FCC ordered to take public feedback on net neutrality repeal

Posted:
in General Discussion
The Federal Communications Commission is asking for comments from the public about its repeal of net neutrality, but only because it is legally required to do so in the wake of a lawsuit from Mozilla fighting the order - a lawsuit the FCC won.

FCC Chairman Ajit Pai
FCC Chairman Ajit Pai


In 2017, the FCC voted to approve an initiative to end net neutrality called "Restoring Internet Freedom," one that forced the end of net neutrality protections on June 11 in 2018. In the time since, the FCC has been in court fighting against Mozilla to undo the repeal of the protections, and in the last week, the case concluded in the FCC's favor.

Despite ending largely positively for the FCC, the court offered concerns over the commission's decision to nullify its own rules, The Register reports, forcing it to request feedback from the general public on the matter. The feedback includes whether the repeal has endangered the public in any way, affected spending on infrastructure, or caused issues with related programs, such as Lifeline scheme for low-income consumers.

The request for comments is meant to give the FCC an external view of whether it is meeting its mandate in making the net neutrality decision in the first place.

Despite being a public request, it seems the FCC is attempting to make it as hard as possible for consumers to provide feedback while still abiding by the court's demand, by minimizing the visibility of the request. The FCC's announcements on Wednesday placed a number of other inconsequential and positive announcements high up on the list, before burying the request under an announcement oddly titled "WCB Seeks Comment on Discrete Issues Arising from Mozilla Decision."

While the title is factual, as it references the Wireline Competition Bureau and the D.C. Circuit Court's decision on Mozilla, it doesn't reveal it is to do with net neutrality until site visitors click the title and see the term "Restoring Internet Freedom."

The Register admits it was only alerted to the existence of the request because of a more direct press release issued by FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel, who more plainly states the FCC is "Seeking Public Comment on Net Neutrality Remand." In the statement, the commissioner asserts "The FCC got it wrong when it repealed net neutrality."

"My Advice? The American public should raise their voices and let Washington know how important an open internet is for every piece of our civic and commercial lives," Rosenworcel writes. "The fight for an open internet is not over. It's time to make noise."

Members of the public are able to file a comment until March 30, 2020 via the FCC's Electronic Filing System, under proceeding 17-108 Restoring Internet Freedom.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 35
    I thought we were all supposed to die and we'd cease to have internet access if net neutrality was ended...
    SpamSandwichlkruppJWSCjoseroverfansteven n.cornchipwilliamlondonspacekidstevewhitemddonjuan
  • Reply 2 of 35
    I thought we were all supposed to die and we'd cease to have internet access if net neutrality was ended...
    You call this living?
    viclauyycdysamoriadewmeFileMakerFeller
  • Reply 3 of 35
    spice-boyspice-boy Posts: 1,444member
    Sorry it is not fast enough for you, It will be a slow death, you will hardly notice at first then one day certain websites seem sluggish while the big guns will be lighting fast. 
    MplsPviclauyyccornchipdysamoriadewme
  • Reply 4 of 35
    Has any one read the whole Net Neutrality law that was in place by the last administration?  There may be one great piece but as a whole it is not great. FCC can do a lot of censorship and oversight. Not just in cost.
    edited February 2020 SpamSandwichcornchipsteven n.airnerd
  • Reply 5 of 35
    Mr. Pai came to the FCC from Verizon and has been on a mission to give the telecom/ISP lobby their wish list starting with net neutrality. He is not your friend regardless of your political viewpoint.

    Simply stated, net neutrality is equal access for both those who provide content- like Apple Insider - and consumers who view it. By the way, both the providers and consumers already pay ISPs for internet access.

    A free and open internet needs for there to be equal access to the whole internet both to serve for a fair commercial market and for an open exchange of ideas among the public. The huge companies we all know like Amazon, Google, Facebook, Netflix and such were able to become what they are in part because of an online environment where your content and service was the determining factor in your success- not a rigged internet where their sites were not hobbled by a second or third tier online connection.

    There is also a reasonable concern about a fair an open internet that allows for the free exchange of ideas. Despite the flame wars that get outsized attention, most online commenters are reasonable and not offensive.

    Landline ISPs are a natural monopoly due to the expense and complexity of the build out and upkeep of the connections. Very few people have a choice regarding broadband landline internet connections. Wireless is not really a competition due to the low data caps imposed upon wireless networks and the common problems with congestion. As such, there is a compelling need fro some level of government oversight to make sure ISPs to not abuse their market position.
    edited February 2020 GeorgeBMacdhawkins541spice-boytrustnoone00stompygilly33dysamoriadedgeckoGabyFileMakerFeller
  • Reply 6 of 35
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 10,685member
    Does anybody believe that the Ajit Pai or his FCC minions give a damn what the American people think?  But, he's just the foot soldier.

    This government sponsored, political giveaway of our airwaves to the telecomms won't be fixed until after the politicians who backed it are removed from office.

    edited February 2020 retrogustomontrosemacsgilly33chasmwilliamlondondysamoriadedgeckoFileMakerFellerktappe
  • Reply 7 of 35
    OK, just submitted my FCC response and suggest all others do the same to overturn 17-108 as it violates the 1996 Telecommunications Act and its predecessor the 1934 Communications Act.
    cornchipchasmdysamoria
  • Reply 8 of 35
    jimh2jimh2 Posts: 370member
    There are no politics involved in this fiasco. The problem is with a former Verizon employee being in charge of the FCC and we all know who is going to favor or be loyal to. He should have been disqualified from taking the job.
    dhawkins541cornchipgilly33chasmGaby
  • Reply 9 of 35
    We might speak out but will there be anyone there to listen?

    IMHO, the odds are that nothing will change even if all the US Population were to complain about their changes to Net Neutrality.
    GeorgeBMacdysamoria
  • Reply 10 of 35
    spice-boy said:
    Sorry it is not fast enough for you, It will be a slow death, you will hardly notice at first then one day certain websites seem sluggish while the big guns will be lighting fast. 
    Under “net neutrality” only the big guns will win though. All ISPs under “net neutrality” would have to go through a bunch of red tape if they want to expand and foster new innovations. Whom do you think will be able to cut through the red tape faster, if at all?Thats right Verizon, AT&T, etc., not your smaller ISPs. With more regulation just comes more crony capitalism. There’s a reason why Google, Facebook, etc. SUPPORT “net neutrality” and it isn’t because they want to help the little guys. 

    I hate it when politicians give laws like this these names. It draws public support, but most of the public are idiots and don’t actually read what the law will do and the ramifications they bring. 
    cornchipsteven n.donjuancat52FileMakerFeller
  • Reply 11 of 35
    Net Neutrality ... another in a long line of doom-porn whose apocalyptic predictions have never and will never come to pass.
    SpamSandwichJWSCsteven n.spacekiddonjuancat52airnerd
  • Reply 12 of 35
    knowitallknowitall Posts: 1,648member
    emoeller said:
    OK, just submitted my FCC response and suggest all others do the same to overturn 17-108 as it violates the 1996 Telecommunications Act and its predecessor the 1934 Communications Act.
    All your base are belong to us.
    cornchipFileMakerFeller
  • Reply 13 of 35
    Ajit Pai will be powerless after January 20th, and net neutrality will be restored. Telecoms know this, which is why they haven't taken advantage of it. 
    GeorgeBMac
  • Reply 14 of 35
    davgreg said:
    Mr. Pai came to the FCC from Verizon and has been on a mission to give the telecom/ISP lobby their wish list starting with net neutrality. He is not your friend regardless of your political viewpoint.

    Simply stated, net neutrality is equal access for both those who provide content- like Apple Insider - and consumers who view it. By the way, both the providers and consumers already pay ISPs for internet access.

    A free and open internet needs for there to be equal access to the whole internet both to serve for a fair commercial market and for an open exchange of ideas among the public. The huge companies we all know like Amazon, Google, Facebook, Netflix and such were able to become what they are in part because of an online environment where your content and service was the determining factor in your success- not a rigged internet where their sites were not hobbled by a second or third tier online connection.

    There is also a reasonable concern about a fair an open internet that allows for the free exchange of ideas. Despite the flame wars that get outsized attention, most online commenters are reasonable and not offensive.

    Landline ISPs are a natural monopoly due to the expense and complexity of the build out and upkeep of the connections. Very few people have a choice regarding broadband landline internet connections. Wireless is not really a competition due to the low data caps imposed upon wireless networks and the common problems with congestion. As such, there is a compelling need fro some level of government oversight to make sure ISPs to not abuse their market position.
    As long as you're happy with an Internet that only provides Apple Insider-like solutions for the next 50 years then net neutrality would be great.  But, if you'd like to see companies innovate and roll out new solutions that require new infrastructure, then tough luck.  If telecom providers want to roll out expensive switches and big pipes to support some new 16k video with interactive VR that requires super high bandwidth, shouldn't they be able to charge more for that lane of the highway?  Or if you think that should be shared by all, then isn't the shared cost unfairly high for those that don't want that product?
    Landlines aren't a natural monopoly...they are only a monopoly because the local governments grant them.
    Free market competition works everywhere except where government touches it.
    "Free exchange of ideas" ?  How does that work in a regulated environment?  Do you  really want someone from an unelected government bureaucracy determining what is ok and what's not?
    I'm 100% on board with regulation or even socialism as long as I get to be the person in charge.
    SpamSandwichcornchipsteven n.cat52
  • Reply 15 of 35
    Same old garbage, different day.

    ”Net Neutrality” is a proposal to hand over the Internet to your ‘superiors’ in Washington. 

    The government you like today becomes the government you hate or fear tomorrow. Don’t give them the power to begin with.
    cornchipJWSCsteven n.cat52
  • Reply 16 of 35
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 10,685member
    We might speak out but will there be anyone there to listen?

    IMHO, the odds are that nothing will change even if all the US Population were to complain about their changes to Net Neutrality.

    No offense -- but I think you grossly understate it!

    Or maybe you overstate it?   After all, it would only take one orange dotard speaking out to change it.
  • Reply 17 of 35
    JWSCJWSC Posts: 1,048member
    Does anybody believe that the Ajit Pai or his FCC minions give a damn what the American people think?  But, he's just the foot soldier.

    This government sponsored, political giveaway of our airwaves to the telecomms won't be fixed until after the politicians who backed it are removed from office.
    I believe Ajit Pai does give a damn what many American people think.  Many share his view that this kind of regulation can stifle innovation. And yea, I get that you don’t agree. But it’s not like he’s operating in a vacuum.
    SpamSandwichsteven n.cat52
  • Reply 18 of 35
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 10,685member
    crofford said:
    davgreg said:
    Mr. Pai came to the FCC from Verizon and has been on a mission to give the telecom/ISP lobby their wish list starting with net neutrality. He is not your friend regardless of your political viewpoint.

    Simply stated, net neutrality is equal access for both those who provide content- like Apple Insider - and consumers who view it. By the way, both the providers and consumers already pay ISPs for internet access.

    A free and open internet needs for there to be equal access to the whole internet both to serve for a fair commercial market and for an open exchange of ideas among the public. The huge companies we all know like Amazon, Google, Facebook, Netflix and such were able to become what they are in part because of an online environment where your content and service was the determining factor in your success- not a rigged internet where their sites were not hobbled by a second or third tier online connection.

    There is also a reasonable concern about a fair an open internet that allows for the free exchange of ideas. Despite the flame wars that get outsized attention, most online commenters are reasonable and not offensive.

    Landline ISPs are a natural monopoly due to the expense and complexity of the build out and upkeep of the connections. Very few people have a choice regarding broadband landline internet connections. Wireless is not really a competition due to the low data caps imposed upon wireless networks and the common problems with congestion. As such, there is a compelling need fro some level of government oversight to make sure ISPs to not abuse their market position.
    As long as you're happy with an Internet that only provides Apple Insider-like solutions for the next 50 years then net neutrality would be great.  But, if you'd like to see companies innovate and roll out new solutions that require new infrastructure, then tough luck.  If telecom providers want to roll out expensive switches and big pipes to support some new 16k video with interactive VR that requires super high bandwidth, shouldn't they be able to charge more for that lane of the highway?  Or if you think that should be shared by all, then isn't the shared cost unfairly high for those that don't want that product?
    Landlines aren't a natural monopoly...they are only a monopoly because the local governments grant them.
    Free market competition works everywhere except where government touches it.
    "Free exchange of ideas" ?  How does that work in a regulated environment?  Do you  really want someone from an unelected government bureaucracy determining what is ok and what's not?
    I'm 100% on board with regulation or even socialism as long as I get to be the person in charge.

    The U.S. telecomm arena has fallen to one of the most backward in the world.  Cable is not only slow but it only serves the profitable areas.  Likewise wireless is falling behind the rest of the world with the rollout of 5G and it too only serves profitable areas.   That is due to the greed of the big telecomms, not regulation.

    This is an industry that NEEDS regulation so it serves the country and its people rather than just its stockholders (many of whom are not even American).
    (And no, I am not generally in favor of regulations.  But, obviously sometimes they are necessary)
    spice-boygilly33dysamoria
  • Reply 19 of 35
    spice-boyspice-boy Posts: 1,444member
    davgreg said:
    Mr. Pai came to the FCC from Verizon and has been on a mission to give the telecom/ISP lobby their wish list starting with net neutrality. He is not your friend regardless of your political viewpoint.

    Simply stated, net neutrality is equal access for both those who provide content- like Apple Insider - and consumers who view it. By the way, both the providers and consumers already pay ISPs for internet access.

    A free and open internet needs for there to be equal access to the whole internet both to serve for a fair commercial market and for an open exchange of ideas among the public. The huge companies we all know like Amazon, Google, Facebook, Netflix and such were able to become what they are in part because of an online environment where your content and service was the determining factor in your success- not a rigged internet where their sites were not hobbled by a second or third tier online connection.

    There is also a reasonable concern about a fair an open internet that allows for the free exchange of ideas. Despite the flame wars that get outsized attention, most online commenters are reasonable and not offensive.

    Landline ISPs are a natural monopoly due to the expense and complexity of the build out and upkeep of the connections. Very few people have a choice regarding broadband landline internet connections. Wireless is not really a competition due to the low data caps imposed upon wireless networks and the common problems with congestion. As such, there is a compelling need fro some level of government oversight to make sure ISPs to not abuse their market position.
    Thanks for taking your time to inform everyone however there are AI readers that think any regulations are a bad  and they won't be persuaded.
    montrosemacsdysamoria
  • Reply 20 of 35
    spice-boyspice-boy Posts: 1,444member

    Same old garbage, different day.

    ”Net Neutrality” is a proposal to hand over the Internet to your ‘superiors’ in Washington. 

    The government you like today becomes the government you hate or fear tomorrow. Don’t give them the power to begin with.
    you are so confused.... 
    dysamoriadedgecko
Sign In or Register to comment.