FCC Chairman Ajit Pai reveals Net Neutrality repeal plan, vote on Dec. 14
As predicted, the Federal Communications Commission has submitted its plan to return power to internet service providers over the terms of what content will be served to users, and to repeal previous net neutrality protections applied to customers and businesses.
FCC Chairman Ajit Pai says that his proposal cuts back on government regulation, and will regulation mostly up to the providers. The proposal basically strips away requirements applied to the carriers by the government, and will only hold them responsible for what promises companies like AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile, Comcast and others make to customers, rather than provide any best -- or required -- practices.
"For almost twenty years, the Internet thrived under the light-touch regulatory approach established by President Clinton and a Republican Congress," said FCC Chairman Ajit Pai. "This bipartisan framework led the private sector to invest $1.5 trillion building communications networks throughout the United States. And it gave us an Internet economy that became the envy of the world"
"But in 2015, the prior FCC bowed to pressure from President Obama. On a party-line vote, it imposed heavy-handed, utility-style regulations upon the Internet," added Pai. "That decision was a mistake. It's depressed investment in building and expanding broadband networks and deterred innovation."
The new proposal suggests that the FCC remove the classification of internet service providers as a common carrier, stripping the legal authority of the agency to regulate provider's behavior beyond breaking promises to customers.
"Under my proposal, the federal government will stop micromanaging the internet," Pai said in a statement. "Instead, the FCC would simply require internet service providers to be transparent about their practices so that consumers can buy the service plan that's best for them and entrepreneurs and other small businesses can have the technical information they need to innovate."
Beyond the stripping of the common carrier classification, the proposal also removes most of the supervisory element from the FCC. Instead, the Federal Trade Commission will have the power to sue companies that do not conform to statements that the carriers themselves have made to the public.
In making the proposal, Chairman Pai rejected wide calls from fellow commissioners, the public, and companies that do not provide internet service to maintain net neutrality regulations. While the majority of the 22 million comments received by the FCC during a public comment period were form letter and spam, one analysis found that over 98 percent of the comments actually written independently were in favor of net neutrality as executed in 2015.
"In just two days, many of us will join friends and family in celebrating the spirit of Thanksgiving. But as we learned today, the FCC majority is about to deliver a cornucopia full of rotten fruit, stale grains, and wilted flowers topped off with a plate full of burnt turkey," said Commissioner Mignon Clyburn. "Their Destroying Internet Freedom Order would dismantle net neutrality as we know it by giving the green light to our nation's largest broadband providers to engage in anti-consumer practices, including blocking, slowing down traffic, and paid prioritization of online applications and services."
The draft order entitled "Restoring Internet Freedom" was submitted to the FCC commissioners on Tuesday. The text will be made publicly available on Wednesday.
The proposal will likely get the green light on Dec. 14, with a 3-2 vote along expected party lines.
FCC Chairman Ajit Pai says that his proposal cuts back on government regulation, and will regulation mostly up to the providers. The proposal basically strips away requirements applied to the carriers by the government, and will only hold them responsible for what promises companies like AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile, Comcast and others make to customers, rather than provide any best -- or required -- practices.
"For almost twenty years, the Internet thrived under the light-touch regulatory approach established by President Clinton and a Republican Congress," said FCC Chairman Ajit Pai. "This bipartisan framework led the private sector to invest $1.5 trillion building communications networks throughout the United States. And it gave us an Internet economy that became the envy of the world"
"But in 2015, the prior FCC bowed to pressure from President Obama. On a party-line vote, it imposed heavy-handed, utility-style regulations upon the Internet," added Pai. "That decision was a mistake. It's depressed investment in building and expanding broadband networks and deterred innovation."
The new proposal suggests that the FCC remove the classification of internet service providers as a common carrier, stripping the legal authority of the agency to regulate provider's behavior beyond breaking promises to customers.
"Under my proposal, the federal government will stop micromanaging the internet," Pai said in a statement. "Instead, the FCC would simply require internet service providers to be transparent about their practices so that consumers can buy the service plan that's best for them and entrepreneurs and other small businesses can have the technical information they need to innovate."
Beyond the stripping of the common carrier classification, the proposal also removes most of the supervisory element from the FCC. Instead, the Federal Trade Commission will have the power to sue companies that do not conform to statements that the carriers themselves have made to the public.
In making the proposal, Chairman Pai rejected wide calls from fellow commissioners, the public, and companies that do not provide internet service to maintain net neutrality regulations. While the majority of the 22 million comments received by the FCC during a public comment period were form letter and spam, one analysis found that over 98 percent of the comments actually written independently were in favor of net neutrality as executed in 2015.
"In just two days, many of us will join friends and family in celebrating the spirit of Thanksgiving. But as we learned today, the FCC majority is about to deliver a cornucopia full of rotten fruit, stale grains, and wilted flowers topped off with a plate full of burnt turkey," said Commissioner Mignon Clyburn. "Their Destroying Internet Freedom Order would dismantle net neutrality as we know it by giving the green light to our nation's largest broadband providers to engage in anti-consumer practices, including blocking, slowing down traffic, and paid prioritization of online applications and services."
The draft order entitled "Restoring Internet Freedom" was submitted to the FCC commissioners on Tuesday. The text will be made publicly available on Wednesday.
The proposal will likely get the green light on Dec. 14, with a 3-2 vote along expected party lines.
Comments
Services are going to be tiered to hell and back as soon as they can do that.
Oh, I'm sure the dross will still be available for all to see, and 'approved content' will be on the cheaper tiers as well.
But most service providers exist in localised monopolies, so without competition they will gauge you if you want streaming services they don't provide themselves, or news sources that aren't favoured, and so on. Oh, you want to do online gaming? That's only available on the $100pm tier.
Contact your congressman immediately.
And, if you are able to drop your terrestrial land lines in favor of cellular Internet hot spots, those are indeed regulated as common carriers and will continue to be.
That is not a perfect fix, of course. Even if you can guarantee net neutrality for yourself, competitive services may be rendered nonviable by the market if the neutrality isn’t available to all. But it’s better than the alternative of doing nothing.
Let's be clear: Prior to this decision, ISPs were allowed to do exactly what you describe, but they didn't. If an ISP does, you just switch ISPs.
Deeming internet access as an essential service/utility, like electricity, clean water, etc, without prioritization of service, is the right thing to do for society. Otherwise you're just setting things up to have a large portion of the population which is left behind. But I guess seeing what Trump has done with Puerto Rico, I shouldn't be surprised that he's willing to leave people behind. Just please stop the rhetoric about trying to make things better and admit that it's all about lining the pockets of your business partners.
Example: Tylersdad has a 25 Mbps (Tier 1) connection and pays $50/month. For $10 more per month, he can get a 50 Mbps (Tier 2) connection. For $20 more than Tier 2 he can get 75 Mbps for $80 per month. That's tiered service. That has nothing to do with net neutrality.
Here's what the repeal of net neutrality can get you:
Tylersdad likes to stream movies to his Apple TV, likes to watch Netflix on his iPad, and game through his Steam account on his iMac. Under net neutrality, no matter what he's doing he gets the same speed at the same cost. Without net neutrality, ISP can charge for tiered access to traffic -different from tiered service- based on sites, type of traffic, or any other parameter they decide. So in this new paradigm, if Tylersdad wants to stream movies on his Apple TV he has to pay $50 bucks for basic internet package (BIP) + $15 for Tier 1 streaming. Tier 1 covers streaming to ATV, Roku, Fire Sticks, etc. but does not include Netflix or Amazon Prime streaming. For that you need to move up to Tier 2 streaming which is $25 extra. Tylersdad likes Steam. Can't stream things like Steam or Youtube on rinky dink Tier 2 though. You gotta step up to Tier 3 Popular Traffic for an extra $50 per month. Oh, and certain sites can only be accessed from Tier 3 traffic. Sites like Apple.com or Appleinsider.com. Mind you that's on top of your basic internet charge.
To be fair, my example is a bit of hyperbole but nothing in it is out of the realm of possibility without net neutrality. Again, net neutrality is about your traffic, not your overall speed.
Here's a visual representation.
Against: Apple, eBay, Netflix, Amazon, nearly every major news network including CNN and Fox.
Changes to the Internet, based on profit motivation, will likely be brought about in small doses, things that don’t seem too bad, or are at least tolerably bad. Then there will be another step. Rinse and repeat. And like any clever business tactic, by the time the changes have reached a level of ‘Oh wait, this sucks’, things will have already reached a level of near irreversibility. And the average person won’t really care anyway because they’ve become accustomed to it.
This approach happens endlessly in business, and government, and politics, and it happens because people are selfish and most people do things for themselves and will happily exploit others if they can. Very few people are there to serve others and do what’s best for them when it means a pay check is at stake.
So for something that is a national and even global service, to have decisions in hands of people who will take advantage of customers at every opportunity is a disastrous idea. The internet will change, guaranteed. If you’re saying you want these changes then fine, but it’s naive to think everything’s going to stay the same.
That's really funny.
Net neutrality is the principle that Internet service providers and governments regulating most of the Internet must treat all data on the Internet the same, and not discriminate or charge differently by user, content, website, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or method of communication. For instance, under these principles, internet service providers are unable to intentionally block, slow down or charge money for specific websites and online content.
Why would you ever want your ISP to be able to intentionally block, slow down or charge money for specific websites and online content?
Are some people against goverment management for the sake of the principle?
If the ISP's didn't violate Net Neutrality prior to this regulation, why does it need removal now?