The FCC is preparing to restore net neutrality in the US

[Alfonso Maruccia]

In a nutshell: Net neutrality rules state that internet service providers must treat all internet communications equally, without prioritizing any traffic or filtering specific types of content. The rule was repealed in the US in 2017, but a Democratic-led FCC is currently working to reinstate them soon.

The US implemented net neutrality rules at the national level during the Obama Administration in 2015. These rules classified internet broadband as "telecommunication services" under Title II of the 1934 Communications Act, which regulated ISPs as common carriers or utilities. This classification required internet providers to offer a non-discriminatory service to their customers.

However, net neutrality rules were repealed in 2017 when Ajit Pai, who was appointed as FCC chairman by President Trump, decided to reclassify ISPs as "information services" under Title I of the Communications Act. Information services have no obligations to adhere to business practices that align with net neutrality principles.

The net neutrality repeal was celebrated as a major victory by the telecom industry. However, individual US states opted to enact their own local net neutrality rules shortly after the FCC's decision. In 2018, Washington, Oregon, and California passed new net neutrality laws, as did Colorado, Maine, New Jersey, and Vermont. Meanwhile, other states supported net neutrality through executive orders.

Fast forward to 2023, and the FCC is now under the leadership of Biden-appointed Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel. With a 3-2 majority favoring the Democrats, Rosenworcel has confirmed her plan to reinstate net neutrality rules at the federal level. She recently stated that the decision by the Trump administration to repeal net neutrality was a mistake, as it positioned the agency "on the wrong side of history, the wrong side of the law, and the wrong side of the public."

Repealing net neutrality repeal made no sense back then, Rosenworcel said, and it makes even less sense now. The Cvoid-19 pandemic underscored that internet infrastructure is an essential component of modern life, necessitating proper oversight to prevent potential discrimination and abuse by telecom corporations.

Rosenworcel further explained that the net neutrality repeal eliminated "enforceable, bright-line rules to prevent blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization." Additionally, it stripped the agency of any substantial oversight in markets served by a single provider. Without the Title II classification, the agency cannot prohibit telcos from selling their customers' location data.

Rosenworcel is preparing to release the complete text of the new net neutrality rules, and the FCC will once again seek public input before reinstating the Title II classification. The agency aims to reintroduce policies that "prevent broadband providers from engaging in blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization." Providers will also be required to adhere to a "general conduct rule" that prohibits them from "interfering" with or "disadvantaging" consumers' ability to access the online content and services of their choice.

The non-profit digital rights group, Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), welcomed the new net neutrality rules, citing their positive impact on US internet users and as an example for the world. The Center for Democracy & Technology group also expressed its appreciation for the FCC decision. Opponents of the new rules include Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX), who issued a press release expressing dismay at the reinstatement of the "failed Obama-era net neutrality rules." He argued that these rules treat the internet as a public utility "controlled by the federal government."

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/100299-fcc-preparing-restore-net-neutrality-us.html

 

[Uncle Al]

Welcome back! Now if they can just repeal that ***** rule that makes all IP's immune from liability we'll finally be back on the right track!

 

[The Talking Tech]

"Net neutrality rules were repealed in 2017 when Ajit Pai, who was appointed as FCC chairman by President Trump."

No wonder.....

 

[Plutoisaplanet]

I am no longer in favor of Net Neutrality anymore. The risks were severely overstated when it was all the rage in the news. Competition seemed to increase with ISPs since NN was repealed, Internet service is fantastic now, and ISPs are much clearer about their "soft" limits on unlimited plans. Instead of regulating what services ISPs can offer, we just need regulation on their advertising/communication practices. Plus, the competition for mobile service providers has increased tremendously; it's the actual technology behind it has taken a dump. 5G is pretty bad, and it feels like a step backwards.

Net Neutrality honestly reeks of more regulatory capture than anything else. Just watch this and if you still believe more regulation will improve things then feel free to believe that:

 

[Cal Jeffrey]

I am no longer in favor of Net Neutrality anymore. The risks were severely overstated when it was all the rage in the news. Competition seemed to increase with ISPs since NN was repealed, Internet service is fantastic now, and ISPs are much clearer about their "soft" limits on unlimited plans. Instead of regulating what services ISPs can offer, we just need regulation on their advertising/communication practices. Plus, the competition for mobile service providers has increased tremendously; it's the actual technology behind it has taken a dump. 5G is pretty bad, and it feels like a step backwards.

Net Neutrality honestly reeks of more regulatory capture than anything else. Just watch this and if you still believe more regulation will improve things then feel free to believe that:

That's a great talk.

 

[RandomWAN]

Net Neutrality isn't really the solution. Providers ability to deny you choices in an area still existed under it. In many areas there exists monopolies or duopolies where you can't choose an ISP due to them denying competitor traffic over their hardware/lines and then preventing any additional competitor hardware/lines being installed. That's a bigger issue as it prevent competition between providers of the same service which also enables them to continue on with the atrocious customer service most provide since there is nothing driving them to do better.

 

[Puiu]

I am no longer in favor of Net Neutrality anymore. The risks were severely overstated when it was all the rage in the news. Competition seemed to increase with ISPs since NN was repealed, Internet service is fantastic now, and ISPs are much clearer about their "soft" limits on unlimited plans. Instead of regulating what services ISPs can offer, we just need regulation on their advertising/communication practices. Plus, the competition for mobile service providers has increased tremendously; it's the actual technology behind it has taken a dump. 5G is pretty bad, and it feels like a step backwards.

Net Neutrality honestly reeks of more regulatory capture than anything else. Just watch this and if you still believe more regulation will improve things then feel free to believe that:

"Competition seemed to increase with ISPs since NN was repealed" - no it didn't.

The internet in the US isn't "fantastic". Speeds naturally grew over time as technology improved and became cheaper (it's been 7 years dude). And you paid for it... 3 times: once by paying the ISP high subscription prices, second with your taxes that went to the ISP to "improve" your internet, and third with hidden fees that were allowed again after 2016 (because it was too "expensive" for the ISPs to show them to customers - their words, not mine).

NN is a set of regulations meant to protect you, the consumer from anti-consumer practices that the ISP have been and are still using. It's not meant to increase competition in the ISP market.

Here's the definition since you don't know it:
"Net neutrality is the principle that an ISP has to provide access to all sites, content, and applications at the same speed, under the same conditions, without blocking or giving preference to any content."

What does this mean? They can't block or slow down access to specific websites/web services that don't break any laws (free speach and all). It's not their job to police the internet. The internet is a human right.

FYI competition doesn't exist in the US when it comes to ISPs. You just have local monopolies and at best maybe some duopolies. It's this way because of laws paid handsomely by ISPs. This has nothing to do with NN.

BTW, here's what real competition looks like and what it does for me where I live:
1. I have access to about 4-5 big ISPs and several smaller local ones
2. ISPs can't dictate who "owns" a region and can't forbid others (state or private) to install new infrastructure
2. speeds start at 100/100 for fixed home internet (unlimited, no caps). my ISP provides 500Mbps and up
3. prices start at 4-5$ per month for some of the cheaper ISPs
4. currently I am paying 8.5$ (19% VAT included in price) for 1Gbps up / 500Mbps down (with free 50GB online storage and wifi 6 router). I'm going to upgrade soon to 10Gbps for 10-11$ per month (waiting for the infrastructure to finish upgrading).

 

[ferris209]

Oh great, the Marxists think bring government regulation into the internet is a great idea.

 

[wiyosaya]

NN is a set of regulations meant to protect you, the consumer from anti-consumer practices that the ISP have been and are still using. It's not meant to increase competition in the ISP market.

Here's the definition since you don't know it:
"Net neutrality is the principle that an ISP has to provide access to all sites, content, and applications at the same speed, under the same conditions, without blocking or giving preference to any content."

I have to agree with you on this. Anyone in the US remember Netflix being boned by their ISP because of the amount of traffic they carry? This was in the news a few years back, IIRC, after Ajit Pai abandoned NN. Netflix announced that they had come to an agreement with their ISP, but did not disclose the terms of the agreement. And guess what? US citizens, almost certainly, paid those higher costs through increased subscription fees. This kind of crap would not be allowed under NN.

I am a US citizen, and where I live there are at least two FTTH providers, Spectrum, T-Mobile with cellular 5G and others, too. I have a choice of at least four ISPs. I pay $50/mo for 500Mbps, symmetric, FTTH, and my ISP is a small company that was bolstered by a billionaire willing to invest in them - not from exorbitant fees/contracts they charge their customers which would never go into improving their service or infrastructure. In fact, the competition to the once only viable ISP, Spectrum, in my area forced Spectrum to move to 200Mbps cable ISP service at no extra cost to their customers.

If anyone had paid attention to that video, you would have heard something like "VCs used to provide the money for internet expansion." fairly early in the video. To me, the guy sounds like a motivational speaker trying to convince you to buy into his motivational program so that he can line HIS pockets with money all the while coming off as someone who gives a crap about you. And guess what - he is a venture capitalist. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Gurley Its no wonder he wants things that he thinks will line his pockets with money. IMO, its unfortunate that more people don't have better BS detectors and cannot see through this guy's line of BS. I might have just as well listened to a video by Tony Robbins or Susan Powter.

IMO, NN is, and always has been, something good for the consumer in the US. Its about time they decided to bring it back.

 

[VaRmeNsI]

A problem in the US is big telecom companies often have local politicians in their back pockets and obstruct infrastructure expansion by competitors.

Apathy in behalf of the public has lead to the current situation.

 

[wiyosaya]

Oh great, the Marxists think bring government regulation into the internet is a great idea.

Is this supposed to be an argument?

 

[Ryan Barrett]

"He argued that these rules treat the internet as a public utility "controlled by the federal government."

Yes, which is exactly what is should be. Internet is now a necessity/right and not a luxury. When was the last time you could apply for a job without internet. People working from home now. If you live in a rural area and not close to at least a library, you're ****ed and paying as much for dial up as we do for gigabit Ethernet. Broadband needs to fall under title XI
(I think that's the rule/law) making It a public utility and breaking up the giant ISPs like they did with the telcos back in the early 1900s. The foundation of Capitalism is competition and we're seeing more and more monopolies/duopolies than ever before in multiple facets of business.

 

[Puiu]

Oh great, the Marxists think bring government regulation into the internet is a great idea.

It is a good idea when the alternative is worse, which it is. Why do you trust a corporation, which is required to increase profits every single year, more than your government to protect your human rights?

Seriously though, are you the type who thinks that paying 10-100x for the same pills compared to the rest of the world normal?

Profit above any human decency is not normal.

 

[Gezzer]

I am no longer in favor of Net Neutrality anymore. The risks were severely overstated when it was all the rage in the news. Competition seemed to increase with ISPs since NN was repealed, Internet service is fantastic now, and ISPs are much clearer about their "soft" limits on unlimited plans. Instead of regulating what services ISPs can offer, we just need regulation on their advertising/communication practices. Plus, the competition for mobile service providers has increased tremendously; it's the actual technology behind it has taken a dump. 5G is pretty bad, and it feels like a step backwards.

Net Neutrality honestly reeks of more regulatory capture than anything else. Just watch this and if you still believe more regulation will improve things then feel free to believe that:

Except for one thing. The internet is by it's nature neutral. All that's happening is they're repealing regulations that allowed ISPs to treat traffic differently form user to user. It levels the playing field and protects all users equally. It stops ISPs from using their favorite billing strategy, double and triple dipping. Have an idea for a great internet service startup? Yeah better hope your ISP doesn't have something similar because under current regulations they could price your new concept out of the market.