Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > News > Tech News > FCC net neutrality vote today, last minute changes made to proposal

FCC net neutrality vote today, last minute changes made to proposal
Thread Tools
NewsPoster
MacNN Staff
Join Date: Jul 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 26, 2015, 10:45 AM
 
On the eve of the net neutrality vote at the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC), chairman Tom Wheeler has reportedly made some changes to the proposal. Reportedly extracted by request of Google and some other public interest groups is a clause that could allow Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to charge websites for delivered content.

Wheeler and fellow Democrats Mignon Clyburn and Jessica Rosenworcel have allegedly been making changes to the proposal at the request of the search engine giant, alongside advocacy groups Free Press, and New America's Open Technology Institute. While the specific language changed isn't available, there doesn't appear to be any modification to the Title II regulation that will be applied to ISPs, Google among them with its Google Fiber offering.

Title II regulation of broadband would apply oversight to ISPs similar to that of utilities, such as water, power, and the "landline" and cellular telephone systems. While the ISPs and some governmental officials believe the FCC may not even have this power, if implemented, US broadband access would be more tightly monitored for abuses, predatory pricing, and other anti-consumer measures -- which have escalated in recent years, with the result of Americans paying more money for less service than is widely seen in most other countries. Additionally, the ISPs would be subject to independent ombudsmen, deciding if the companies were taking advantage of their near-monopolistic power over consumers.

In addition to the last-minute language changes about passing per-transaction charges to ISP customers, Clyburn previously railed against a new legal category of "broadband subscriber access services," which was inserted into the proposal specifically to help nullify neutrality-breaking "paid prioritization" deals such as those Netflix was forced into by broadband providers Verizon and AT&T. Clyburn said in a speech to a trade group that although she broadly supported Wheeler's proposal, some "fixes" would need to be made. She added that she had heard concerns about "failing to consider the impact on smaller [Internet service providers], that including interconnection [in the proposal] goes too far or that the case-by-case approach does not go far enough, and that the new conduct rule may not be as strong as the previous 'unreasonable discrimination' rule."

Most Republican-aligned government officials and corporate Internet Service Providers decry the possibility of Title II legislation, while smaller ISPs and Democrats are broadly in favor of codifying, at some level, true net neutrality. Protestors at a press conference earlier this month at FCC headquarters cited polls that showed that 85 percent of Republican voters approve of Wheeler's plan, or at least the concept of true net neutrality.

Standing in strong opposition to the rules is Republican FCC member Ajit Pai. Pai confirmed that some modifications were being made, with the document now numbering 317 pages, versus the original 332. Ex-Verizon lawyer Pai claims to be seeking a "free and open Internet," but said of Wheeler's proposal that "the claim that President Obama's plan to regulate the Internet does not include rate regulation is flat-out false. The plan clearly states that the FCC can regulate the rates that Internet service providers charge for broadband Internet access, for interconnection, for transit -- in short, for the core aspects of Internet services." Pai called for Wheeler to release the plan in full to the public, but this seems unlikely at this late hour.
( Last edited by NewsPoster; Feb 26, 2015 at 10:46 AM. )
     
nouser
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Apr 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 26, 2015, 11:08 AM
 
Expect to see an additional 17.2% average increase in your internet cost due to this passage. Take a close look at your wireless bill to see all the fees and taxes that are added. You can count on the same being added to your internet service bills. Source: http://money.cnn.com/2013/07/10/technology/mobile/wireless-taxes/

So here we have this government body (FCC) looking for a way to take control of a bastion of freedom, the internet. They will set up a Department of the Internet and staff it will thousands to monitor a service that is actually working just fine without government meddling. Write your congressional representatives. Tell them to shelve this POS regulation power grab.
     
DiabloConQueso
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2008
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 26, 2015, 11:23 AM
 
"Actually working just fine?"

We're in the infancy of ISPs figuring out how to make paid prioritization and traffic-shaping work for them and them alone. I, for one, am not willing to wait to see how that plays out (hint: not well for the home internet user) before nipping it in the bud.

If you have a better idea of how to get the ISPs to play fair, the US has been debating this issue for a year or longer. It's unfair to say, "This proposal stinks!" this late in the game (e.g., the day of the vote) without offering a better solution. And leaving the internet up to the "free market" is not a valid alternative, because that's how it is today, and it's heading into a big, greedy, money-hungry mess where the ISPs win at the expense and to the detriment of everyone else.
     
Mr. Strat
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: State of WA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 26, 2015, 11:30 AM
 
This does not bode well. as nouser pointed out, the cost of Internet service will likely increase across the board and quality will suffer - kinda like healthcare.
     
Mike Wuerthele
Managing Editor
Join Date: Jul 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 26, 2015, 11:52 AM
 
Many of those taxes and fees in the CNN Money report you already pay on a broadband bill, as they already have to pay taxes and whatnot to the federal government. If Title II is enacted, then the feds will hold them accountable for Internet connectivity, the same way they do wireless.

I will pay more for non-filtered traffic. I will pay more for the ISPs suffering under the weight of government inspectors the next time they send a bill to somebody they named inappropriately because they didn't like the tone they took on the phone.

I will pay more for oversight - yeah, I know it won't be perfect. I will pay more for wider ISP access to telephone poles. Title II worked out pretty well for landline and wireless development.

Healthcare is a different issue. The bill was intended to not upset the status quo of insurance companies and the business model that they have. Everybody won but consumers. Title II will upset the ISPs model.

Even if I wasn't reporting on it, if the ISPs don't like it, I'd be completely on board.

I'm not even a Democrat.
     
fizzy
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Mar 2009
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 26, 2015, 11:59 AM
 
Anyone saying "this proposal will increase costs so let's leave it up to Comcast and Verizon" — you're joking, right?
     
Flying Meat
Senior User
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: SF
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 26, 2015, 12:48 PM
 
If by "working just fine" you mean a very distant 9th in broadband speeds in the world, then sure.
     
Charles Martin
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Maitland, FL
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 27, 2015, 02:32 AM
 
nouser has a very mistaken concept of even what the Internet is, and is apparently unaware that it exists outside the US.

Prices are actually very unlikely to go up at all, and may even come down (since this rule now finally allows municipalities to set up their own community broadband). Ask **anyone** in Chattanooga how well that has worked for them, and compare their speeds to yours.

Speeds, speaking of which, will most definitely be going up, because the US is way behind (as Flying Meat correctly points out) and Google is now free to bring Fiber to more places. So if you object to paying the same for faster speeds, well ... I can't say as I understand that line of thinking.
Charles Martin
MacNN Editor
     
   
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:18 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,