Net neutrality wins: the FCC will propose strong Title II regulation

[securitybreach]

Today, in a statement given to Wired, FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler revealed his plan to reclassify ISPs as common carriers under Title II of the Telcommunications Act. It's a striking victory for net neutrality advocates who have been fighting for years to solidify internet protections using Title II authority — and it's the first time the FCC has shown enough backbone to draw a line in the sand against companies like Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon, who are sure to fight viciously in courts to reverse this action.

It’s time to put in place rules to preserve the

#OpenInternet

that has become an indispensable part of our daily lives.

#TitleII

— Tom Wheeler (@TomWheelerFCC)

February 4, 2015

 

"I am submitting to my colleagues the strongest open internet protections ever proposed by the FCC," Wheeler wrote. "These enforceable, bright-line rules will ban paid prioritization, and the blocking and throttling of lawful content and services.".........

 

http://www.theverge.com/2015/2/4/7977569/its-official-the-fcc-will-seek-to-reclassify-the-internet-as-a-utility

[V.T. Eric Layton]

I have mixed feelings about this. If they manage to classify the Internet as a common carrier, like phone service, then the FCC will be 100% in control of it. Seeing what the FCC has done to telephones, radio, and broadcast TV, I wonder if having them regulate the Internet would really be a good thing in the long run.

[securitybreach]

And other article about this: http://www.wired.com/2015/02/fcc-chairman-wheeler-net-neutrality/

[goretsky]

Hello,

 

I am now paying just 175% ($70 vs $40) more than what I paid ten years ago for an Internet connection that is 25% faster (20Mbps vs 16Mbps down) than it was back then. In those ten years, computers' processors, video cards, storage, memory, local networking (wired and wiredless) have grown in leaps and bounds, yet my "broadband" speed has increased just a small fraction, despite massive billing to customers and massive tax breaks for "incentives" to provide "high-speed" network connections.

 

In the meantime, my colleagues in what are essentially developing markets (South America, Eastern Europe, etc.) are getting 100Mbps (up and down) connections for $20-25/month.

 

Let's give this a try first and see what happens to consumers of Internet services before we start arguing about it.

 

Regards,

 

Aryeh Goretsky

 

[securitybreach]

I am right there with you Aryeh! I pay $120 a month for 122mbps down and 22mbps up + cable and home phone.

Under the new regime, broadband providers would be explicitly banned from blocking content or creating fast lanes for Web services that can pay for preferential treatment into American homes.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2015/02/04/the-fcc-just-proposed-the-strongest-net-neutrality-rules-ever/

[V.T. Eric Layton]

Sadly, Aryeh, your colleagues in those other countries have their fabulous Internet access speeds subsidized by extremely high taxes.

[securitybreach]

Sadly, Aryeh, your colleagues in those other countries have their fabulous Internet access speeds subsidized by extremely high taxes.

 

I always hear that argument but most people forget that they make a lot more than Americans so it evens out a bit.

[goretsky]

Hello,

 

Actually, datacomm systems in many parts of the world (Argentina, Czech Republic, Estonia, Slovakia, etc.) are privatized. I'm not sure about the taxes, but they're probably higher. I know that a lot of consumer goods are far less expensive in the US than in Argentina or Slovakia, which means lots of visits to Walmart, Marshall's, etc. when visitor are in town. One thing I've noticed is that these higher prices are often the result of strong consumer regulations. For example, if a PC breaks due to a component wearing out or some sort of latent defect, the manufacturer has to repair or replace it, even many years after it was purchased. Compare with the 1-3 year long limited warranties that you see here, and you begin to understand how manufacturers are recouping those warranty costs up front.

 

Regards,

 

Aryeh Goretsky

 

 

Sadly, Aryeh, your colleagues in those other countries have their fabulous Internet access speeds subsidized by extremely high taxes.

[V.T. Eric Layton]

Sadly, Aryeh, your colleagues in those other countries have their fabulous Internet access speeds subsidized by extremely high taxes.

 

I always hear that argument but most people forget that they make a lot more than Americans so it evens out a bit.

 

What makes you think that the citizens of those other countries make more money than folks in the US?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_average_wage

 

US is #1 in Gross Income.

 

Also, notice the level of taxation of most of those countries on that list.

[goretsky]

Hello,

 

Both AT&T and Verizon quit laying FTTH (fiber to the home).

 

And they both took hundreds of millions billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies to do so.

 

Here's Verizon's complete map: http://gizmodo.com/after-billions-in-subsidies-the-final-verizon-fios-map-1682854728

 

And here's AT&T's map from August 2014 (shows proposed sites as well): http://about.att.com/content/dam/snr/2014/April14/gigapower_national_map_infographic.jpg

 

Regards,

 

Aryeh Goretsky

[ebrke]

Sadly, Aryeh, your colleagues in those other countries have their fabulous Internet access speeds subsidized by extremely high taxes.

 

I always hear that argument but most people forget that they make a lot more than Americans so it evens out a bit.

 

What makes you think that the citizens of those other countries make more money than folks in the US?

 

https://en.wikipedia...by_average_wage

 

US is #1 in Gross Income.

 

Also, notice the level of taxation of most of those countries on that list.

In all fairness, Eric, I'd have to point out that the article you reference states: "The wage distribution is right-skewed; the majority of people earn less than the average wage. For an alternative measure, the Median household income uses median instead of average."

 

When using median rather than average income, U.S. is in 6th place, behind Luxembourg, Norway, Sweden, Australia, and Denmark.

[V.T. Eric Layton]

Median is a statistical fantasy number and average can easily be slewed by top-loading or bottom loading, so...

 

There are three kinds of lies; lies, d*nmed lies, and statistics. ~Mark Twain.

 

If you look at the links to median and average that you link to at Wikipedia, you'll find the median is not a number derived via mathematical procedures. Hence, I prefer average rather than median. Although, as stated, neither is perfect in representing something.

 

https://www.ehow.com...urate-mean.html

 

Which Is More Accurate?

 

The mean (average) is the most accurate way of deriving the central tendencies of a group of values, not only because it gives a more precise value as an answer, but also because it takes into account every value in the list.

Edited February 9, 2015 by V.T. Eric Layton

[V.T. Eric Layton]

It's due to Shrodinger's 3rd Corollary of the Missing Cat's Theorem of Field Drift.

[Webb]

My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government. We will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration. Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in Government.

 

Why Can't the Public See Obama's Proposed Internet Regulations?

 

Republican senators Mike Lee, Ben Sasse, and Rand Paul have all been high profile opponents of the Obama administrations current plan to regulate the internet -- in particular, Lee has called the regulation a government "takeover" of the internet and says it amounts to a "a massive tax increase on the middle class, being passed in the dead of night without the American public really being made aware of what is going on.

 

And when Lee says that the American public isn't aware of what's going on, that is in no way hyperbole. FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai has emerged as a hero for those opposed to the regulation because Pai has been taking to the airwaves decrying the fact that the public is not allowed to see 332 pages of proposed internet regulation before they are potentially passed. Pai's crusade to make the proposed regulations public is the theme of the the latest ad from Protect Internet Freedom.

[Webb]

Republicans vow to fight net neutrality

 

On the eve of an intensely anticipated Federal Communications Commission’s vote Thursday on federal regulation of the Internet, congressional Republicans said they were not giving up the fight if the agency gives a strong endorsement of “net neutrality.”

 

Critics used a hearing on Capitol Hill Wednesday to air one last time their fears that the rules being fashioned by FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler were an unneeded intrusion into the workings of the Web, an effort by the Obama administration to set the rules of the road for Internet traffic in the future.

 

Tomorrow’s commission vote does not signal the end of this debate. Rather, it is just the beginning,” said Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton, Michigan Republican, said at a hearing Wednesday. “This vote brings with it a host of consequences that have the potential to disrupt the Internet we have come to know and rely on.”

 

Mr. Wheeler’s 300-page-plus blueprint, to be made public at a Thursday FCC meeting, is expected to propose regulating the major Internet service providers like Comcast and Verizon under the same laws and regulations that once governed landline telephone companies as public utilities. The shift would be a major step up from the current regime, where the big telecommunications companies are considered providers of “information services” and subject to very little federal oversight.

 

Supporters of net neutrality say the new rules are needed to keep the big providers from discriminating among users and creating “fast lanes” and better service for deep-pocketed users willing to pay the fare. Critics say there is little evidence of any problem or discrimination under the current system and, Republicans argue, it should be Congress and not the FCC that sets such basic policies ...

Civics 101: Congress makes the laws, not the president.