Neat Net Neutrality News

[jimmy olsen]

Excellent news

http://www.wired.com/2015/02/fcc-chairman-wheeler-net-neutrality/

FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler: This Is How We Will Ensure Net Neutrality

    By Tom Wheeler 
    02.04.15  | 
    11:00 am

After more than a decade of debate and a record-setting proceeding that attracted nearly 4 million public comments, the time to settle the Net Neutrality question has arrived. This week, I will circulate to the members of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) proposed new rules to preserve the internet as an open platform for innovation and free expression. This proposal is rooted in long-standing regulatory principles, marketplace experience, and public input received over the last several months.

Broadband network operators have an understandable motivation to manage their network to maximize their business interests. But their actions may not always be optimal for network users. The Congress gave the FCC broad authority to update its rules to reflect changes in technology and marketplace behavior in a way that protects consumers. Over the years, the Commission has used this authority to the public's great benefit.


   The internet wouldn't have emerged as it did, for instance, if the FCC hadn't mandated open access for network equipment in the late 1960s. Before then, AT&T prohibited anyone from attaching non-AT&T equipment to the network. The modems that enabled the internet were usable only because the FCC required the network to be open.

Companies such as AOL were able to grow in the early days of home computing because these modems gave them access to the open telephone network.

I personally learned the importance of open networks the hard way. In the mid-1980s I was president of a startup, NABU: The Home Computer Network. My company was using new technology to deliver high-speed data to home computers over cable television lines. Across town Steve Case was starting what became AOL. NABU was delivering service at the then-blazing speed of 1.5 megabits per second—hundreds of times faster than Case's company. "We used to worry about you a lot," Case told me years later.

But NABU went broke while AOL became very successful. Why that is highlights the fundamental problem with allowing networks to act as gatekeepers.

While delivering better service, NABU had to depend on cable television operators granting access to their systems. Steve Case was not only a brilliant entrepreneur, but he also 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.

The phone network's openness did not happen by accident, but by FCC rule. How we precisely deliver that kind of openness for America's broadband networks has been the subject of a debate over the last several months.

Originally, I 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.

That is why I am proposing that the FCC use its Title II authority to implement and enforce open internet protections.

Using this authority, I am submitting to my colleagues the strongest open internet protections ever proposed by the FCC. These enforceable, bright-line rules will ban paid prioritization, and the blocking and throttling of lawful content and services. I propose to fully apply—for the first time ever—those bright-line rules to mobile broadband. My proposal assures the rights of internet users to go where they want, when they want, and the rights of innovators to introduce new products without asking anyone's permission.

All of this can be accomplished while encouraging investment in broadband networks. To preserve incentives for broadband operators to invest in their networks, my proposal will modernize Title II, tailoring it for the 21st century, in order to provide returns necessary to construct competitive networks. For example, there will be no rate regulation, no tariffs, no last-mile unbundling. Over the last 21 years, the wireless industry has invested almost $300 billion under similar rules, proving that modernized Title II regulation can encourage investment and competition.

Congress wisely gave the FCC the power to update its rules to keep pace with innovation. Under that authority my proposal includes a general conduct rule that can be used to stop new and novel threats to the internet. This means the action we take will be strong enough and flexible enough not only to deal with the realities of today, but also to establish ground rules for the as yet unimagined.

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. The proposal I present to the commission will ensure the internet remains open, now and in the future, for all Americans.

[mongers]

Me and the interwebs  signed a non-aggression pact. 

[The Brain]

Internets run on our ball bearings.

[CountDeMoney]

It's as if millions of shareholders suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced.

[Norgy]

Well done, FCC.

[Siege]

TL;DR
What are the arguments in favor and against?

[Tonitrus]

TL;DR
What are the arguments in favor and against?

Freedom vs. Commies vs. Robber Barons

[Siege]

TL;DR
What are the arguments in favor and against?

Freedom vs. Commies vs. Robber Barons

Ok.
So Net Neutrality is the free market solution or the monopolist/communist attempt to increase their power?

[The Brain]

OK best The Power: Manowar or SNAP?

[frunk]

Ok.
So Net Neutrality is the free market solution or the monopolist/communist attempt to increase their power?

Yes.

[Tonitrus]

TL;DR
What are the arguments in favor and against?

Freedom vs. Commies vs. Robber Barons

Ok.
So Net Neutrality is the free market solution or the monopolist/communist attempt to increase their power?

It's kinda the reverse really, and not so simple.  Net Neutrality is the government keeping the Internet infrastructure free and open.  Killing NNputs internet access under complete control of the network owners (e.g. the cable companies).  The fear in killing NN is that the cable companies will then charge you up the ass for everything, and will block out/clamp down on bandwidth to companies that stream competing media, such as  Netflix.

So while NN is not really "free market" as you probably see it, I would argue that it is the most "free".  It's basically choosing between government regulation, and regulation by your cable company (which for most people, you cannot really choose a competitor).

[Siege]

TL;DR
What are the arguments in favor and against?

Freedom vs. Commies vs. Robber Barons

Ok.
So Net Neutrality is the free market solution or the monopolist/communist attempt to increase their power?

It's kinda the reverse really, and not so simple.  Net Neutrality is the government keeping the Internet infrastructure free and open.  Killing NNputs internet access under complete control of the network owners (e.g. the cable companies).  The fear in killing NN is that the cable companies will then charge you up the ass for everything, and will block out/clamp down on bandwidth to companies that stream competing media, such as  Netflix.

So while NN is not really "free market" as you probably see it, I would argue that it is the most "free".  It's basically choosing between government regulation, and regulation by your cable company (which for most people, you cannot really choose a competitor).

You argument makes sense.
Thanks for taking the time to break it down for me.
I am in favor of the freest market possible, and monopolism is the greatest thread to free market after overregulation.
So I totally favor the goverment enforcing anti-monopoly regulations.
Monopoly leads to price fixing and competitivity extermination.
Look at what Florida Power Line has done down in Florida.

So, Obama supported Net Neutrality?
I guess I can finally say that I support an Obama policy.
So I aint gonna call him Zerobama anymore.

[Norgy]

The fear in killing NN is that the cable companies will then charge you up the ass for everything, and will block out/clamp down on bandwidth to companies that stream competing media, such as  Netflix.

Judging from bandwidth usage statistics, the cable companies already do that. When negotiating, for instance. So this is big business vs us, the users.

Consider the Internet as a road. A public service. A common good. Should someone get to close a lane for other traffic to get their traffic through?

Net neutrality as a principle is about every single packet of data being dispatched having the same importance, regardless of who sends it or who receives it.
I like that principle.

[Siege]

Yep. Net Neutrality FTW.

[Tonitrus]

The devil's advocate argument, is that unlike in the analogy on roads, it is the cable companies who've paid for/built most of the infrastructure.  But on the flip side, they're already charging you to access it, but they also want to control how you use that access.