[NewsPoster]

Officially launching what will become a highly-contentious fight in Washington DC, US Federal Communications Commission commissioner Tom Wheeler has officially stated that he is submitting "the strongest open Internet protections ever proposed by the FCC," which calls for the banning of paid prioritization, and the blocking and throttling of lawful content and services. The move by the chairman was expected, with AT&T and Verizon both threatening lawsuits to block the regulation.

Wheeler said in a post at Wired about the proposal that originally, he had believed that the FCC "could assure Internet openness through a determination of 'commercial reasonableness' under Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. While a recent court decision seemed to draw a roadmap for using this approach, I became concerned that this relatively-new concept might, down the road, be interpreted to mean what is reasonable for commercial interests, not consumers."

Most congressional Republicans are also opposed to the concept, even though a nearly-identical move to Title II regulation was made for mobile telephone service in the early 1990s, with no ill effects on the industry whatsoever -- a fact the same providers admit to privately. AT&T, in its notices, makes clear it plans to sue the FCC in court over any attempt at Title II regulation, echoing a similar threat by Verizon.

Wheeler invoked his role in an early fast Internet delivery system as an example of why the regulation is required. Wheeler wrote that his mid-'80s role as president of NABU, which planned 1.5Mbit speeds across cable company, was cut short by lack of network access. The chairman noted that AOL "had access to an unlimited number of customers nationwide, who only had to attach a modem to their phone line to receive his service. The phone network was open, whereas the cable networks were closed. End of story."

Electronista and MacNN believe there is a clear case for government oversight of the biggest tier of the ISP industry, for broadband in particular, but also for cellular -- as, in many cases, these companies are one and the same. However, like President Obama, we do not endorse wholesale application of the entire Title II mantle on providers, nor do we endorse strong regulation of smaller providers -- as both are not wholly without valid arguments about the costs of bandwidth expansion, and how best to bear the costs thereof.

"The Internet must be fast, fair and open. That is the message I've heard from consumers and innovators across this nation. That is the principle that has enabled the Internet to become an unprecedented platform for innovation and human expression. And that is the lesson I learned heading a tech startup at the dawn of the Internet age," said Wheeler. The US ISPs subject to this regulation have yet to respond to Wheeler's statement. though they have previously largely opposed the ideas contained in it.

[prl99]

The fact that Comcast regularly doubles its broadband speeds without increasing rates (they just increased modem rental rates) and has regular 6mo, 1 year and 2 year lower rates shows that the actual cost of increasing the speed of their network isn't as great as they say it is. In many cases, the speed is already there and Comcast just chooses which setting the person is paying for. Change the setting and magically they get faster speeds without changing any equipment. Time to give the internet back to the people where it belongs.

[just a poster]

As far as "throttling", the net is already neutral in that this behavior is illegal and implementing it (via layer 7 firewall or per-domain) costs carriers money and infrastructure. It is doubtful anything in the FCC proposal will result in faster downloads or lower costs for consumers.

[Flying Meat]

When AT&T looses their suit (as precedent noted for mobile telephone service under the same regulation has been proven, and admitted to be, non-problematic), they can pay the entirety of the costs for the case for both sides.

[apple4ever]

Be careful what you wish for.

This proposal is terrible. Comcast is regularly increasing bandwidth (and yes, it does take new equipment to increase it) without substantionally increasing prices. In fact, 10 years ago it was 1.5Mbps down for $40. Now that's up to 25Mbps down.

Why do we want the same government who is happy to spy on the internet to control it?

Its dumb.