"Title II regulation was designed for the plain-old-telephone-system monopolies, where there was even less choice (one provider!) than the very worst of current local broadband markets."
My mom has one ISP to choose from (and dismal service.) More than half the population of the US have access to a single broadband provider.
"The internet, without any FCC rules, thrived and completely eclipsed that slow-moving regulated market."
When behemoth broadband providers began openly plotting to predatorily damage some of the things that had helped provide for the internet's success, it was clear to most that some kind of regulations were needed.
"new federal rules will limit what ISPs can offer and charge, regardless of what paying customers prefer."
I have yet to hear from a single paying customer that actually wanted what the ISPs were plotting.
"Upstart services offering novel cross-subsidized speed/latency improvements will require federal pre-approval or risk outright prohibition."
Yeah, they would need approval if they wanted to offer that particular service, though I am not sure how to find that disappointing.
"This is not a victory for either the internet or the "little guy"."
Perhaps, why not see what actually happens before making broad speculative declarations, though?
Net Neutrality changes this how?
And why impose net neutrality regulations on all the markets where there are multiple competitive providers? Why not let localities where there's an actual problem fix it locally, rather than set new nationwide rules?
Because these are government created monopolies, as all enduring ones are. State and Federal for the telcos, local for the cablecos.
And as has been noted elsewhere in this discussion, for some inexplicable reason, as reported (strange, how only the FCC commissioners have access to these 300+ (!) pages, and for less than 3 weeks), this new regime leaves these government created last mile monopolies intact.
It's not an exaggeration nor necessarily hyperbole to call this Obamacare for the Internet, when it enshrines the existing order of things, merely wrapping it in even more regulation. And, somehow, I seriously doubt a reduction in prices for us or companies like Netflix.
Its not strange, its how the regulatory process always works. Until its been voted on, its not a formal regulation or regulatory proposal, and is not published. If it is passed by the commission, its published. It can be passed as a formal regulatory proposal for comment (like the NPRM from last year that this is a follow-up to) or as a regulatory order (what is most likely in this case, as they've issued a formal proposal for comment, gathered the comment, and are now finalizing how to move forward given the comment received on the proposal.)
Various FCC rules applied to the internet during the time it began to thrive as a public service (including much of what passed for "broadband" in the early days being subject to Title II regulations.)
> But after this 'reclassification', new federal rules will limit what ISPs can offer and charge, regardless of what paying customers prefer, under the 1930s telephone/utility model.
Except to the extent that they won't, due to the application of forbearance. From the outlines that have been released, most of the "1930s telephone/utility model" won't apply, but of course the details won't be certain until after an actual order is adopted by the FCC, and the details could change from what was covered b the released outlines.
> ISPs will have to keep a DC commission staffed by loyalists of the two national parties happy, or else discretionary interpretations will go against them.
Insofar as the FCC has legal authority to regulate, that's already true whether or not the FCC adopts the particular regulations under discussion now. And, of course, in the same way, its equally true that ISPs also have to keep the Congress -- likewise made up of loyalists of the two national parties -- happy, or else legislation will go against them. (And, guess what, the courts, too -- after all, its hardly as if federal judges aren't also generally appointed from the pool of party loyalists.) All of this independently of whatever regulations the FCC chooses to adopt this week.
What else is in there? Even if the current administration doesn't use the power they will now be given, whose to say it won't happen in the future? Doesn't this bother anybody?
We need more transparency, especially in something as important as this.
No, the FCC does not have a 332 page plan to regulate the internet. Tom Wheeler has a plan, although it is much much shorter to 332. The 300+ pages is for a document that includes his plan, a long explanation of the reasons and the authorities for each part, and a long look at the large number of comments that were received after last years FCC plan.
The FCC will have a plan if the Commissioners vote in a couple day to make adopt Wheeler's plan, at which point it will then be available for public comment so that we can all see it and comment. After that, the FCC decides to adopt it or not.
> Even if the current administration doesn't use the power they will now be given, whose to say it won't happen in the future? Doesn't this bother anybody?
Adopting Title II with forbearance now does not really make it significantly easier for a future FCC to use the powers that this FCC is forbearing. If this FCC does not adopt Title II, all that changes is that future FCC would have to adopt Title II.
300+ pages is not "much shorter" than 332.
"The FCC will have a plan if the Commissioners vote in a couple day to make adopt Wheeler's plan, at which point it will then be available for public comment so that we can all see it and comment. After that, the FCC decides to adopt it or not."
Which means the people don't really have a say in the matter. We can see and comment on it after the proposal is already pretty much a done deal. Would you like to be able to comment on the new president (rather than vote) after they are being sworn into office? I think not.
"all that changes is that future FCC would have to adopt Title II."
Once new FCC powers are in place, do you actually think we have a chance at getting rid of them? History says no.
Taken from this article: http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2015/02/23/house-chairman...
"Also today, FCC commissioners Ajit Pai and Michael O'Rielly too asked for Wheeler to release the proposal to the public and postpone the Thursday vote to allow for 30 days of public comment."
There is a reason the FCC doesn't want the public to go through the proposal..and it is most likely not good.
Again, why are we trusting the same government that has been spying on us for so long. Did the Snowden leaks teach us nothing?
I'm still waiting for an argument as to why more transparency, especially when it comes to something as important as regulating the Internet, is not important.
The actual regulations are 8 pages. Then there are 79 pages of citations to the Communications Act. The rest is a summary of the public feedback and the reasoning for Wheeler's decisions. [1]
I think 8 pages counts as much shorter than 332.
> Once new FCC powers are in place, do you actually think we have a chance at getting rid of them? History says no.
There are no new powers. The FCC has always had the power to decide if ISPs should be regulated under Title I or Title II. Hence, the current FCC deciding to regulate under Title II with forbearance does not make it easier for a future FCC to regulate under Title II without forbearance.
> There is a reason the FCC doesn't want the public to go through the proposal..and it is most likely not good.
They will go public with the proposal, as soon as they HAVE a proposal. Right now, the FCC does not have a proposal. Tom Wheeler has a proposal. It doesn't become the FCC's proposal until the full Commission votes.
Then it gets published, and we have at least 30 days to comment. If 30 days is not enough, it can be extended. That's what happened last year, when Wheeler's first proposal (which didn't use Title II) was passed by the Commission and made public. They received so many comments they greatly extended the comment period.
After the comment period is when the FCC makes the decision to accept the proposal as law or not. Last year, the did not, and went back to the drawing board to come up with something that addressed the concerns of the overwhelming majority of the commenters.
[1] http://www.nationaljournal.com/tech/republican-fcc-commissio...
Remember that time when the FCC made available for public comment new rules regarding internet fast lanes? Remember when, after receiving so many comments that their database crashed, they decided that it might not be a good idea?
> Once new FCC powers are in place, do you actually think we have a chance at getting rid of them? History says no.
Well, considering broadband was once under the purview of Title II and now is not and now the FCC is considering it again.... how much of a grasp do you have on history?
> "Also today, FCC commissioners Ajit Pai and Michael O'Rielly too asked for Wheeler to release the proposal to the public and postpone the Thursday vote to allow for 30 days of public comment."
Well, good for them. Unfortunately, that's not how commissions work. The commission votes to release a proposal for comment. If that vote passes, it's released for comment. They then vote on whether to enact it based on comment, or revise the proposal and then vote again on whether or not to release it for public comment.
FCC rule proposals are not enacted without a public comment period.
And a final rule usually doesn't go into effect immediately, and isn't -- even when it does -- an end to the public's opportunity to influence policy, both at the FCC and through Congress which can overrule the FCC; the concession in the article is Republicans conceding their effort to get bipartisan support to block the FCC action before it is announced. They'll no doubt try again once it is announced and they have a concrete thing to oppose.
I have exactly one choice of wired "broadband" provider: TWC. I'm not sure you know what you're talking about.
Unfortunately, FCC net neutrality regulations do nothing to encourage new competitive entry. By homogenizing service offerings – closing off forms of billing/revenue that might finance new entrants, and increasing compliance costs/risks – it could make things worse.
Also, you've qualified things as "wired", implying you do have wireless options, which keep improving. The Title II POTS regulation was designed for a world with truly just one phone provider per address. You've got at the very least 1 wired plus 1 or more wireless.
There is LTE, which would be ridiculously expensive for the data volumes normally used by a residential internet connection, and I think you can get some company to put up a dedicated microwave link for something starting at $200/month.
I noticed you moved the goalposts in your second comment...
For 2014, the FCC reported 88% of US households had at least 2 fixed-line 3Mbps+ providers – and 98% had 2+ wireless 3MBps+ providers.
You should get more options! But FCC regulations on ISPs in multi-provider markets won't help those arrive for you, and could hurt.
Those currently $200-a-month LTE/microwave options won't come down in cost faster with more federal restrictions on how the ISPs can charge or cross-subsidize.
(I added words about the FCC's "goalpost-moving" but don't know what you mean about me moving goalposts.)
5Mbps is more than enough for live HD videoconferencing and 720p HD TV/movie downloads (Netflix/ITunes/Amazon) faster-than-realtime. Yeah, I like it when multi-GB software or datasets download in a few minutes... but I'm in the bandwidth-huffing 1%.
If almost everyone has competitive options for everything they regularly use, but a few of the heaviest users have to buy from a single best provider in their area, that doesn't sound like a national "rescue the net!" emergency to me. Just a temporary inconvenience for early adopters.
Netflix recommends an internet speed of at least 5.0Mbps for HD quality streaming. Which means your 'up to 5.0mbps' connection, depending on network congestion and oversell, will probably end up being SD or lower.
Videoconferencing at 640x480, 30fps, uses ~512kbps. for 1080p video conferencing with two participants, you need 2-8Mbps connection on both ends. For 720p, you need 2-6Mbps on both ends.
Hugo is 3.99GB in 720p on iTunes. If a 5Mbps connection can be sustained for the entire length of file transmission, you could download it in about 108 minutes. The film is 126 minutes long. That's technically faster-than-realtime, but good luck getting an "up to 5Mbps" connection to sustain 5Mbps for two hours. You could start the download, take the dog for a walk and make a bowl of popcorn and then hope your connection speed doesn't drop thirty minutes in.
Not quite homogenous. Providers could still compete on speed.
So? Congress mandated these fines. One of the FCC's jobs is to enforce them. That has no relevance to the net neutrality regulation discussion
> It requires the 'v-chip' censorship technology in televisions.
So? Congress specifically said that the FCC had to require that TV's be equipped with a feature to allow viewers to block programs by rating. Completely irrelevant to the net neutrality regulation discussion.
The FCC enforces telecom system wiretap rules (CALEA).
The FCC's decisions on mergers and spectrum auctions often amount to giant handouts to politically-favored corporations.
Had the 'Clipper Chip' been a mandated encryption technology in the 90s, the FCC would've enforced its use. The national internet blacklists of the UK and Australia are maintained through their local equivalents of the FCC.
Title II regulation was designed for the plain-old-telephone-system monopolies, where there was even less choice (one provider!) than the very worst of current local broadband markets. The internet, without any FCC rules, thrived and completely eclipsed that slow-moving regulated market.
But after this 'reclassification', new federal rules will limit what ISPs can offer and charge, regardless of what paying customers prefer, under the 1930s telephone/utility model.
Upstart services offering novel cross-subsidized speed/latency improvements will require federal pre-approval or risk outright prohibition.
ISPs will have to keep a DC commission staffed by loyalists of the two national parties happy, or else discretionary interpretations will go against them.
This is not a victory for either the internet or the "little guy".