Obama speaks out in favor of Net Neutrality; Ted Cruz likens it to "Obamacare"

If you are referring to 'TV', this is already regulated by the FCC and has nothing to do with NN. Hows that regulated TV working out for you?

 

The competition for TV, strangely the main product sold by internet service providers, will be streaming. It's not a coincidence that TV sellers want to stifle their competition.

It's this conflict of interest that means that basic (and only) access to the internet has to be preserved to provide real competition in entertainment. No one is going to do that but the government, there is no other mechanism.

not supporting net neutrality is anti-competition

 

I still don't understand your argument. Are you implying that if the government does classify internet networks as a utility that lobbyist will somehow destroy the current system with bad regulation and somehow increase the cost of services?

As opposed to allowing providers to enjoy their oligarchy status and do whatever the hell they want, bypassing any lobbying efforts?

Isn't that the entire problem, that the government does not have any teeth until something is passed.

Sorry, I'd like to think that I have more power as a voter than I would as a shareholder in any of these companies.

 

This thread is as good a place as any, here are the rates for Austin:



How much do you pay for internet, and what do you get in return?

 

With Suddenlink I get 50Mbps 350GB/mo cap for $60/mo. They do offer 100Mbps for an extra $20 bucks I think. In my neighborhood Suddenlink is the only option at this time. I hate Suddenlink too...

 

Because of course, the providers aren't spending huge amounts on lobbying right now. Except Comcast, who spends $12M on lobbying. And Time Warner, who spends $5.6M. And Verizon, who spends $10.2M. And...

 

YES!! FCC chair Tom Wheeler unequivocally in favor of a modernized Title II regulation for teh interwebz! We were roasting this guy for being a stooge of his former employers, but it looks like he found his backbone. Here's the editorial he submitted to Wired today:

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

We have a long way to go before the vote on Feb 26th, but only two of the five on the board are republicans.

I honestly never thought that the FCC would find the balls to do this. It's going to be world war III on this topic, and the telecom giants are going to pull every trick they can find in the next few weeks to derail it. Prepare yourself for massive FUD and the usual suspects telling us how title II will cause Marx to rise from the grave and enslave our children forever.

 

For those too lazy to click, here's the op-ed from chairman Wheeler:

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

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.

 

This is probably the most important decision that people don't understand. The internet is the one thing that could save the world in the future.

 

Thank You for posting the link...when I read the letter from the site itself; the comments were (not surprisingly) infested with trolls thinking Net Neutrality and Title II were all bad things.

 

Well, why would Ted Cruz lie to us?

 

I was more surprised they reclassified broadband from 4Mbps to 25Mbps. I figured they would stick closer to 10Mbps. This decisions puts the vast majority of DSL customers out of "broadband" qualification.

In my inner circle, everyone has shrugged this off as if its no big deal...actually most had no idea. I find it very significant as it raises the expected bar in the near future, thus the government putting pressure on ISPs and providing more grant money to expand.

I used to be on the fence about Title II, but now I am for it.

 

Why is this decision so important?

 

:grin: Maybe he's trying to stick it to Obama????? :grin:

 

He killed a kid.

 

Was that ever confirmed?

I remember that being the gossip but I didn't know if they proved that the mummified child skull found in his garage was put there by him.

 

Welcome to the dark side! jk.

I spent some time reviewing this thread and I find the above statement to be the biggest surprise of the thread. You're the most informed on the topic, but you were always against Title II because you feared giving a regulatory agency too much power. What changed your mind?

Upon review, this statement from Wheeler is huge:

Forbidding last-mile unbundling is a big disappointment for me, and I think it may be enough to get Big Cable to swallow the bitter pill of net neutrality. I believe you and I both would give up enforcing NN if we had unbundling, and competitors were allowed to buy last-mile bandwidth at wholesale and compete with the big guys. It would be a more elegant market-based solution to the issue.

Unfortunately competing in a real capitalist free market hits a company's bottom line too hard, so I think Big Cable would prefer to keep their quasi-monopolies and bear the yoke of NN regulation, than to actually compete. Too bad.

On the other hand, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe forced unbundling does too much to disincentivize network investment. If Wheeler's recommendation passes on the 26th, then Big Cable will not be able to use underhanded bull**** to undermine the coming TV streaming revolution. They'll just have to operate as a dumb pipe and give people the stream that they want, when they want.

I can't help but wonder what backroom deals were done before this was released. My first thought is Comcast said they'll concede a reclassification of 'broadband' speed, and even title II, so long as there's no rate regulation, no tariffs, no unbundling, and they allow the merger with Time Warner.

 

So, consumers with one option continue to have one option. Consumers with two options continue to have two options. Crap service and crap speed continue. It does ensure NN. A small step forward.

Need a true technological breakthrough in wireless to have true competitions.

 

Do not fear... Elon Musk is here!

 

I am still concerned about the regulatory side, however, something is better than nothing. I still fear the regulation. After all, I would be really disappointed if the FCC generated a blacklist that required all ISP's to follow and I lose all my torrent sites

The more I delve into all aspects of being a Tier 3 provider, the more it infuriates me. I dont have much of a problem with the alleged "greed" aspect as much as I do with the politics, wastefulness and idiocracy. My hopes is Title II will remove many of the barriers the prevent competent people from coming in and making a successful business.

I dont have much sympathy for the "competition" aspect. I am in the process of purchasing a house and I would be very happy to settle with a Comcast 50/5 connection, however I am restricted to a DSL connection that may give me 6/.6 Mbps on a good day. Sure, it would be great to have 2 or 3 100Mbps providers, but right now, quite a bit of of the US can't even get close to that.

While unbundling sounds great, it is difficult to do. Fiber, cable and DSL are all very different animals on how they operate. In my perfect world, we would have have Tier 1, Tier 2, Tier 3 and Tier 4 fiber providers. Tier 1 would be intrastate, Tier 2 would be interstate and Tier 3 would be county. Tier 1-3 would bid for a license to be transport providers(There would be multiple Tier 1-T3 providers). Tier 4 would be the individual providers that provide service to the home, which negotiate resellers licenses through Tier 3 providers. Tier 3 would be responsible for running and maintaining fiber along all public roads. If a person wants to tap into this vast network, they would need to pay the costs to run it from their home to the public road, just as you would would water, sewer and power.