FCC net neutrality protections to expire on Apr. 23 without intervention

Posted:
in General Discussion
The Title II protections that currently enforce net neutrality among U.S. internet service providers will disappear on Apr. 23, unless another party is able to intervene.




The deadline was revealed in an update of the U.S. government's Federal Register, spelling out when the Federal Communications Commission's "Restoring Internet Freedom" order will take effect. The controversial decision allows ISPs to block or prioritize internet traffic as they see fit, the only real safeguard being that these actions must be publicly disclosed.

"Finding that transparency is sufficient to protect the openness of the internet and that conduct rules have greater costs than benefits, the Order eliminates the conduct rules imposed by the Title II Order," the Register entry says.

The Title II revocation could theoretically be undone by an upcoming battle in Congress, but that's likely to be won by Republican opposition, including President Donald Trump. In the meantime 22 state attorneys general have filed a lawsuit, and various public interest groups are taking action. The California Senate recently approved a net neutrality law of its own.

Even under net neutrality some ISPs have been practicing "zero-rating," in which certain services don't count against monthly data caps. T-Mobile for instance exempts some video services -- but not others -- as an incentive to subscribe. The trouble is that this gives established platforms an inherent advantage, and can make it harder for new services to gain a foothold.

ISPs have nevertheless been caught throttling traffic from the likes of Netflix and YouTube, looking to manage bandwidth without investing in infrastructure upgrades. A purely neutral approach would see those services operating at full speed whenever possible -- creating intense data consumption as video increasingly switches to 4K resolution.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 39
    Mike WuertheleMike Wuerthele Posts: 4,411administrator
    We have made a conscious decision to keep this thread open. 

    Behave, and it will stay so.
    holmstockdSpamSandwichanton zuykovjahbladechasmjony0
  • Reply 2 of 39
    I think this measure will have its intended positive effects in the form of encouraging private investment in infrastructure—especially in rural areas.

    It may not happen soon enough, but it will happen.
    randominternetperson
  • Reply 3 of 39
    We have made a conscious decision to keep this thread open. 

    Behave, and it will stay so.
    Thank you.  Personally I find it very frustrating not to be able to read and contribute to the comments on a story.  I'd prefer not to see a story here than to see a story with locked comments.
    brian greenstevenozdysamoriajony0
  • Reply 5 of 39
    NemWanNemWan Posts: 115member
    I think this measure will have its intended positive effects in the form of encouraging private investment in infrastructure—especially in rural areas.

    It may not happen soon enough, but it will happen.

    In pursuit of what profit in rural areas? There would be lower return on investment because there will never be as many subscribers in rural areas. Rural areas in many parts of the country are depopulating below "frontier" levels.

    When the landline telephone network was deployed a century ago it was mandated to provide universal access to all areas of the country. If the Internet existed when the Communications Act of 1934 was passed it would have been included in its principles of "rapid, efficient, Nation-wide, and world-wide wire and radio communication service with adequate facilities at reasonable charges" to "all the people of the United States."

    This was and is paid for by raising everyone's prices, and there's nothing wrong with that concept so long as industry is also regulated enough to see that people are getting what that price increase was expected to pay for. Rural civilization depends on being subsidized by wealthier, more industrialized urban areas. Rural citizens receive more federal funding per captia than they pay taxes while the reverse is true for urban citizens. This is a benefit to everyone — after all urban Americans gain the ability to communicate with rural Americans and vice versa. If we don't want to pay to be able share our lives together there's something fundamenatally wrong with our unity as a nation.

    If we want a strong and growing rural America that can give birth to new hubs of capitalism we must have a regulatory framework that lays the foundation for opportunty, such as modern communications. It may be that satellites can meet some needs that would otherwise requiring the expense of upgrading all those landlines, but you can't overcome the fact that the speed of light is not fast enough at the distance of satellites to replace ground links.
    muthuk_vanalingamdysamoriabrakkenjony0
  • Reply 6 of 39
    I think this measure will have its intended positive effects in the form of encouraging private investment in infrastructure—especially in rural areas.

    It may not happen soon enough, but it will happen.
    Fundamentally I agree. But I think corporation will do there job.... 1st what’s best for the shareholders and drive revenue the best way they can. Pay to play & other creative ideas to drive revenue. 2nd then "substantial" investment in infrastructure will accelerate, once the "noise" gets too loud. Which could bring pain and agony to consumers in the short run. 

  • Reply 7 of 39
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 6,938member
    I’m watching CNBC right now and the talking head is trying to explain that most people think net neutrality has always been there and that rules that have been around forever are being repealed. Nothing could be further from the truth as Obama’s unilateral directive was put in place in 2015. Net neutrality is actually a new policy forced onto the industry by a so-called progressive agenda. No legislation, no input, just BOOM, there it is, live with it. These rules, in my opinion, did nothing to promote infrastructure expansion. Wy would a carrier spend the capital if they cannot reap the financial reward? Along with net neutrality comes the cry to completely regulate prices and access. The Internet is NOT the modern version of the 125 year old telephone network. 
    boltsfan17spacekidrandominternetpersonmacseekerNotsofast
  • Reply 8 of 39
    volcanvolcan Posts: 1,779member
    AppleInsider said:
    ISPs have nevertheless been caught throttling traffic from the likes of Netflix and YouTube, looking to manage bandwidth without investing in infrastructure upgrades. A purely neutral approach would see those services operating at full speed whenever possible -- creating intense data consumption as video increasingly switches to 4K resolution.
    Netflix has a speed tool. Use that and compare the results to Speed Test. If Netflix reports a slower speed than Speed Test then you can be certain that your ISP is throttling Netflix streaming. Using that tool it was discovered in November of 2017 that Verizon was limiting video streams to 10mbps. Verizon claims it is part of their video optimization program. By the way, currently that is illegal.
    stevenozdysamoriajony0
  • Reply 9 of 39
    lkrupp said:
    The Internet is NOT the modern version of the 125 year old telephone network. 
    Declarative statements are not very persuasive.
    larryachasmjony0
  • Reply 10 of 39
    dysamoriadysamoria Posts: 2,049member
    I think this measure will have its intended positive effects in the form of encouraging private investment in infrastructure—especially in rural areas.

    It may not happen soon enough, but it will happen.
    What exactly is going to motivate private investment in areas that aren't already developed? They've not done so before the net neutrality rules. Taking away those rules will bring us back to where we were before. The history of ISP investments in infrastructure is pretty clearly leaning toward "little to no investment in infrastructure", especially in rural areas. The only reason anyone has fiber was because of government funding, which Verizon ended up squandering and failing to fulfill its contractual obligations on (while arguing they have, of course).

    The US internet infrastructure is well known to be poor outside urban environments, especially in rural areas. What do you expect will change that after the repeal of net neutrality?
    jahblade
  • Reply 11 of 39
    That logo is amazing!  I wouldn't thought they could pack such emotion and strength into a simple logo.  Hats off to Musk.
  • Reply 12 of 39
    volcanvolcan Posts: 1,779member
    That logo is amazing!  I wouldn't thought they could pack such emotion and strength into a simple logo.  Hats off to Musk.
    You're kidding right? That logo is awful. It looks like it was done in MS Word by a secretary. Horribly outdated font, no sense of typography whatsoever. Hideously bad kerning.
    zoetmb
  • Reply 13 of 39
    Anyone else every get tired of hearing, don't regulate the government created private for profit monopolies. Free Market! Free Market! I wonder what the monetary value is of being essentially guaranteed to have zero competition, bet it's enough to cover the build out in rural areas. Now take into account they also get tax payer dollars for the expressed purpose of doing this type of build out, which of course just ends up padding profits. All this is to say that is not what net neutrality is about. It's to prevent sweetheart deals which lead to discrimination in a monetary sense. If I create "NotFacebookButSimilar" aka a competing social network, there is already a dominant player advantage ... now if Facebook wants its service to be faster for people they can have servers hosted in the ISP data centers and/or be prioritzed for a fee. Since prices are typically set at what the market will bear the ISP says to Facebook we will allow this for 300M per year ... maybe Facebook thinks this is high, but they can afford to pay it and far more importantly other smaller competitors cannot. In this sense it actually benefits them to not negotiate down the price and the ISPs have zero incentive to offer the service for cheaper the dominant player will pay. Fast forward 5 years and now the ISPs shareholders have grow a custom to these profits ... what happens if Facebook says hey we can't pay these prices anymore for non exclusive access. Now how much of the population lives in rural areas with little or no high speed access ... guess which service they are going to use if my site takes 10 seconds longer to load each page. ISPs are able to choose winners and losers ... the internet wasn't always like this that is correct, it's take a long time for these entities to figure out how to extract every last cent out of their government given monopolies and feel emboldened enough to do so. Any one want to take a guess on whats changed in the last year or so that would make these companies feel their can be no consequence to their repugnant actions. To be clear this won't happen overnight, it's more of a Grima Wormtongue approach that happens slowly over time.

    edited February 2018
  • Reply 14 of 39
    xbitxbit Posts: 231member
    I think this measure will have its intended positive effects in the form of encouraging private investment in infrastructure—especially in rural areas.

    It may not happen soon enough, but it will happen.

    When new entrants with vast resources (e.g. Google Fibre) fail in metropolitan areas, I can’t see why any sensible company would invest in rural services without heavy government subsidies.
  • Reply 15 of 39
    Can someone please explain to me (without political rhetoric) why it is wrong to require that ISPs treat all traffic equally?  Its not like I have any options to change my ISP (the other "phone company" ISP maxes out at 3Mbps).
  • Reply 16 of 39
    zoetmbzoetmb Posts: 2,437member
    urashid said:
    Can someone please explain to me (without political rhetoric) why it is wrong to require that ISPs treat all traffic equally?  Its not like I have any options to change my ISP (the other "phone company" ISP maxes out at 3Mbps).
    I completely agree with you.   I don't understand why so many people here think it's perfectly fine for ISPs to hold the internet hostage.   I can see it now:  whenever I renew my sites, there will be a slow pipe, medium pipe and fast pipe options with the fast pipe beyond the means of anyone but a large company.   I'm certainly no big fan of Google, Facebook or YouTube, but I don't think the ISPs should be able to hold the pipes hostage to huge payments.  
  • Reply 17 of 39
    zoetmb said:
    urashid said:
    Can someone please explain to me (without political rhetoric) why it is wrong to require that ISPs treat all traffic equally?  Its not like I have any options to change my ISP (the other "phone company" ISP maxes out at 3Mbps).
    I completely agree with you.   I don't understand why so many people here think it's perfectly fine for ISPs to hold the internet hostage.   I can see it now:  whenever I renew my sites, there will be a slow pipe, medium pipe and fast pipe options with the fast pipe beyond the means of anyone but a large company.   I'm certainly no big fan of Google, Facebook or YouTube, but I don't think the ISPs should be able to hold the pipes hostage to huge payments.  
    You share a common misunderstanding of the issue because of how it is being presented.  It is not merely about the “last mile” as pro-net neutrality advocates say.  Rather, is about the role of the federal government (and specifically the FCC) on regulating the internet in general.  Republicans in 2014 advocated for legislation that would ensure that the last mile would be protected.  Read the Harvard Business Review’s article on this from just about a year ago. It helps explain the situation better. It’s called The Tangled Web of Net-Neutrality.
  • Reply 18 of 39
    zoetmb said:
    urashid said:
    Can someone please explain to me (without political rhetoric) why it is wrong to require that ISPs treat all traffic equally?  Its not like I have any options to change my ISP (the other "phone company" ISP maxes out at 3Mbps).
    I completely agree with you.   I don't understand why so many people here think it's perfectly fine for ISPs to hold the internet hostage.   I can see it now:  whenever I renew my sites, there will be a slow pipe, medium pipe and fast pipe options with the fast pipe beyond the means of anyone but a large company.   I'm certainly no big fan of Google, Facebook or YouTube, but I don't think the ISPs should be able to hold the pipes hostage to huge payments.  
    You share a common misunderstanding of the issue because of how it is being presented.  It is not merely about the “last mile” as pro-net neutrality advocates say.  Rather, is about the role of the federal government (and specifically the FCC) on regulating the internet in general.  Republicans in 2014 advocated for legislation that would ensure that the last mile would be protected.  Read the Harvard Business Review’s article on this from just about a year ago. It helps explain the situation better. It’s called The Tangled Web of Net-Neutrality.
    It's not the Harvard Business Review's article.  It is an article by a senior fellow at Accenture Research that appears in the Harvard Business Review.  I'm not suggesting that you intended to mislead, but I think a bit of clarity is in order here.  The article was hardly written by a disinterested party.
  • Reply 19 of 39
    zoetmb said:
    urashid said:
    Can someone please explain to me (without political rhetoric) why it is wrong to require that ISPs treat all traffic equally?  Its not like I have any options to change my ISP (the other "phone company" ISP maxes out at 3Mbps).
    I completely agree with you.   I don't understand why so many people here think it's perfectly fine for ISPs to hold the internet hostage.   I can see it now:  whenever I renew my sites, there will be a slow pipe, medium pipe and fast pipe options with the fast pipe beyond the means of anyone but a large company.   I'm certainly no big fan of Google, Facebook or YouTube, but I don't think the ISPs should be able to hold the pipes hostage to huge payments.  
    You share a common misunderstanding of the issue because of how it is being presented.  It is not merely about the “last mile” as pro-net neutrality advocates say.  Rather, is about the role of the federal government (and specifically the FCC) on regulating the internet in general.  Republicans in 2014 advocated for legislation that would ensure that the last mile would be protected.  Read the Harvard Business Review’s article on this from just about a year ago. It helps explain the situation better. It’s called The Tangled Web of Net-Neutrality.
    Interestingly, that legislation never happened. It almost seems like they were being disingenuous. It's been a year since they have had control of all three branches of government, and whats been accomplished ... they have installed a shill in the FCC and are doing exactly nothing to protect an open and free internet. I'm sure thoughts and prayers will be offered up, in place of legislative action, when the open internet takes two to the chest. Well at least their re-election checks will keep rolling in from those companies benefiting from their duplicity.
  • Reply 20 of 39
    minisu1980 said:
    ...they have installed a shill in the FCC and are doing exactly nothing to protect an open and free internet.
    They repealed the thing that destroyed the open and free Internet, so I guess they did something. I’d repost my thing about what “net neutrality” actually was, but it’ll just be deleted. Not necessarily desirously, either.
    edited February 2018
Sign In or Register to comment.