FCC Revokes Net Neutrality [WAS: FCC Approves Net Neutrality]

[skid71]

????

[Sanyo M1]

Personally, I think Big Content has duped the public into buying their argument that you, as an ISP customer, should pay for their traffic, rather than you or advertisers paying Big Content to cover the carriage costs for the traffic they generate. So while this is awesome for ESPN and the NFL, who can continue to make deals that make you pay for their content as part of your wired ISP or wireless service - because that won't violate this supposed "Net Neutrality" and the FCC won't make them offer their content to all ISPs on an equal basis - it's potentially not so awesome for consumers.

 

The biggest boosters of "Net Neutrality" are Netflix (who want you to think that your monthly subscription covers all their expenses, when you're paying your ISP to deliver their traffic, regardless of whether you're a Netflix sub or not - they don't want their sticker price to be $20+ a month to cover the huge amounts of data they're dumping on ISPs) and ad-supported, VC-money-hemorrhaging media like Ars Technica, Huffington Post, and Vox Media's properties, who regardless of ideology won't be able to sustain their "free content with spammy ads" business models if they have to pay to deliver their traffic to your front door like non-electronic media have to do (you don't pay the postal service to deliver magazines; you don't pay the newspaper delivery guy to deliver the morning paper).

 

If "Big Content" should pay for their traffic, what exactly am I paying my ISP for? "Big Content" isn't just dumping this traffic onto ISPs network, their paying customers are demanding it. Maybe if they have a problem with meeting that demand, they shouldn't go out of their way to advertise unlimited data and fast speeds and actually advertise what they can actually deliver.

 

Given your views, I guess you'd be okay with UPS charging you for a delivery plus charging Amazon because they sent the package to you.

[Galaxyguy]

None of these rules have been enacted yet. Once the dissenting opinions are finalized the full document will be released for public comment.

 

There's still a few steps to go before this is enacted.

I understand there's still time before it's enacted but it's amazing to see how many people are willing to back this without knowing what's even in it.

 

On other sites the "t-bagger" term is being thrown around for those being cautious (like me) about new federal regulations, but I think everyone should be cautious about this due to the far-reaching potential of this action. The Internet is the last bastion of freedom in the world. I'm just super cautious of any new government program, as should everyone else. Just remember that this is the same government that spent almost $2 billion on a website, a WEBSITE! I can't wait to see the costs associated with this new regulation. And remember, all costs are eventually passed on to the consumer.

 

Sent from my Note 4.

[SWMich4G]

Your citation comes from a noted right wing "think tank" blog.  And the author is Berin Szoka -- the less I say about that guy, the better.  View the piece through that filter.

 

AJ

I guess he changed it to link to the whole letter at a left-wing site.  You can just go there and read the letter in its entirety without reading either blog, and form your own opinions.  But yes, it's true: politicians behave very differently when they are in power than when they aren't. 

[lou99/maximus1987]

Actually, the right wing blog you are warning us about links to the entire letter...on a far left website. You can just go there and read the letter in its entirety without reading either blog, and form your own opinions. And yes, it's true: politicians behave very differently when they are in power than when they aren't.

To be fair to AJ, initially I was linking to a righty site so then I just found the entire letter and on a lefty site to boot so no excuses to not read senator obama's speech.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Fraydog]

I understand there's still time before it's enacted but it's amazing to see how many people are willing to back this without knowing what's even in it.

 

On other sites the "t-bagger" term is being thrown around for those being cautious (like me) about new federal regulations, but I think everyone should be cautious about this due to the far-reaching potential of this action. The Internet is the last bastion of freedom in the world. I'm just super cautious of any new government program, as should everyone else. Just remember that this is the same government that spent almost $2 billion on a website, a WEBSITE! I can't wait to see the costs associated with this new regulation. And remember, all costs are eventually passed on to the consumer.

 

Sent from my Note 4.

It is OK to be cautious, but I didn't see the Republicans complain about the NSA hack of Gemalto, nor did I see them complain about other spying activities. Those activities are far more onerous than anything in Title II. Fact is we already have a good idea of what the rules are, it's simple regulation to ensure that oligarchs don't quash the free market of ideas that needs to exist.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Galaxyguy]

It is OK to be cautious, but I didn't see the Republicans complain about the NSA hack of Gemalto, nor did I see them complain about other spying activities. Those activities are far more onerous than anything in Title II. Fact is we already have a good idea of what the rules are, it's simple regulation to ensure that oligarchs don't quash the free market of ideas that needs to exist.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You need to listen to some of the more conservative / libertarian members of Congress, such as Rand Paul. He speaks about it all the time. You are right though that most Republicans have stayed quiet about it, unfortunately.

 

The federal government is completely out of step with what was originally intended. If you haven't read the Constitution lately, read it again. It's pretty amazing how limited the federal government should be. Over time, more and more powers have been usurped from the states. I just wish more elected federal officials would abide by the tenth amendment.

 

Sent from my Note 4.

[Fraydog]

You need to listen to some of the more conservative / libertarian members of Congress, such as Rand Paul. He speaks about it all the time. You are right though that most Republicans have stayed quiet about it, unfortunately.

 

The federal government is completely out of step with what was originally intended. If you haven't read the Constitution lately, read it again. It's pretty amazing how limited the federal government should be. Over time, more and more powers have been usurped from the states. I just wish more elected federal officials would abide by the tenth amendment.

 

Sent from my Note 4.

Overall, I'm on the same side as you. I look at Net Neutrality more as the government playing traffic cop over the government majorly expanding their power. Fact is, most kept their mouths shut and approved the major expansions of government power in our lifetimes. That's all I'm saying about that.

 

Net Neutrality is not really an expansion of government power at all except to those that don't understand the government has always had the largest power in this sector in the first place.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dstar2002]

So, let's say the big ISP comes and says hey, you know what, S4GRU is popular, so, we are going to charge them to have their site load at non dial up speeds.

 

What happens to this site? I bet you can figure it out.

 

That is exactly why we need net neutrality. I don't want Comcast crippling a Sprint site, while pumping Verizon at 100 miles an hour. Thanks.

[Trip]

Although I am an FCC employee (albeit an engineer who did not work on this issue in the slightest), let me make some comments on this as this may clarify things. Please note this represents my personal opinion and is not reflective of the FCC.

 

So, first of all, to all those who say things about how Title II is the big problem, I remind you that the when the court struck down the rules under Section 706, it specifically said rules like this would have to be under Title II to be enforceable. So absent the adoption of Title II, a bunch of lawsuits and nonsense would have followed and the new rules ultimately would have been struck down again. This just skips that whole part of the process.

 

Second, there's clearly some misunderstanding about how administrative law works. The FCC, or any other agency, issues a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) which proposes a set of rules. It then solicits public comments, of which the FCC received more than 4 million, and uses those comments to formulate a Report and Order. So to people saying "we don't know what's in it," that's technically true, but the NPRM laid out where the FCC wanted to go with it. The comments then influence the process, and the R&O explains the response to those comments and creates rules based on those comments and the NPRM. More importantly, I could be wrong on this, but I'm not aware of any case where an R&O has been published prior to adoption, at least not at the FCC. It may be a violation of the Administrative Procedures Act to do so, I've heard that mentioned, but I don't know that for sure. In any event, posting a Report and Order prior to being voted on in this case would be something new that I'm not aware of happening before.

 

Anyway, then the document is published in the Federal Register, and is usually available online as soon as it's sent to the GPO for publication in the Federal Register. 30 or 45 days after publication in the Federal Register, anyone can file a Petition for Reconsideration asking to have the rules changed having now had a chance to read them. The FCC will then take more comments, and produce a Memorandum Order and Opinion addressing those comments and making any adjustments to the new rules based on new arguments made in comments. So if they make some blunder and a firestorm of criticism comes back, this is the chance to get it corrected. After that whole process if people are still unhappy, then it goes to court.

 

In the Incentive Auction (600 MHz) process, I've been working with the attorneys on the MO&O the past few months. We're most likely making some changes to the rules adopted there in order to address things that were unclear in the R&O as well as things that were brought up that hadn't been brought up before. This is the normal process.

 

Third, I suspect that many people who are saying '332 pages of new regulations' don't understand what's in these pages of documents. Any R&O contains a section at the beginning that is very long and contains summaries of what was proposed in the NPRM and summaries of the various comments received. Then the FCC explains its reasoning and why it has made decisions it has made. The actual rules themselves are usually attached to the back before any appendices and are a small fraction of the number of pages explaining the decisions and citing legal justifications for doing so. The vast majority of the pages are explanation as opposed to rules themselves. Just look at the Incentive Auction R&O as an example. The first 329 pages are discussion, then pages 330-381 (51 pages) are actual rules, then the last 103 pages are appendices providing yet more explanation. So out of 484 pages of stuff, only 51 pages are actual rules, and many of those in the Incentive Auction case are technical rules about interference limits and things like that. So, yes, are there 332 pages to read to fully understand what's going on? Yes. Are there 332 pages of 'new regulations'? I would argue no.

 

I may or may not answer any replies to this message, but wanted to get all of that out there. Hopefully it helps the conversation.

 

- Trip

[clbowens]

I think it's good overall.  BUT...ISP's will twist it to make it sound bad and in the end it will cost us more money.

[newboyx]

 

Sent from my SM-T237P using Tapatalk

[lou99/maximus1987]

Although I am an FCC employee (albeit an engineer who did not work on this issue in the slightest), let me make some comments on this as this may clarify things. Please note this represents my personal opinion and is not reflective of the FCC.

 

So, first of all, to all those who say things about how Title II is the big problem, I remind you that the when the court struck down the rules under Section 706, it specifically said rules like this would have to be under Title II to be enforceable. So absent the adoption of Title II, a bunch of lawsuits and nonsense would have followed and the new rules ultimately would have been struck down again. This just skips that whole part of the process.

 

Second, there's clearly some misunderstanding about how administrative law works. The FCC, or any other agency, issues a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) which proposes a set of rules. It then solicits public comments, of which the FCC received more than 4 million, and uses those comments to formulate a Report and Order. So to people saying "we don't know what's in it," that's technically true, but the NPRM laid out where the FCC wanted to go with it. The comments then influence the process, and the R&O explains the response to those comments and creates rules based on those comments and the NPRM. More importantly, I could be wrong on this, but I'm not aware of any case where an R&O has been published prior to adoption, at least not at the FCC. It may be a violation of the Administrative Procedures Act to do so, I've heard that mentioned, but I don't know that for sure. In any event, posting a Report and Order prior to being voted on in this case would be something new that I'm not aware of happening before.

 

Anyway, then the document is published in the Federal Register, and is usually available online as soon as it's sent to the GPO for publication in the Federal Register. 30 or 45 days after publication in the Federal Register, anyone can file a Petition for Reconsideration asking to have the rules changed having now had a chance to read them. The FCC will then take more comments, and produce a Memorandum Order and Opinion addressing those comments and making any adjustments to the new rules based on new arguments made in comments. So if they make some blunder and a firestorm of criticism comes back, this is the chance to get it corrected. After that whole process if people are still unhappy, then it goes to court.

 

In the Incentive Auction (600 MHz) process, I've been working with the attorneys on the MO&O the past few months. We're most likely making some changes to the rules adopted there in order to address things that were unclear in the R&O as well as things that were brought up that hadn't been brought up before. This is the normal process.

 

Third, I suspect that many people who are saying '332 pages of new regulations' don't understand what's in these pages of documents. Any R&O contains a section at the beginning that is very long and contains summaries of what was proposed in the NPRM and summaries of the various comments received. Then the FCC explains its reasoning and why it has made decisions it has made. The actual rules themselves are usually attached to the back before any appendices and are a small fraction of the number of pages explaining the decisions and citing legal justifications for doing so. The vast majority of the pages are explanation as opposed to rules themselves. Just look at the Incentive Auction R&O as an example. The first 329 pages are discussion, then pages 330-381 (51 pages) are actual rules, then the last 103 pages are appendices providing yet more explanation. So out of 484 pages of stuff, only 51 pages are actual rules, and many of those in the Incentive Auction case are technical rules about interference limits and things like that. So, yes, are there 332 pages to read to fully understand what's going on? Yes. Are there 332 pages of 'new regulations'? I would argue no.

 

I may or may not answer any replies to this message, but wanted to get all of that out there. Hopefully it helps the conversation.

 

- Trip

Never been done?

Tell that to senator obama's righteous indignation

 

http://www.s4gru.com/index.php?/topic/6837-FCC-Approves-Net-Neutrality/page__view__findpost__p__404865

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[WillM]

Well we still don't know what's in it no matter how many pages of importance there are so I'm not sure how we can know what this all really means. And when it comes to these things the details are much more important than some summary sheet. Today in Washington huge bills are passed by members who only read a summary. It often leads to surprises later on.

 

I did hear Commisioner Clyburn say that Google was allowed to see the rules and wasn't happy with some of it so the commision "tweaked" them to keep them happy. Must be nice to have that kind of access.

[Trip]

Never been done?

Tell that to senator obama's righteous indignation

 

http://www.s4gru.com/index.php?/topic/6837-FCC-Approves-Net-Neutrality/page__view__findpost__p__404865

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

And was it released or not?  I believe it was not.

 

- Trip

[lou99/maximus1987]

And was it released or not? I believe it was not.

 

- Trip

Except it was. Google it.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Trip]

Except it was. Google it.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

You're the one making the claim.  It's not my job to do your research for you.

 

- Trip

[lou99/maximus1987]

You're the one making the claim. It's not my job to do your research for you.

 

- Trip

I posted links on 1st page of this thread lol. Seriously. I even posted a link to my post. It's not MY job to click links for you.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Trip]

I posted links on 1st page of this thread lol. Seriously. I even posted a link to my post. It's not MY job to click links for you.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Then why did you say to Google it? 

 

Looking at your link, it doesn't actually link to any evidence beyond a piece of a report and order without context and an article not actually written by Barack Obama containing pieces of letters by him that do not actually support your argument.  There is no date on the R&O piece at all, in fact.

 

- Trip

[lou99/maximus1987]

Then why did you say to Google it?

 

Looking at your link, it doesn't actually link to any evidence beyond a piece of a report and order without context and an article not actually written by Barack Obama containing pieces of letters by him that do not actually support your argument. There is no date on the R&O piece at all, in fact.

 

- Trip

I'll reply once I'm at a pc

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Trip]

Now I'm looking back and I don't even know why I responded.  That whole conversation is off-topic.  News flash, politicians take positions that benefit them when convenient.  Trying to argue things aren't transparent when they follow the transparency rules required by Congress seems disingenuous to me no matter who it is.  I spelled out what the procedure is.  Seems pretty transparent to me unless you never want anything to get done. 

 

- Trip

[Jones]

 Seems pretty transparent to me unless you never want anything to get done. 

 

- Trip

 

Shh...don't tell everyone. That is what the party that's not in control wants.

[JeffDTD]

The correlation that the most vocal opponents tend to be the most profitable in their respective categories says something. Not sure exactly what I conclude from that.

I'd love to take a libertarian view, assume that the opponents are intrinsically "good" companies and will operate, without regulation, (and among its peers) in a manner that promotes competition, fairness, and value for the user. Unfortunately, my personal experiences with several of them and lots of anecdotal evidence says something considerably more sinister.

 

It's all $$.

[lou99/maximus1987]

Although I am an FCC employee (albeit an engineer who did not work on this issue in the slightest), let me make some comments on this as this may clarify things. Please note this represents my personal opinion and is not reflective of the FCC.

 

So, first of all, to all those who say things about how Title II is the big problem, I remind you that the when the court struck down the rules under Section 706, it specifically said rules like this would have to be under Title II to be enforceable. So absent the adoption of Title II, a bunch of lawsuits and nonsense would have followed and the new rules ultimately would have been struck down again. This just skips that whole part of the process.

 

 

- Trip

 

Except Republicans offered to pass net neutrality without Title II.

Yes this was after Title II was threatened. 

Therefore, we can conclude that it wasn't just net neutrality that was the goal but something else.

[lou99/maximus1987]

And was it released or not?  I believe it was not.

 

- Trip

 

Yes Mr "I work at the FCC" it was released

 

Although not required, I took the unusual step ofsharing with the public the actual text ofthe one rule I thought we should amend. Because ofthe intensely controversial nature ofthe media ownership proceeding and my desire for an open and transparent process, I wanted to ensure that Members of Congress and the public had the opportunity to review my proposal prior to any Commission action

 

http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view;jsessionid=gTF8QmzYhLPjwM1nq10yydbphTxdpLzmFgCJ0QFQV9ZGFnRdh1GH!973241960!-856245186?id=6519841254#page=24

 

 

When Mr "open and transparent administration" has the FCC act in contradiction to how HE ordered the Republican FCC to act, it's a issue.

 

And since you're such a stickler for sources

 

Although such a proposal may pass the muster of a federal court, Congress and the public have the right to review any specific proposal and decide whether or not it constitutes sound policy. And the Commission has the responsibility to defend any new proposal in public discourse and debate.

 

http://votesmart.org/public-statement/304052/letter-to-the-honorable-kevin-j-martin-chairman-federal-communications-commission-fcc/?search=media%20ownership#.VPC8t_nEZNo

 

http://web.archive.org/web/20081103230238/http://obama.senate.gov/press/071022-obama_fcc_polic/