Wheeler's net neutrality plan gets FCC green light, proposal now open for public comments

Himanshu Arora

Posts: 902   +7
Staff

The Federal Communications Commission yesterday publicly released its proposed net neutrality framework after it passed with a 3-2 vote. It is now open for formal public comments for the next four months.

The notice of proposed rule making (NPRM) asks whether "paid prioritization" should be banned outright. It also seeks feedback on whether broadband Internet service should be considered a public utility.

In addition, the proposed plan would prohibit service providers from blocking any legal content and from prioritizing delivery speeds for their own content. The framework would also create a watchdog position to look for abuses.

FCC's republican commissioners, Ajit Pai and Michael O'Rielly, voted against the proposal. "Every American who cares about the future of the Internet should be wary about five unelected officials deciding its fate", Pai said.

On the other hand, Democrats Mignon Clyburn and Jessica Rosenworcel voted in favor of it. Wheeler was able to gain the support of fellow democrats after he incorporated some changes to his proposal this week.

Despite the support, Rosenworcel believes that the process was rushed. "I would have preferred a delay. I think we moved too fast to be fair", she said. But Wheeler says new rules are needed after the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit threw out old net neutrality rules back in January.

Several net neutrality advocates protested outside the agency's headquarters, raising placards and arguing for utility-like regulation of Internet service to ensure freedom of speech online.

Wheeler said that his proposal does not allow the creation of fast lanes for some Internet content, but appeared to acknowledge that it could allow deals among companies like the one Netflix recently had with Comcast.

Just a couple of days ago, many of the nation's biggest telecommunications providers sent a strongly-worded letter to the federal agency warning it against reclassifying and regulating the internet as a public utility.

"Utility regulation would strangle investment, hobble innovation and put government regulators in charge of nearly every aspect of Internet-based services," Jim Cicconi, AT&T's senior executive vice president of external and legislative affairs, said after the vote.

Wheeler has already received around 100,000 emails on the issue since he unveiled the proposed plan last month. With the proposal now open for public comments, the debate on whether the Internet needs tougher regulation or be left free from government interference will only heat up.

Permalink to story.

 
How many of you like your old telephone service? Better yet, how many of you like the way your electricity and water services are delivered to your home? If you like that type of service and technology go ahead and send your comments to the FCC stating that you would like your internet regulated like a utility.
 
How many of you like your old telephone service? Better yet, how many of you like the way your electricity and water services are delivered to your home? If you like that type of service and technology go ahead and send your comments to the FCC stating that you would like your internet regulated like a utility.

In a monopoly like fashion with prices that I don't like and services that I don't like? No thank you.
 
How many of you like your old telephone service? Better yet, how many of you like the way your electricity and water services are delivered to your home? If you like that type of service and technology go ahead and send your comments to the FCC stating that you would like your internet regulated like a utility.

In a monopoly like fashion with prices that I don't like and services that I don't like? No thank you.
I have to agree - no thank you - to the current scheme.

The only way that the current "ISPs" have gotten where they are is through abuse of outdated and antiquated telco laws from 100 or more years ago. In my opinion, that kind of abuse should not be tolerated. At the very least, laws should be updated so that the monopolies that exist are no longer lawful.

As well, I see the letter that the TW, Comcast, and other "ISPs" sent to the FCC as their attempt to bully their way to the top. Is no way could what we have in the US be considered "free market."
 
I have to agree - no thank you - to the current scheme.

The only way that the current "ISPs" have gotten where they are is through abuse of outdated and antiquated telco laws from 100 or more years ago.

Yeah, that explains Google's Gigabit service and Comcast trying to follow suit.

Also, the telco laws were passed by the Congress, not by the telco (AT&T). You again want the FCC, which was birthed to handle telco law, to regulate ISPs as though they are telcos. You can't have it both ways: Either you want a deregulated marketplace for the internet (I would argue we do have it with Gigabit, cable, broadband, and wireless all competing for consumers), or you want a regulated marketplace where only a handful of telcos will be responsible for delivering bandwidth.

Choose.
 
The network of the internet is similar to many other networks in life. Also similarly those other networks surely have high demand customers and low demand customers.

Let's take an example the shipping business in the U.S. where few shipping companies handle shipments across the nation. Some business ship a lot of products to customers making more money than the shipping company. The question is: Should the shipping company charge the business more for using their services more? This concept applies not only to the internet. It applies to many other networks in real life.

If the FCC fails to address this matter properly, what will happen next? Some business ship few expensive products to customers making more money than the shipping company itself... are shipping companies happy about that? maybe they will invade the privacy of shipments and charge more for shipping expensive products?

sev.
 
The internet is not a public utility where the network is privately owned and the term "Open Internet" makes no sense at all. The Internet was never closed...

Over the past 21 years that I've had internet access I've seen the Internet expand exponentially to reach people all over the world with the profit motive being the primary driver. So I would have thought keeping the government's bureaucratic and easily bought hands off it is in our best interest. There's been a phenomenal advancement from when I began which was with a 2400 baud modem, $10 per MB for files downloaded from overseas, and UseNet being the only international forum to which I had access. No government regulation got me what I have now. The internet is more open than ever before, so I would prefer that not only the US government, but all governments, just f*ck off if that's ok with you guys.

BTW, sorry if this is a double-post but the first went >nil from where I'm sitting.
 
The INTERNET has always been a monopoly. Providers, ISPs, have been granted cable and right-of-ways to access property and use city land to run their cables. These agreements have always favored one company over 3rd parties. Comcast is a MONOPOLY in most of their markets, as is Verizon Fios, and AT&T services. They ALSO have MONOPOLIES on the WIFI you people keep saying is Open Access, it IS NOT. They PAY city's and Federal agency's FORTUNES to obtain those monopolies on right-of-way access and radio frequency rights.

The current system is NOT open market, that is why prices are so high and getting higher and service is so poor and getting poorer in this country. These companies and their lobbies have a LOCK on the industry, there currently is no competition. I have had internet access BEFORE it was open to the public and service has constantly gone up in cost for less and less access.

As for google they have been quietly buying up MONOPOLIES in various cities to provide their advertising paid services for cost in cities that larger companies abandoned for more lucrative markets. Not trying to compete with the likes of Verizon and AT&T.
 
Back