Why The Latest FCC Net Neutrality Plan Is Meaningless

[Guest]

Proposed rules rehash a policy shot down twice in court, and the way to give the FCC legal authority over Net neutrality wasn't addressed.

Why The Latest FCC Net Neutrality Plan Is Meaningless : Read more

 

[skit75]

1. ElephantNet = Fortune 500 companies finish first

2. DonkeyNet = .gov & .org & Fortune 500 companies finish first

3. Internet = We all finish at the same time.

I still like option 3.

 

[neon neophyte]

just classify isps as a common carrier and be done with this nonsense already

 

[house70]

just classify isps as a common carrier and be done with this nonsense already

Makes one wonder why is Wheeler dancing around this solution; could be the fact that he was a lobbyist for ISPs not too long ago? This looks more like that fable where the wolf is designated shepherd.

 

[DRosencraft]

I would have it noted that this is the way FCC rules are done. All of them. They are put up for a vote, and if the vote passes in favor the issue is released for public debate. Thing is, no one pays any attention whatsoever to the minutia of rules making, let alone with the FCC, except those who are really into government, or are really interested in the subject matter, such as this net neutrality debate.

I would go on to note that those who think "common carrier" is the panacea to net neutrality, that is a misplaced hope, because it is actually quite easy to circumvent. Because so many ISPs are not also content providers, the simple end-run is to charge a simple flat rate. Just charge everyone more to access the top-tier service channel. They of course would legally have to pay it as well, but they are essentially moving that cost from one pocket to the other. And because it is a flat rate they aren't "technically" violating the common carrier rule. Can you define what would be an unjust or unduly high charge? We all have an opinion, but I can bet it's a lot lower than what that limit would actually be. The common carrier route CAN help, but not alone. There will still need to be rules added in to make it all work properly. Better to fight and put the rules in place than fight that war AND the added regulatory burden common carrier creates.

 

[ddpruitt]

I would have it noted that this is the way FCC rules are done. All of them. They are put up for a vote, and if the vote passes in favor the issue is released for public debate. Thing is, no one pays any attention whatsoever to the minutia of rules making, let alone with the FCC, except those who are really into government, or are really interested in the subject matter, such as this net neutrality debate.

I would go on to note that those who think "common carrier" is the panacea to net neutrality, that is a misplaced hope, because it is actually quite easy to circumvent. Because so many ISPs are not also content providers, the simple end-run is to charge a simple flat rate. Just charge everyone more to access the top-tier service channel. They of course would legally have to pay it as well, but they are essentially moving that cost from one pocket to the other. And because it is a flat rate they aren't "technically" violating the common carrier rule. Can you define what would be an unjust or unduly high charge? We all have an opinion, but I can bet it's a lot lower than what that limit would actually be. The common carrier route CAN help, but not alone. There will still need to be rules added in to make it all work properly. Better to fight and put the rules in place than fight that war AND the added regulatory burden common carrier creates.

Finally someone who actually understands what's going on. For some reason people think this process of debating a law is just wrong. This is how it's always done. The debates and comments become part of the record and could eventually be used as to the intent of the law when it comes up in court.

Reclassifying ISPs as common carriers would be difficult at best, the ISPs will fight it and there are dozens of ways around it. Even if they were classified as common carriers this won't solve the problem. That phone call you made that everyone is complaining is the same as a general purpose communications line is different, your voice call is transmitted over an IP network. Common carriers only have to treat communications within a single class as the same. You know all of those different protocols out there? They're designed to handle different classes of communications. Most people would agree that email is a different class of communication from Netflix. And that phone call? It's already on the same communications channel as everything else and it's treated as a different class. Someone at the FCC has through this through the NBC/CNN/Fox soundbites haven't. I have no problem with someone paying for faster service as long as I get the speed I'm promised and if service degrades it does so equally for everyone. I'm under the impression this is where the FCC is trying to go in the simplest possible manner. The rules still have kinks to be worked out, that's why they ask for these things known as comments. This way people can poke holes in the rules and they can fix them. That's the way the system works and is suppose to work.

 

[jungleboogiemonster]

There are multiple issues facing the internet today, unfortunately, only one is getting attention. The lack of internet access to large parts of the country is a problem. Unless you're in certain rural areas where the federal government has funded local carriers to provide internet or you're in a highly profitable area, you don't have access to internet that doesn't include dial-up speeds, small data caps and/or high costs. There is absolutely no incentive to service these areas when there's no penalty for only providing service in the most profitable areas. For areas lacking internet it means the inability to access jobs, education, government programs and up to date information required to function in today's society. It's a recipe for poverty. Title II could address this issue.

The other issue is the lack of competition. How many of those who have access to broadband have the choice between equal services? If you're lucky enough to have two ISPs servicing your location, it's a cable TV company and a telephone company. Telephone companies abandoned the internet business years ago and can only provide service over antiquated copper pairs. It just can't provide the bandwidth needed for today's internet. That leaves you with a single option, your cable TV provider, who is then free to charge what they want for service. Of course there are satellite and cell carriers. But again, slow, data caps and expensive. This issue has also lead us down the path where a company like Comcast can dictate how data is delivered to consumers. If Comcast had to compete would it have dealt with the Netflix issue in the same manner? Of course not, because they would have lost customers to their competitors. In this case, it may be best to have a utility that provides fiber optic access to all homes for ISPs to offer their services over.

There are great issues facing the internet and unfortunately we're only addressing one.

 

[Simonzee1]

It is time Americans had had a good hard look at themselves.

What does this say about American voters when these election gurus like David Axelrod and others who were so successful with Obama, and had so much success in America, fizzled or are currently fizzling badly in Australia and Britain.

Americans just keeps showing the big love to big government and now to an administration that is putting an end to "net neutrality."

You guys have to seriously wake up to yourselves and what is happening to your freedoms. You seem to live in a parallel universe where you preach freedom to the world but have an FCC who wants monitors in newsrooms and now a "fast lane," to end "net neutrality."

Big government...big coorporations...but what about the people? You are a nation surrendering to the drug of gradualism. Sound familiar.."drug of gradualism....let righteousness fall...."

America however...is not going "gradually" backwards...but speedily... as we see with the Mozilla CEO and "hate speech laws," in a state that once burned witches. Now we have an end to "net neutrality." America is becoming a joke to the world.

http/www.cbsnews.com/news/former-obama-adviser-stumbles-in-british-election/