://www.engadget.com/2014/11/10/obama-net-neutrality/

 

[francisco]

I hope that Ron and Rand both weigh in on this.

Another article on same topic:

Obama says broadband Internet should be regulated like utility

President Barack Obama urged the government to adopt tighter regulations on broadband service in an effort to preserve "a free and open Internet."

In a statement released Monday, Obama called on the Federal Communications Commission to enforce the principle of treating Internet the same way, also known as Net neutrality. That means treating broadband services like utilities, so Internet service providers would be unable "to restrict the best access or to pick winners and losers in the online marketplace for services and ideas."

http://www.cnet.com/news/president-obama-calls-on-fcc-to-keep-internet-free-and-open/

 

[Madison320]

I don't get it. Shouldn't ISPs be able to decide how much they want to charge for their services? Am I missing something?

 

[HOLLYWOOD]

Turning the Internet and ISP into yet another, communications media controlled by government. One doesn't have to look any further that the revolving door of government officials in the FCC and telco executive jobs-packages.

Look for your future internet bill to mimic; your home Phone, Mobile Phone, or Utility Bills full of Taxes, Fees, and surcharges.

Obama is just the Marketing-Sales-Marionette... this has come from those that want it all... and they'll get, if the people let them steal even more.

It's all working fine... a private party and an internet provider. When has government involvement cost the private citizen less for a service?

 

[Occam's Banana]

Obama says broadband Internet should be regulated like utility

President Barack Obama urged the government to adopt tighter regulations on broadband service in an effort to preserve "a free and open Internet."

In a statement released Monday, Obama called on the Federal Communications Commission to enforce the principle of [...] treating broadband services like utilities [...]

Well, I, for one, am looking forward to an Internet that is as "free and open" as "the" electric company ...

 

[NorfolkPCSolutions]

Don't worry. 'Murrica just voted in a Republican majority in the House and Senate, so it's aww-right

 

[Acala]

It is obvious that the internet is not working. What is needed is for government to fix it.

 

[idiom]

I don't get it. Shouldn't ISPs be able to decide how much they want to charge for their services? Am I missing something?

Cities give monopolies on the last mile.

In New Zealand we have the last mile of fibre treated as a utility and owned and operated by little heavily regulated companies, (to avoid digging up the street continuously). The ISPs all compete on a level playing field and rent the connection to your house.

Remember how many ISPs there were when dialup on copper lines was the tech du jour, because phone lines were a utility?

It has been a massive improvement.

 

[idiom]

It is obvious that the internet is not working. What is needed is for government to fix it.

Government granted monopolies are the main problem. This should be repeated over and over.

 

[phill4paul]

I've got the multiple choice of one phone company. Freedom.

 

[tangent4ronpaul]

We have 2 ISP's that have been granted a monopoly. They both keep their rates in the stratosphere and very close to each other. Both provide high speed "unlimited" internet, but one of them throttles your speed if you use too much. Both serve up 2,000 channels that I never watch and don't want but have to pay for and about 12 that I do watch and want. There are a few channels I'd like but they charge an extra $10-15 a month to get those. Both provide phone service.

So I subscribe so I can get high speed Internet access. I'm paying for that "unlimited" bandwidth. Except it depends on who I'm connecting to.
I subscribe to Netflix because I like unlimited movies and shows but if I take advantage of my "unlimited" bandwidth, I find my bandwidth throttled down so there is massive lag, it gets jumpy and frequently disconnects and I have to re-start movies and shows. Why? Well, because Verizon wants to sell me movies at $4.50 a pop to view once, or sometimes rent for up to 2 days. If I pay them $15 I can "own" it - that means they won't delete it off the DVR. Now Netflix is having to pay ISP's and pass that cost on to me, so Verizon doesn't pull this BS. Yes, that means I get to pay for my bandwidth TWICE.

Now the power lines and natural gas - that is treated as a utility and I can but my NG and electricity from a number of different suppliersthat are less expensive than the power company and the power company has to deliver it over common lines.

After 6 years of Obama doing stuff I don't like, he's finally done something I do like. I'm all in favor of net neutrality. Without it, we get stuck with a handful of mega-corps that will charge whatever the market will bear and keep all the small guys out. This kills innovation.

-t

 

[tangent4ronpaul]

How many people here would stop visiting this site if you had to pay an additional $25-30 a month to connect to the RPF IP address?

That is what this is about. Corporations ability to degrade or downright censor for profit. That's what net neutrality stops.

-t

 

[FindLiberty]

Here we go again, a digital version of the Communications Act of 1934.

Someone needs to invoke assistance from the spirit of Judge H. H. Green
to drive this new TCPIP poltergeist out into the daylight to kill it before
it infests the Internets.

 

[Barrex]

Fuck you guys. Stop this. If it is enacted in US my moronic government will copy/paste it too.

I don't get it. Shouldn't ISPs be able to decide how much they want to charge for their services? Am I missing something?

For example:
Governments force ISPs to sell internet packages with certain minimal speeds (even when people dont need them). This is raising prices artificially.

 

[mczerone]

http://www.engadget.com/2014/11/10/obama-net-neutrality/

Reading Between The Lines:

President Obama has been a proponent of net neutrality for what seems like ages, which explains why he just did what he did. In a just-posted YouTube video (and Medium post) and he's just asked the FCC do what online activists have been hoping for --

Stacking the deck: by only acknowledging the existence of pro-NN activists, they pretend that anti-NN arguments are weak or don't exist.

Doing so would also mean the potentially hairy legal loophole that could give rise of prioritized service and online fast lanes wouldn't be an issue anymore, either.

Yeah, paying for better, more responsive service is just a "legal loophole." This frames the debate as one of "Our solution is already implemented, we just need a patch" instead of the more accurate "The natural order has been running better than anything the State has ever regulated, but we need to have the State take over for some reason"

As the president notes in that brief video address (which you can peek at after the jump) though, the FCC is an independent body and he can't make them do anything. It's on Chairman Tom Wheeler and his ilk to take a stand, though whether or not they will is still up in the air.

Legally, they aren't subject to his dictates. But it'd sure be unfortunate if something should happen to block their next appropriations, renew their appointments, or they come up for "random audits" next tax season.

But let's back up for a moment: why all the fuss about Title II? The juiciest, most pertinent bit lives in subsection 202, which states that common carriers (in this case, ISPs) wouldn't be able to "make any unjust or unreasonable discrimination in charges, practices, classifications, regulations, facilities, or services." Not the densest legalese we've ever seen, but President Obama's breaks things down a bit more in a blog post -- if things go his way, ISPs won't be able to block access to legal content, create so-called "slow lanes" or intentionally manipulate data speeds on a whim.

In other words: NN gives ISPs the reason, if not the explicit state mandate, to (1) Inspect packets, (2) define and ENFORCE "reasonable discrimination", (3) blacklist any traffic that has any possibility of being "illegal" (buh-bye bitcoin, torrents, 1/2 of youtube, free porn, and possibly even meetup.com), (4) create general blockages for ALL traffic, as long as it's policy and not just "on a whim", and (5) create an incentive or a new "private" internet that's priced out of the reach of 90% of Americans (compare commercial air to private jets).

Since sunlight is the best disinfectant, he's also pushing for greater transparency for things like peering agreements (like when Netflix cut connectivity deals with Comcast and more), which have the potential to get a little too fraught for regulators' liking. Long story short, ISPs would start to resemble those vaunted "dumb pipes" many of us have been clamoring for, though AT&T once argued that not even a Title II reclassification would be enough to keep providers from prioritizing some customers over others.

Says the head of the MOST TRANSPARENT ADMINISTRATION EVARRRRR!!!11!

And notice the argument here: it's WHAT THE REGULATORS WANT, SO IT MUST BE GOOD.

While net neutrality advocates have a small victory to celebrate, we're starting to hear from service providers that are definitely less than pleased. Consider this tidbit from a new post on Verizon's Public Policy blog:

"Verizon supports the open Internet, and we continue to believe that the light-touch regulatory approach in place for the past two decades has been central to the Internet's success. Reclassification under Title II, which for the first time would apply 1930s-era utility regulation to the Internet, would be a radical reversal of course that would in and of itself threaten great harm to an open Internet, competition and innovation."

What's the opposite of an appeal to authority? They are saying here: Verizon's bad, Verizon's public statement in anti-NN, therefore NN is good.


This guy can have his "dumb pipes" in the market today. I'm not interested, and I'm not going to stop him from starting "NetNeutral ISP". But maybe some of us want "smart pipes" that respond to market signals, that can throttle less valuable information if favor of more valuable transmissions.

Net Neutrality is Net Neutering.

 

[TheCount]

This guy can have his "dumb pipes" in the market today. I'm not interested, and I'm not going to stop him from starting "NetNeutral ISP". But maybe some of us want "smart pipes" that respond to market signals, that can throttle less valuable information if favor of more valuable transmissions

This is the most ridiculous possible permutation of anti-net neutrality arguments that I've ever heard. I honestly can't tell if you're trolling or serious.

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

I honestly can't tell if you're trolling or serious.[/URL]

But I can tell that you're trolling. Why, again, are you on this board? Oh that's right; you ran away last time I asked you.

Later on, Liberace.

 

[The Free Hornet]

How many people here would stop visiting this site if you had to pay an additional $25-30 a month to connect to the RPF IP address?

That is what this is about. Corporations ability to degrade or downright censor for profit. That's what net neutrality stops.

-t

You mean net neutrality stops a problem that isn't happening and won't. Cancel your cable or dish. You might as well give your money to the DNC or Soros. My internet is $20/month. Youtube streams great. OTA HD DVR. This is in Cook County IL. I'm aware of one ISP that might be better which is a Google $300 one-time connect fee. NN/Obama will not be bringing you any deals. Like the ACA, this will be a trojan horse to prop up a dying industry and send more info and control to DC. Make me eat my words, I hope to be wrong.

 

[TheCount]

You mean net neutrality stops a problem that isn't happening and won't.

Since this isn't happening, I'm sure that this graph is a coincidence, and the fact that Netflix agreed to pay Comcast to stop slowing their traffic has nothing to do with it.

 

[Antischism]

It seems some libertarians don't understand that government-sanctioned/protected monopolies are a bad thing. It's easy to just state "GOVERNMENT IS BAD" without really understanding what net neutrality is and why it's important if we don't want to stifle free speech, innovation, kill off start-ups/small businesses and eliminate jobs. There's nothing 'free market' about this industry. Don't conflate corporatism with free market capitalism.

The most important point to remember is that net neutrality is an equalizer; it's not government seizing control, setting prices and determining speeds. I don't even understand why anyone would be against this other than for being able to say GOVERNMENT BAD, OBAMA BAD while failing to understand that they're essentially supporting a corporatist monopoly with the means and will to act as a tyrannical government over the Internet. If you want actual competition in the field that more closely resembles free market capitalism, you'd be in favor of net neutrality.