FCC expected to roll back 2015 net neutrality regulations

[Cal Jeffrey]

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has outlined a full repeal of the 2015 net neutrality rules put in place to treat Internet access as an essential utility. The stripping of these regulations completely removes government oversight and gives Big Telecom more control over how the Internet is used and accessed.

“Under my proposal, the federal government will stop micromanaging the Internet,” said FCC Chairman Ajit Pai in a statement today. “Instead, the F.C.C. 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.”

The 2015 regulations were intended to keep the Internet neutral. In other words, they prevent those who provide access from gouging the consumer, stifling competition and creating “fast lanes” for high-paying or favored customers. The rules were proposed to avoid the debacle we saw with the Ma Bell telephone monopoly back in the late 1970s and early '80s.

The battle lines over net neutrality have been drawn pretty clear with the consumer and small business on one side and telecoms like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast on the other. These companies have spent billions of dollars lobbying for the repeal.

“For decades, the Internet flourished under a bipartisan regulatory approach that allowed it to operate, grow and succeed free of unnecessary government controls,” said Verizon Senior Vice President Kathy Grillo. “[The 2015 ruling] undermined investment and innovation, and posed a significant threat to the Internet's continued ability to grow and evolve to meet consumers' needs.”

Lobbyists have been saying the regulations are "unnecessary and outdated” and it looks like they may have won. The FCC is set to vote on the matter at a December 14 meeting. The repeal is expected to pass on a 3-2 majority vote along party lines.

Democratic commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel, who voted for the 2015 rules, has opposed Pai’s proposal at every step. She does not believe Big Telecom is capable of self-regulation and feels they will ultimately harm the consumer in the race for higher profits.

“This proposal … hands broadband providers the power to decide what voices to amplify, which sites we can visit, what connections we can make, and what communities we create,” Rosenworcel said in a rebuttal today. “It throttles access, stalls opportunity, and censors content. It would be a big blunder for a slim majority of the FCC to approve these rules and saddle every Internet user with the cruel consequences.”

The only ones who seem confident that Big Telecom is capable of self-regulation are the service providers themselves and their lobbyists.

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/71984-fcc-expected-rollback-2015-net-neutrality-regulations.html

 

[gusticles41]

"Under my proposal, the federal government will stop micromanaging the internet,” said FCC Chairman Ajit Pai in an FCC statement today. “Instead, the F.C.C. 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.”

Think he really believes any of this? Go pound sand, you spineless puppet.

 

[Vulcanproject]

It is surprising to me seeing this roll back. In Europe internet access is a basic utility right and protected in law as such. At this stage it would be extremely difficult to remove and there is no desire to do so. ISP competition is fierce, high speed broadband has rapidly spread and prices have fallen year on year.

To see this deregulation I would be angry that it is clearly not in the interest of the average consumer in the United States.

 

[VitalyT]

Now in areas where there is only one provider, it will dictate any condition it likes, as a profit-maximizing monopolist, and people will not even be able to complain. In other words, most of the rural areas and small towns are now f####d.

Congrats, USA, as always - sh##ting on the little guy.

 

[MonsterZero]

It is surprising to me seeing this roll back. In Europe internet access is a basic utility right and protected in law as such. At this stage it would be extremely difficult to remove and there is no desire to do so. ISP competition is fierce, high speed broadband has rapidly spread and prices have fallen year on year.

To see this deregulation I would be angry that it is clearly not in the interest of the average consumer in the United States.

This is exactly why everyone is pissed, but our Orange Turd of a president put this guy in office and then guaranteed him a 5 year ride. Ajit is a human piece of garbage with only his lobbyists best interests in mind. Everything this guy has done has been bad for the consumer. It's like every person Trump put in charge of a public office is there to do the exact opposite of the job title.

 

[Cycloid Torus]

Transparency combined with Competition would work - but I do not see Competition.

Wake up FCC!

 

[skipmichael]

Love to hear socialist whine... Let's wait and see.

 

[p51d007]

And if the telco's don't, then can't the government come back in an re-regulate it?

 

[Avenger001]

Love to hear socialist whine... Let's wait and see.

Why wait: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/...s-how-misguided-fcc-proposal-rollback-network

 

[Cubi Dorf]

I always read US government is for the people by the people through representation. I never met anyone who likes being tracked and profiled and sold for someone else profit. Nor having their internet throttled. Why they do this?

 

[penn919]

I always read US government is for the people by the people through representation. I never met anyone who likes being tracked and profiled and sold for someone else profit. Nor having their internet throttled. Why they do this?

Well didn't you read skipmiachael's post? If you don' like those things then you must be socialist!

 

[Gamblin Man]

Every aspect of this country has gone to **** since it's been taken over by the Trump administration. We need to get rid of them!!

 

[Mugsy]

If there is ONE issue that demonstrates the power of Big Business to con politicians into believing "up" is "down" and "bad" is "good", it's the issue of "Net Neutrality".

Major Communications companies have actually convinced "deregulation crazy" Conservatives that "Net Neutrality" = "Government Regulation" and it must be done away with to make the Internet more "free".

When the average age in Congress is pushing 60 and the height of technology to them is a flip-phone, it's easy to convince Luddites that we desperately need to do something stupid as long as Corporations with deep pockets are telling them it's something we desperately need.

 

[wiyosaya]

There is an interesting story brewing on this - the NY AG is investigating what was previously reported on TS regarding fake comments, and so far, the FCC has not cooperated. Pai may end up where he already has his head, that is, where the sun does not shine if he does not watch out. Here is a link to one version of the story - https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/n...trality-comments/ar-BBFutgl?OCID=ansmsnnews11 I have to wonder why TS has not yet reported on this...

This administration seems to think that it can foist things on whomever it chooses. Good luck with that 45.

If there is ONE issue that demonstrates the power of Big Business to con politicians into believing "up" is "down" and "bad" is "good", it's the issue of "Net Neutrality".

Major Communications companies have actually convinced "deregulation crazy" Conservatives that "Net Neutrality" = "Government Regulation" and it must be done away with to make the Internet more "free".

When the average age in Congress is pushing 60 and the height of technology to them is a flip-phone, it's easy to convince Luddites that we desperately need to do something stupid as long as Corporations with deep pockets are telling them it's something we desperately need.

As I see it, you have a very good point in noting that there are those in congress who are, essentially, imbecilic when it comes to tech at the very least.

 

[wiyosaya]

Love to hear socialist whine... Let's wait and see.

Really? Then I guess your conservative comrades must also be socialist since something like 82-percent of the US population support net neutrality regulations from the Obama administration.

When you are prevented from viewing web sites you care about because your ISP has deemed them unworthy of your viewing, I guess you will just have to go to your ISPs web site and read about it in their full disclosure section. Maybe only then will you realize exactly what you are supporting. I am amazed that people out there just do not get this. IF this actually gets through, the throttling will not happen right away. The monopolists are smart. They will wait until the fires have, at least apparently, been doused, and then they will strike. Your internet will never be the same at that point, and it may be far too late for anything substantial to be done about it.

Now in areas where there is only one provider, it will dictate any condition it likes, as a profit-maximizing monopolist, and people will not even be able to complain. In other words, most of the rural areas and small towns are now f####d.

Congrats, USA, as always - sh##ting on the little guy.

It is not only small towns. I live in a metropolitan area that has a population of some 750K people. One provider. My bet is that there are many other areas in the US that have a similar situation. The caveat is that there is another company laying fiber, however, it expects that it will take about five years before that is complete.

 

[DelJo63]

This is the net-neutrality debate guide you've been waiting for, because the subject is sure to come up -- and you need to be ready.

OK, maybe not. But an argument about net neutrality is worth having, if only with yourself, because internet regulations can affect your browsing and streaming experiences, and an informed consumer should have an opinion on such things, right?
​

The info can be found here from the Chicago Tribune.

 

[cliffordcooley]

Every aspect of this country has gone to **** since it's been taken over by the Trump administration. We need to get rid of them!!

This country went to **** before Trump administration was formed, back in the early part of the 20th century.

 

[Avenger001]

You can also find info on Net Neutrality here: https://crtc.gc.ca/eng/internet/diff.htm

 

[wiyosaya]

This country went to **** before Trump administration was formed, back in the early part of the 20th century.

I am willing to bet that the 45 administration is arguably the worst yet, and will go down in history as one of the worst ever.

 

[cliffordcooley]

Still yet I feel as if Trump is/was a necessary evil. One that will likely be forgotten next campaign. We will likely elect yet another president that can and probably will be bought out by corporate. Which places us in the same rut that Trump took us out of. Sure Trump is corporate, but he has his fortune and can't be bought. Now is when we need to re-evaluate our priorities and elect a president that will be for the people. It's been at least a century since we have had a president that was for the people.

 

[BobHome]

I always read US government is for the people by the people through representation. I never met anyone who likes being tracked and profiled and sold for someone else profit. Nor having their internet throttled. Why they do this?

You misses a word: for the Rich people by the Rich people. Oh, and: by representation (lobbyists).

 

[captaincranky]

@cliffordcooley I think Trump should sacrifice the rest of his presidency by nuking North Korea to a crater, then say "whoops, my bad", and afterwards either resign, or be impeached, thereby allowing Pence to run the show. until 2020.

In direct response to your post:

Still yet I feel as if Trump is/was a necessary evil. One that will likely be forgotten next campaign. We will likely elect yet another president that can and probably will be bought out by corporate. Which places us in the same rut that Trump took us out of. Sure Trump is corporate, but he has his fortune and can't be bought. Now is when we need to re-evaluate our priorities and elect a president that will be for the people. It's been at least a century since we have had a president that was for the people.

It does give me pause to wonder though, what good is a president who can't be bought, while everyone he has appointed to serve his administration, most likely can?

 

[EClyde]

Less government in anything means less corruption. Give it some thought

 

[captaincranky]

Less government in anything means less corruption. Give it some thought

Well, I guess there's no harm in being optimistic, as long as you're prepared for the almost inevitable .disappointment.

But if you think about, having a government at all, is a prerequisite for the propagation of corruption.

I grew up during the Bell monopoly era. In those days, it was actually illegal to own a telephone. The apparatus had to be rented from Bell monthly.

Fast forward to today.. Nowadays, you "BUY" your own phone. The trouble is the phone "you absolutely, positively have to have", is about a grand, but you wind up "buying it" anyway.. But since few have that thousand to put down out of pocket, they wind up "de facto" renting you the phone, and since it most likely won't be paid off before it;s traded in, the telecoms have effectively skirted the anti-monopoly statutes, as well as upping the "equipment rental charges", by a factor of at least 20.

 

[EClyde]

Well, I guess there's no harm in being optimistic, as long as you're prepared for the almost inevitable .disappointment.

But if you think about, having a government at all, is a prerequisite for the propagation of corruption.

I grew up during the Bell monopoly era. In those days, it was actually illegal to own a telephone. The apparatus had to be rented from Bell monthly.

Fast forward to today.. Nowadays, you "BUY" your own phone. The trouble is the phone "you absolutely, positively have to have", is about a grand, but you wind up "buying it" anyway.. But since few have that thousand to put down out of pocket, they wind up "de facto" renting you the phone, and since it most likely won't be paid off before it;s traded in, the telecoms have effectively skirted the anti-monopoly statutes, as well as upping the "equipment rental charges", by a factor of at least 20.

I remember when we could finally buy a phone. It was great. I also remember when light bulbs were free. All we had to do was take the burnt ones down to Detroit Edison and grab new ones. Now the feds decree what you can own in the way of bulbs or tried. If you want a 1K phone that's your choice IT has nothing to do with government but everything to do with Madison Ave. My Smartphone was an Eggxpert item and I get service for < $7 a month. That's all people need but as long as they just gotta have this that and the other thing...well I just laugh.