F.C.C. Repeals Net Neutrality Rules

[Vox Populi Vox Dei]

WASHINGTON — The Federal Communications Commission voted on Thursday to dismantle landmark rules regulating the businesses that connect consumers to the internet, granting broadband companies power to potentially reshape Americans’ online experiences.

The agency scrapped so-called net neutrality regulations that prohibited broadband providers from blocking websites or charging for higher-quality service or certain content. The federal government will also no longer regulate high-speed internet delivery as if it were a utility, like phone services.

The action reversed the agency’s 2015 decision, during the Obama administration, to better protect Americans as they have migrated to the internet for most communications.

Ajit Pai, the chairman of the commission, said the rollback of the rules would eventually help consumers because broadband providers like AT&T and Comcast could offer people a wider variety of service options. Mr. Pai was joined in the 3-to-2 vote by his two fellow Republican commissioners.

“We are helping consumers and promoting competition,” Mr. Pai said in a speech before the vote. “Broadband providers will have more incentive to build networks, especially to underserved areas.”

The discarding of net neutrality regulations is the most significant and controversial action by the F.C.C. under Mr. Pai. In his first 11 months as chairman, he has lifted media ownership limits, eased caps on how much broadband providers can charge business customers and cut back on a low-income broadband program that was slated to be expanded to nationwide carriers.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/14/...ty-repeal-vote.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur

 

[Arthur]

At last. Back to a free and unregulated internet that's served us well for nearly three decades. So-called "net neutrality" was NewSpeak for a government land grab that threatened the future of the internet.

 

[daveza]

Doesn't sound good to me.

The repeal rolls back so-called “Title II” regulations that classified the internet as a public utility, and which, among other things, required internet service providers, or ISPs, to treat all of the data traveling on their networks equally.

Without the protections of Title II, those ISPs can now legally begin treating data from some websites differently than others.

So Comcast, for instance, could charge customers who use Netflix extra for using so much bandwidth; AT&T could, in theory, decide to block access to some websites entirely.

 

[Arthur]

So Comcast, for instance, could charge customers who use Netflix extra for using so much bandwidth; AT&T could, in theory, decide to block access to some websites entirely.

Doesn't sound good to me.

Since Day 1 of the internet they always could - theoretically.

But didn't.

Ever wonder why?

 

[f2wohf]

Since Day 1 of the internet they always could - theoretically.

But didn't.

Ever wonder why?

In Portugal, some operators actually do.

 

[FoXtroT]

Since Day 1 of the internet they always could - theoretically.

But didn't.

Ever wonder why?

Because they generally weren't offering competing services, now they are.

 

[CataclysmZA]

Since Day 1 of the internet they always could - theoretically.

But didn't.

Ever wonder why?

Because asking every one of their customers to pay more just to use Netflix might not be a financially sound idea. So they throttled Netflix and asked Netflix to cough up the money for access to their services, and to pay for bandwidth that their customers had already paid for.

That's what the Battle for the Net was (and should have been) all about: service providers charging companies for providing services to users on the internet, where they wanted to gate access into slow and fast lanes.

Locally our ISPs offer shaped and unshaped accounts, which determine which bandwidth profile your account is linked to, and what sort of service you're going to receive. Torrents and P2P connections are deprioritised and rate-limited for shaped accounts, and you can get shaped further on an uncapped account if you use more data than what the ISP wants you to use, forcing you to pay more for your internet if you want a decent service. That's the kind of thing that Title II prevented from taking place.

 

[Polymathic]

Welcome to Trump's America

 

[Genisys]

Welcome to Trump's America

This has been going for years, can't blame Trump for this.

 

[battletoad]

Since Day 1 of the internet they always could - theoretically.

But didn't.

Ever wonder why?

Really? You latch onto "could" and "in theory", twisting words to make it seem that those providers weren't double dipping. Followed by a red herring question so you don't need to provide facts for you false claim of "But didn't".

Well, the fact of the matter is, Comcast DID charge Netflix access fees to its network. Not "could/can/may/etc.", DID.

 

[Barbarian Conan]

Doesn't sound good to me.

Especially since some operators have effective monopolies in some areas.

 

[Barbarian Conan]

Since Day 1 of the internet they always could - theoretically.

But didn't.

Ever wonder why?

The internet has changed. With reliable VOIP, streaming services that rival or beat cable in terms of content and quality, it is not far fetched at all that they would try and justify charging more for allowing those services. Like our providers here wanted/wants to do with whatsapp. Especially since in the US there are areas where some providers have an effective monopoly.

 

[Arthur]

In Portugal, some operators actually do.

FCC doesn't have jurisdiction in Portugal.

 

[Arthur]

Because asking every one of their customers to pay more just to use Netflix might not be a financially sound idea. So they throttled Netflix and asked Netflix to cough up the money for access to their services, and to pay for bandwidth that their customers had already paid for.

That's what the Battle for the Net was (and should have been) all about: service providers charging companies for providing services to users on the internet, where they wanted to gate access into slow and fast lanes.

Locally our ISPs offer shaped and unshaped accounts, which determine which bandwidth profile your account is linked to, and what sort of service you're going to receive. Torrents and P2P connections are deprioritised and rate-limited for shaped accounts, and you can get shaped further on an uncapped account if you use more data than what the ISP wants you to use, forcing you to pay more for your internet if you want a decent service. That's the kind of thing that Title II prevented from taking place.

Exactly the sort of arguments European socialists and statists used to establish state-owned telephone monopolies. After forty years they ended up with backward and expensive telecommunications infrastructure compared to the freer markets.

Liberty always wins with the consumer on top.

 

[f2wohf]

FCC doesn't have jurisdiction in Portugal.

You made a blanket statement that operators don’t.

I show you that some do and now they can do it in the US too.

 

[f2wohf]

Exactly the sort of arguments European socialists and statists used to establish state-owned telephone monopolies. After forty years they ended up with backward and expensive telecommunications infrastructure compared to the freer markets.

Liberty always wins with the consumer on top.

Which European countries have backward and expensive telecom infrastructure? I’d be extremely keen to make the comparison with your freer markets.

 

[Arthur]

Which European countries have backward and expensive telecom infrastructure? I’d be extremely keen to make the comparison with your freer markets.

Until the Great Breakups and Liberalisation of European state-owned telcos in the late 80s and 90s, Europe's phone and telecommunications services were generally twice as expensive as America's, and a generation behind in tech. With lower market penetrations. This is well-documented and a matter of undisputed history. Liberalisation and deregulation brought modernisation and better pricing.

 

[f2wohf]

Until the Great Breakups and Liberalisation of European state-owned telcos in the late 80s and 90s, Europe's phone and telecommunications services were generally twice as expensive as America's, and a generation behind in tech. With lower market penetrations. This is well-documented and a matter of undisputed history. Liberalisation and deregulation brought modernisation and better pricing.

So you are speaking of a situation of 30 years ago which has nothing to with what happens today. I have no idea of what you say about pricing since I was barely born at the time, but it is not related to today’s situation.

Sorry but today, most of the EU countries have faster and cheaper broadband access than the US, and that’s under a more regulated framework that still allows very profitable operators.

I don’t see how breaking this up will help anything whatsoever.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/internet-u-s-compare-globally-hint-slower-expensive

 

[OrbitalDawn]

Doesn't sound good to me.

You're right, it isn't.

Since Day 1 of the internet they always could - theoretically.

But didn't.

Ever wonder why?

Why do you think Comcast deleted their net neutrality pledge from their website?

What problem is this supposed to solve exactly, anyway?

Welcome to Trump's America

Would've been the same under any Republican president. Pai is a lying, corporatist toadie, so he would have done the same regardless.

Exactly the sort of arguments European socialists and statists used to establish state-owned telephone monopolies. After forty years they ended up with backward and expensive telecommunications infrastructure compared to the freer markets.

Liberty always wins with the consumer on top.

And yet the US telecoms network is horrid compared to other developed countries. Companies like Comcast and AT&T are terrible and widely reviled because of their BS, cartel-like practices.

So you are speaking of a situation of 30 years ago which has nothing to with what happens today. I have no idea of what you say about pricing since I was barely born at the time, but it is not related to today’s situation.

Sorry but today, most of the EU countries have faster and cheaper broadband access than the US, and that’s under a more regulated framework that still allows very profitable operators.

I don’t see how breaking this up will help anything whatsoever.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/internet-u-s-compare-globally-hint-slower-expensive

It's easy to dismiss any evidence when you're arguing from ideology like Arthur is.

 

[The_Assimilator]

Exactly the sort of arguments European socialists and statists used to establish state-owned telephone monopolies. After forty years they ended up with backward and expensive telecommunications infrastructure compared to the freer markets.

Liberty always wins with the consumer on top.

Yeah, because America has never had telephone monopolies. Ever heard of Bell, you chump?

Liberty dies when corporations control it.