The FCC Just Voted to Regulate the Internet Like a Utility

[PRB]

I don't think anyone is arguing that internet access is a right or that it should be free.

anybody who thinks they agree with net neutrality, or doesn't believe ISPs have a right to gouge customers, believes internet access is a right, otherwise why would it be a problem?

 

[helmuth_hubener]

So, the document has been released today.

http://www.electronista.com/article...h.debate.terms.bandied.about.defined.finally/

Title II, net neutrality 'Open Internet' FCC order published in full
6
updated 10:58 am EDT, Thu March 12, 2015


No surprises; Title II a light touch, debate terms bandied about defined finally

The US Federal Communications Commission has published its new Open Internet order, also known as net neutrality, in full. The document spells out specifically which aspects of the 80-year-old Title II concept will be applied to Internet Service Providers, as well as specifics of the net neutrality order.

Electronista is reading the document in full now, but highlights of the order include the mandate that ISPs "shall not impair or degrade lawful internet traffic on the basis of internet content, application, or service, or use of a non-harmful device, subject to reasonable network management." Not specifically addressed are interconnect rules, such as the peering arrangements between Netflix and ISPs, other than the FCC will intercede as it deems necessary following examination.

Notably, the document defines reasonable network management specifically. If connection throttling has a legitimate technical reason, then ISPs are still free to do so. However, business reasons, such as forcing consumers off unlimited data plans are specifically not allowed.

Major Title II provisions that are going to be applied to ISPs include enhanced investigation of consumer complaints, protections for consumer privacy, fair access to poles and conduits (currently mostly blocked), protections for the disabled, and an enhancement to the Universal Service Fund for underserved area expansion. Notably, the order "will not impose, suggest or authorize any new taxes or fees -- there will be no automatic Universal Service fees applied, and the congressional moratorium on Internet taxation applies to broadband."

Check back later for more updates on the order.

Here it is:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/258500401/Full-FCC-Title-II-net-neutrality-proposal

 

[Mr Tansill]

are you sure their contract says they won't do that?

Yes, a necessary implication of their offer to grant you a certain data speed without mention or reference to any restrictions or caveats means that it is a binding part of their agreement.

 

[Mr Tansill]

anybody who thinks they agree with net neutrality, or doesn't believe ISPs have a right to gouge customers, believes internet access is a right, otherwise why would it be a problem?

No one is saying that ISPs don't have the right to gouge customers. IMO they can charge whatever price they want for their internet service. In fact, the newly released FCC rules specifically address the question of price controls: they have indicated there won't be any!

The problem comes in when companies restrict access to content outside agreements with customers. More problems arise because of the use of the public infrastructure in delivering their service. The government regulates airwaves because there are limits on the frequencies that can be transmitted on. The government also regulates internet service because there are limits on how many telephone poles and internet cables which can be run through your neighborhood. Both restrictions are totally reasonable in my view.

 

[devil21]

400 page full regulations on FCC site. Anybody wanna wade through that?

https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-15-24A1.pdf

 

[PRB]

Yes, a necessary implication of their offer to grant you a certain data speed without mention or reference to any restrictions or caveats means that it is a binding part of their agreement.

Except there's always a disclaimer, which says they do not guarantee it'll work 100% of the time, and they may be interuption due to maintenance or for safety...etc. They're not stupid enough to sign away their right to throttle and ration, they just never had the opportunity to know what's a good time to do it, until recently.

Until legal online video streaming was the norm, it's highly unlikely anybody would be constantly taking up bandwidth, but now it's increasingly common, and certain patterns can predict what people use, when and why.

 

[PRB]

Both restrictions are totally reasonable in my view.

Here we have it, a guy who says government restrictions are reasonable. Yes, keep calling me the bad guy.

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Yes, keep calling me the bad guy.

Except that Mr. Tansill is not lying about it. I can live with a minarchist.

You however, favor extensive government restrictions AND aren't truthful about.

That's the difference.

 

[Mr Tansill]

Except there's always a disclaimer, which says they do not guarantee it'll work 100% of the time, and they may be interuption due to maintenance or for safety...etc. They're not stupid enough to sign away their right to throttle and ration, they just never had the opportunity to know what's a good time to do it, until recently.

Until legal online video streaming was the norm, it's highly unlikely anybody would be constantly taking up bandwidth, but now it's increasingly common, and certain patterns can predict what people use, when and why.

Of course there are exceptions based on equipment outage, maintenance, safety, etc. No one is arguing against such a thing. What the argument is about is the ability of an ISP to restrict content, redirect web searches to their partners' sites, etc.

And yeah, since people are constantly taking up bandwidth, maybe it's high time to start charging much greater prices for a 20 MB/s connection speed...problem is that the ISPs would have no reasonable way to do so without charging much less for a 1 MB/s connection speed, which a LOT of people could get by with for $5/month...that's not good for business...

 

[Mr Tansill]

Here we have it, a guy who says government restrictions are reasonable. Yes, keep calling me the bad guy.

Two things:

1. In an ideal world, there would be no government restrictions, there would be no crime, and we could all live happily ever after. Infinite resources, rainbows, unicorns, etc. That is the world I would like too...

2. We don't live in that world. There are finite resources, finite access to certain markets - in the case of the internet market, it's limited because there are limitations on the amount of government or state-owned telephone lines, access to public land, etc - this real, enforced, lack of access comes with certain restrictions on the companies granted the privilege of getting to conduct their business on those lines: namely ISPs. I cannot feel bad for a company that has been given a market and then complains about not being able to push out other businesses.

So yeah, lots of people characterize this as government intrusion into the corporate world (which I am against); I see that argument, but think it's halfhearted. In light of the above however (and in all situations like that), I view it as the people not surrendering their freedom to corporate entities who aren't accountable to anything or anyone.

 

[CaptUSA]

I view it as the people not surrendering their freedom to corporate entities who aren't accountable to anything or anyone.

Ah yes, the old "Corporations run government so we need more government to regulate the corporations" shtick.


Listen... We are running on the same electricity technology that we've had for more than 100 years. And even now when better technology has been developed, the only way to get anything changed is to create a NEW regulation. Any guesses why it is that way? Because there were once people making the same exact arguments you are making here. The result is no innovation, guaranteed profits, and little to no competition. Oh, and extremely rich politicians and bureaucrats.

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Cite an example please.

An example is Richard Nixon. He never admitted anything either.

 

[PRB]

An example is Richard Nixon. He never admitted anything either.

That's not my question. My question is where is an example of somebody calling me out with evidence. You keep claiming "every post I make" or "it's already been shown" but the fact is it's not been, or else you'd just post it. You'd just give me an answer like you gave me an answer on your wife in Manila, that's a good answer.

You KNOW what an answer looks like, you just can't answer certain questions. This is one of them.

 

[PRB]

Of course there are exceptions based on equipment outage, maintenance, safety, etc. No one is arguing against such a thing. What the argument is about is the ability of an ISP to restrict content, redirect web searches to their partners' sites, etc.

And yeah, since people are constantly taking up bandwidth, maybe it's high time to start charging much greater prices for a 20 MB/s connection speed...problem is that the ISPs would have no reasonable way to do so without charging much less for a 1 MB/s connection speed, which a LOT of people could get by with for $5/month...that's not good for business...

that's the beauty, there's no law that forces them to "charge much less for 1MB", they can charge what they want, even if it's only $1 less than 20MBs. The fact there's 20x speed difference doesn't mean it has to be 20x cheaper. Because there's a big difference between 20MB and 1mb, but and even bigger difference between 1mb and none at all.

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

That's not my question. My question is where is an example of somebody calling me out with evidence. You keep claiming "every post I make" or "it's already been shown" but the fact is it's not been, or else you'd just post it.

This stuff is posted weekly for all to see. I've reposted it. I'm not going to repost this stuff every time you whine like a jailbird, yelling "I didn't do it!" The trial is over.

Hell, people can just look at this thread. If it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck...

 

[Mr Tansill]

that's the beauty, there's no law that forces them to "charge much less for 1MB", they can charge what they want, even if it's only $1 less than 20MBs. The fact there's 20x speed difference doesn't mean it has to be 20x cheaper. Because there's a big difference between 20MB and 1mb, but and even bigger difference between 1mb and none at all.

100% agree with you, and that is the way it is!

 

[PRB]

This stuff is posted weekly for all to see. I've reposted it. I'm not going to repost this stuff every time you whine like a jailbird, yelling "I didn't do it!" The trial is over.

Hell, people can just look at this thread. If it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck...

So when was the last time?

 

[AuH20]

Well, here she is, in all in her glory!

http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2015/db0312/FCC-15-24A1.pdf

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

So when was the last time?

I'll post it, and then you'll ask this exact same question one week from today.

 

[PRB]

I'll post it, and then you'll ask this exact same question one week from today.

I DO ask the same question, and I just might stop asking if you answered it instead of saying "I already did".