The Federal Communications Commission took aim at a signature Obama-era regulation Tuesday, unveiling a plan that would give Internet providers broad powers to determine what websites and online services their customers see and use.
Under the agency’s proposal, providers of high-speed Internet services, such as Comcast, Verizon and AT&T, would be able to block websites they do not like and charge Web companies for speedier delivery of their content.
The FCC’s effort would roll back its net neutrality regulation which was passed by the agency’s Democrats in 2015 and attempted to make sure all Web content, whether from big or small companies, would be treated equally by Internet providers.
The Switch newsletter The day's top stories on the world of tech. Sign up The repeal of those rules would be one of the more significant deregulatory efforts by Republicans since President Trump took office. Ajit Pai, who was nominated to head the FCC by Trump in January, has said undoing the net neutrality rules was one of his top priorities, arguing that the regulation stifled innovation and was an example of government overreach.
“Under my proposal, the federal government will stop micromanaging the Internet,” Pai said in a statement Tuesday. The plan could be approved by the Republican-led FCC as early as its Dec. 14 meeting.
Pai’s remarks were cheered by conservatives as well as cable, broadband and wireless companies, which provide most of the Internet service to American homes, smartphones and other devices.
“It’s a signature accomplishment for Pai’s chairmanship,” said Fred Campbell, director of the conservative think tank Tech Knowledge. “This item represents the starkest policy difference between the Obama FCC … and Chairman Pai.”
In a statement, Verizon cheered Pai’s proposed “light-touch regulatory framework for Internet services.” The sentiments were echoed by Comcast, though the cable giant said it would continue to treat all websites equally.
But Pai’s announcement set off a firestorm of criticism from Internet companies and activists who vowed to hold demonstrations ahead of the FCC's vote.
The Free Press Action Fund and other net neutrality activist groups said they would organize protests outside Verizon stores and accused Pai of doing the company’s bidding. Pai served as an associate general counsel at Verizon for two years beginning in 2001.
Former Democratic FCC chairman Tom Wheeler, who drafted the 2015 net neutrality rules, called Tuesday’s move “tragic,” adding that “if you like your cable company, you’ll love what this does for the Internet.
“The job of the FCC is to represent the consumer,” he said in an interview. “Tragically, this decision is only for the benefit of the largely monopoly services that deliver the Internet to the consumer.”
Technology giants also expressed dismay at the FCC’s plan. “The FCC’s net neutrality rules are working well for consumers, and we’re disappointed in the proposal released today,” Google said in a statement.
Pai’s plan would require Internet service providers to be transparent about their practices.
For example, if a provider chose to block or slow certain websites, or gave preferable treatment to content that it owned or had partnerships with, that provider would have to inform consumers of its policy on an easily accessible website.
Violations of the transparency rule could lead to fines by the FCC, said senior agency officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the matter more freely.
But Matt Wood, policy director for the advocacy group Free Press, likened these proposals to the way that many companies point consumers to privacy policies.
“You need only look to how privacy policies from websites allow essentially any and all bad behavior,” he said, “so long as it is disclosed to users.”
The FCC's proposal also would shift some enforcement responsibility to the Federal Trade Commission, which can sue companies for violating the commitments or statements they have made to the public.
“The FTC stands ready to protect broadband subscribers from anticompetitive, unfair, or deceptive acts and practices just as we protect consumers in the rest of the Internet ecosystem,” Maureen Ohlhausen, the acting chairman of the FTC, said Tuesday in a statement after the announcement by her counterpart at the FCC.
Relying more heavily on the public promises of Internet providers is a departure from current net neutrality rules, which lay out clear bans against selectively blocking or slowing websites, as well as speeding up websites that agree to pay the providers a fee.
Repealing those rules would allow Internet providers to experiment with new ways to make money. In recent years, some broadband companies, such as AT&T, have tried offering discounts on Internet service to Americans as long as they agree to let the company monitor their Web browsing history, for example. Other companies, such as Verizon, have tried to drive users to their own apps by exempting them from mobile data limits.
One major beneficiary of the FCC’s rule-change may be AT&T, which is embroiled in a major legal dispute with the Justice Department over an $85 billion purchase of the entertainment conglomerate Time Warner.
Should AT&T’s acquisition of Time Warner be allowed to close, a repeal of the FCC’s net neutrality rules would give the telecom giant greater power to promote its new content properties in myriad ways, several analysts said.
The FCC’s proposal also puts additional pressure on Capitol Hill, where some lawmakers have called for federal legislation that would supersede any FCC rules.
On Tuesday, Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) praised Pai’s effort but renewed his call for a bipartisan compromise on net neutrality, saying it was the only way to “create long-term certainty for the Internet ecosystem.”
We have subsidized telecom since its inception. Now that the Govt did their part the businesses want to monetize the service we paid for with our tax dollars...
It's a shame and the websites that will suffer the most will be sites like this one.
I don't like the idea of companies being able to block access to certain apps or sites or to slow response when I'm sitting here paying for High Speed Internet
Admittedly, I'm not at all well versed on this subject and may very well have the wrong Idea...
Can I get some advice/Help to understand this better...
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.” Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe." Damanshot
FYI: This is an older video from before when the current protections were enacted. The FCC (e.g. the current Administration) is now trying to repeal this so that telecom companies have unfettered rights to do as they see fit.
Do you enjoy coming here or ESPN or NFL.com? It is NOT out of the realm of likelihood that you will eventually have to buy a separate "sports package" with your ISP in order to have access to the sites you enjoy.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
It seems to me the problem is the monopolistic (or oligopolistic) nature of internet providers right now (you have either one or very few options).
So they can play games. Don’t like it? Don’t use the internet.
This demonstrates to me one of the few failings of Capitalism.
Of course this type of price gouging by monopolies isn’t new.
Utility companies were raping the public this time a hundred years ago. They probably still are.
I haven’t a clue what's the best course of action.
It will be interesting to see if Trump deals with this issue and if there's a consensus approval of any action he takes.
(Obviously, not everybody is going to be happy. - And of course the Trump-haters will find the two people who were wronged and flaunt them nonstop in the media)
FCC ignored your net neutrality comment, unless you made a ‘serious’ legal argument
by Jacob Kastrenakes Nov 22, 2017
The FCC received a record-breaking 22 million comments chiming in on the net neutrality debate, but from the sound of it, it’s ignoring the vast majority of them. In a call with reporters yesterday discussing its plan to end net neutrality, a senior FCC official said that 7.5 million of those comments were the exact same letter, which was submitted using 45,000 fake email addresses.
But even ignoring the potential spam, the commission said it didn’t really care about the public’s opinion on net neutrality unless it was phrased in unique legal terms. The vast majority of the 22 million comments were form letters, the official said, and unless those letters introduced new facts into the record or made serious legal arguments, they didn’t have much bearing on the decision. The commission didn’t care about comments that were only stating opinion.
The FCC has been clear all year that it’s focused on “quality” over “quantity” when it comes to comments on net neutrality. In fairness to the commission, this isn’t an open vote. It’s a deliberative process that weighs a lot of different factors to create policy that balances the interests of many stakeholders. But it still feels brazen hearing the commission staff repeatedly discount Americans’ preference for consumer protections, simply because they aren’t phrased in legal terms.
Americans by and large aren’t lawyers capable of putting together cogent legal analysis of telecommunications law, and prewritten form letters were widely offered to net neutrality supporters and opponents as a way to make their voice heard by the commission. The commission is required to accept and review public input. But if you were hoping that input would make a difference in the end, the FCC is now making it very clear that most letters it received didn’t change a thing.
Well, maybe if the providers of the world - ATT, Comcast, Time Warner etc, were not all in bed with the government and have a monopoly on cable/internet we could do something.
Did you know if other countries they have internet that cost a fraction of the price and at much faster speeds. Some countries pay 25-30 a month for 500mbps download speeds.
If you want to see what America would be like if it ditched net neutrality, just look at Portugal
Rob Price
Nov. 21, 2017, 2:58 PM 542,422
facebook linkedin twitter email print
ajit pai Ajit Pai, the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission. Reuters/Kevin Lamarque
The Federal Communications Commission is planning to ditch net neutrality, which requires internet providers to treat all data online equally. A Portuguese internet provider shows what the American internet could look like if net neutrality is scrapped. One company charges people more for additional data based on the kind of app they want to use, such as those for messaging or for video.
On Tuesday, the US Federal Communications Commission announced that it planned to vote on an order to roll back Obama-era rules governing net neutrality.
Simply put, net neutrality means that all data on the internet is treated equally. An internet service provider can't prioritize certain companies or types of data, charge users more to access certain websites and apps, or charge businesses for preferential access.
Advocates of net neutrality argue that it ensures a level playing field for everyone on the internet. Telecoms firms, however, are largely against it because of the additional restrictions it places on them.
But with the Republican-majority FCC likely to vote on December 14 in favor of rolling back the order, what might the American internet look like without net neutrality? Just look at Portugal.
The country's wireless carrier Meo offers a package that's very different from those available in the US. Users pay for traditional "data" — and on top of that, they pay for additional packages based on the kind of data and apps they want to use.
meo internet net neutrality portugal English translation via Google Translate. MEO
Really into messaging? Then pay €4.99 ($5.86 or £4.43) a month and get more data for apps like WhatsApp, Skype, and FaceTime. Prefer social networks like Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, Messenger, and so on? That'll be another €4.99 a month.
Video apps like Netflix and YouTube are available as another add-on, while music (Spotify, SoundCloud, Google Play Music, etc.) is another, as is email and cloud (Gmail, Yahoo Mail, iCloud, etc.).
Net-neutrality advocates argue that this kind of model is dangerous because it risks creating a two-tier system that harms competition — people will just use the big-name apps included in the bundles they pay for, while upstart challengers will be left out in the cold.
For example: If you love watching videos, and Netflix is included in the video bundle but Hulu isn't, you're likely to try to save money by using only Netflix, making it harder for its competitors.
And without net neutrality, big-name apps could theoretically even pay telecoms firms for preferential access, offering them money — and smaller companies just couldn't compete with that. (It's not clear whether any of the companies named above have paid for preferential access.) An ISP could even refuse to grant access to an app at all unless they paid up.
Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna of California originally shared the Meo example on Twitter in October.
"In Portugal, with no net neutrality, internet providers are starting to split the net into packages," he wrote. "A huge advantage for entrenched companies, but it totally ices out startups trying to get in front of people which stifles innovation. This is what's at stake, and that's why we have to save net neutrality."
Technically, Portugal is bound by the European Union's net-neutrality rules, but loopholes allow certain kinds of pricing schemes like the one outlined above.
Yonatan Zunger, a former Google employee, recently retweeted Khanna's tweet, adding: "This isn't even the worst part of ending net neutrality. The worst part happens when ISPs say 'we don't like this site's politics,' or 'this site competes with us,' and block or throttle it."
If I'm a Republican right now, I'd be calling to stop this. I'm glad the liberals are not the ones trying to limit America's internet. Imagine all those people out there that live on their phones and online... Each has a vote.
If I'm a Republican right now, I'd be calling to stop this. I'm glad the liberals are not the ones trying to limit America's internet. Imagine all those people out there that live on their phones and online... Each has a vote.
Everyone should be calling to stop this, not just Republicans.
If I'm a Republican right now, I'd be calling to stop this. I'm glad the liberals are not the ones trying to limit America's internet. Imagine all those people out there that live on their phones and online... Each has a vote.
Everyone should be calling to stop this, not just Republicans.
I think this is a trerrible thing. I will only subscribe to services that are net neutral. Now that is where my rub is. What if there is no option?
I see it as a way to increase revenue. All the arguments are total BS. There is no advantage to the individual. Only restrictions. Hopefully people will recognize and not subscribe to a non net neutral service.
It’s the government bowing to corporations to allow them to rip us off.
Reading that, it was like reading the story of Preston Tucker and how the leaders in the auto industry conspired with Federal authorities, politicians and judges to stop him from producing the Tucker automobile that, which for then, would have been way ahead of it's time. Seat Belts, Padded Dash, Rear air cooled engine (from a helicopter of all things), Center light that turned with the steering just to name a few things
Instead of defending Tucker, our government, under pressure of the Auto Industry killed the Tucker Automobile Company. They ended up only making 50 of them
With Trump in office, we're going to see more and more of these type of things that don't favor the little guy or the start up.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for the idiot
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.” Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe." Damanshot
this action of obama needs to be stoped and repeled.
Its a regulation that stops companys fom makeing more proft and thus more jobs with better pay.
why would you want to force unneeded regulations on companys that cost them more money to enact iyts just crazy liberial thinking that more govt regulatios make things better.
this action of obama needs to be stoped and repeled.
Its a regulation that stops companys fom makeing more proft and thus more jobs with better pay.
why would you want to force unneeded regulations on companys that cost them more money to enact iyts just crazy liberial thinking that more govt regulatios make things better.
this action of obama needs to be stoped and repeled.
Its a regulation that stops companys fom makeing more proft and thus more jobs with better pay.
why would you want to force unneeded regulations on companys that cost them more money to enact iyts just crazy liberial thinking that more govt regulatios make things better.
This post is gold.
Lol bro. That’s your peeps, tho
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
look at that spelling bro. you're in law school, so you'll be defending the uneducated real soon. your peeps lol
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
this action of obama needs to be stoped and repeled.
Its a regulation that stops companys fom makeing more proft and thus more jobs with better pay.
why would you want to force unneeded regulations on companys that cost them more money to enact iyts just crazy liberial thinking that more govt regulatios make things better.
Freedom of choice. We all do not have unlimited access to who our service carrier of internet content can be. Therefore our content should not be limited by carriers that redirect content to their preferred partners.
I can see someone like TWC selling the rights to search engines to bing for example. Google and Yahoo are out. Boom more revenue for bing. Netflix versus Hulu. It goes on and on.
Just wait until they limit action to political content.
this action of obama needs to be stoped and repeled.
Its a regulation that stops companys fom makeing more proft and thus more jobs with better pay.
why would you want to force unneeded regulations on companys that cost them more money to enact iyts just crazy liberial thinking that more govt regulatios make things better.
Freedom of choice. We all do not have unlimited access to who our service carrier of internet content can be. Therefore our content should not be limited by carriers that redirect content to their preferred partners.
I can see someone like TWC selling the rights to search engines to bing for example. Google and Yahoo are out. Boom more revenue for bing. Netflix versus Hulu. It goes on and on.
Just wait until they limit action to political content.
Truth be told I'm not totally spun up on the topic, still doing some research. But so far, even in I think it was Purp's graphic about abuses, most of those had been resolved in court using existing law.
This whole Net Neutrality thing seems like it's been a solution in search of a problem. I keep seeing posts about "I could see X abuse or situation happening"... ok, so let's say it does? Considering how companies have apparently lost lawsuits in stuff like this, do we already have the anti-trust laws on the books?
And this is assuming that there is real profitability in an ISP limiting customer access to the most popular sites.
And don't we already have that? I mean, TWC doesn't have the NFL package. You have to change TV providers over to Dish to get it. So it's not like the premise for a provider to limit access isn't already there.
As far waiting until political content is limited... what makes you think the gov't won't do the same thing as part of it's regulatory practices? From what I've dug up, one of the fears about bringing the internet under "telecomm" as it were is that it would then potentially be subject to permitting, fines, etc. Ever hear of the Fairness Doctrine? It's something the left has been trying to bring back in order to curtail the popularity and reach of conservative radio. Basically it's an "equal time" mandate. For every 3 hours of say Rush Limbaugh, that radio station has to have 3 hours of say, Rachel Maddow.
So far from what I'm seeing, Net Neutrality is addressing the wrong issue. Bandwidth is finite... there is only so much of it at a given time. It's why TWC and phone companies put in the fine print that data speeds may be slower during peak times. To me the bigger question is "Why aren't we focused on creating an environment where we can increase the number of ISPs?" Because the danger I am seeing is that the gov't is now creating and ensuring the handful of ISPs we have now are becoming too big to fail.
"Hey, I'm a reasonable guy. But I've just experienced some very unreasonable things." -Jack Burton
-It looks like the Harvard Boys know what they are doing after all.
So far from what I'm seeing, Net Neutrality is addressing the wrong issue. Bandwidth is finite... there is only so much of it at a given time. It's why TWC and phone companies put in the fine print that data speeds may be slower during peak times. To me the bigger question is "Why aren't we focused on creating an environment where we can increase the number of ISPs?" Because the danger I am seeing is that the gov't is now creating and ensuring the handful of ISPs we have now are becoming too big to fail. [/color]
The issue with the environment for ISPs is the cost of the infrastructure. It's expensive. That's what holding back them. Not net neutrality regulation.
Sure, maybe it gets repealed and nothing happens. But why give it the opportunity? Why hand away our freedom?
It infuriates me. Repealing a regulation, just because it's a regulation, makes absolutely no sense. I want to choose where I want to go. I don't want an ISP to even have the opportunity to steer me one direction or another.
This is freedom of speech we're talking about here. Sure, we can give up some of our protections and nothing might happen. But is that a good idea?
I'll say this. If the FCC votes how I think they're going to vote (along party lines), I doubt I'll ever vote Republican again. I mean, what the hell do they stand for at this point anyway? I'm registered Republican, so I could vote Kasich in the Primary. But they're losing me real quick lately.
Oh, and if you have a good excuse for not getting directTV (which I happen to have), Sunday Ticket is available via Streaming for like 250$. Certainly sucks that that's what you need and they refuse to offer it to everyone as a standalone, but I'll play their game, to watch my game.
EDIT: And what pisses me off so much is that the public doesn't want these rules changed, yet these people don't care. I really wish all our congressmen and our president would just come out and say how they stand on net neutrality. This is a huge deal, and I would like to know where EVERYONE stands. And they will be judged based on where they stand for the low-life scum that any of those who want to repeal net neutrality are.
1) I personally would like to see more legislation passed via referendum
2) Maybe for people already in the know, but this doesn't come across as an easily understandable issue for most people. Even the problems you laid out are problems that might happen.
Freedom of speech for whom? You? Me? the ISPs?
Seems to me that first and foremost, before we pass regulations which inherently ARE restrictions on Liberty (the only thing needed to be determined is if it is a reasonable and necessary one) is if "data" is a public resource in the manner of electricity, water, transportation, telecomm, etc.
I think a good argument can be made for that, but that HAS to be established first.
I do understand the infrastructure challenges. But that doesn't mean it isn't an issue that shouldn't be addressed as seriously.
Bandwidth is a finite resource right? You can only have so much data transferring at a time. What happens when (not if) the Gov't puts itself in a position to decide how that bandwidth is distributed? AM/FM radio has only so much usable bandwidth. In order to broadcast on those bands you have to be licensed and permitted and abide by what the Gov't deems "appropriate" behavior i.e. Doug Dieken and Jimmy Donovan don't get to drop a collective F-bomb on Sunday afternoons.
If DATA becomes a pubic utility, will TWC have the option to say no when the gov't says website owners have to be licensed and permitted?
Recently YouTube has been notorious for demonetizing much of it's conservative content and engaging censorship of the same. The remedy for that in free market fashion is that those former YouTubers got together and created their own "network" of sorts where they are able to monetize and put out all the content they want.
Can you guarantee their freedom of speech under a system of licensing and permitting? While I have no illusions the GOp would do the same, we've already seen gov't entities discriminate based on political affiliation and saw attempts to restrict it (see IRS scandal). What happens when those same conservative content folks go to create their own Channel but the Feds deny their application for licensing citing the Fairness Doctrine and saying, "Well there isn't enough opposing viewpoints represented on the bandwidth"
I'm sorry man, but like I previously stated I'm not as spun up on the subject as you guys apparently are. I'm just not sure of what freedoms you're talking about that I'd be giving up without Net Neutrality in place.
"Hey, I'm a reasonable guy. But I've just experienced some very unreasonable things." -Jack Burton
-It looks like the Harvard Boys know what they are doing after all.
Youtube is demonetizing all of their original content. Not just conservatives. Even the lowly pranksters, youtube star, music vlogger, and item openers are experiencing the adpocalypse.
Also, yeah, things like Paetron are great tools to support people who create content. A great way to avoid ads too.
I just worry that bandwidth will become super restricted on sites like Paetron. It'd be in youtube's interest to strike deals that increase their speeds. However, it would be extremely in their interest to strike deals that limit their competition's speeds as well. It'd be feasible that youtube would pay AT&T to throttle the speeds of Paetron while increasing the speeds for youtube.
2) Maybe for people already in the know, but this doesn't come across as an easily understandable issue for most people. Even the problems you laid out are problems that might happen.
The way I've explained it to family members who aren't technical is this:
Consider your ISP to be roadways and your websites vehicles. In the US we have no restrictions on what brand of vehicle can be on the road. You have equal rights to drive a Ford on I71 as I do to drive a GM. This is how the internet is now, if you want YouTube and I want Netflix, we have that freedom of choice without price repercussions.
Now imagine roadways were not brand neutral. The owners of I71 partner with GM, but not Ford. You cannot use I71 without paying a toll to get on and off. I can drive without any extra fees. Do you feel this system encourages or discourages choice in the vehicle you buy next? Do you feel this is fair business practice to Ford?
We ensure roadways are brand neutral because it would hurt car companies. Ensuring ISPs are brand neutral ensures we don't hurt small websites like dawgtalkers who don't have the resources that big sites do.
