FCC reinstates Net Neutrality in the US to ensure a level playing field for all internet users

[DragonSlayer101]

In a nutshell: The FCC has voted to reinstate net neutrality in the US seven years after being repealed under former FCC Chair Ajit Pai. The 3-2 vote on Thursday was along party lines, with the three Democratic commissioners, including Chair Jessica Rosenworcel, voting in favor of the bill.

The Obama-era rules classify broadband service providers in the US as common carriers under Title II of the Telecommunications Act, subjecting them to the same regulatory oversight as telephone networks and cable TV. According to the FCC, the open internet standard will "protect consumers, defend national security, and advance public safety."

Internet service providers (ISPs) were classified as common carriers in 2015 under the Obama administration's Open Internet Order, a move that aimed to bring them under regulatory oversight. The order also introduced a set of net neutrality rules, ensuring an open and equally accessible internet for all users. However, these rules were overturned a few years later, a decision criticized by net neutrality advocates nationwide.

Today we voted to restore Net Neutrality. This reestablishes a national open internet standard to protect consumers, defend national security, and advance public safety. https://t.co/moRpznTDEd

– The FCC (@FCC) April 25, 2024

The principle of net neutrality states that all internet traffic, irrespective of their source or destination, must be treated the same. As part of that principle, the rules bar the creation of "internet fast lanes" that could offer a massive advantage to corporate monoliths to the detriment of their competitors. Without net neutrality, behemoths like Google, Meta, and Microsoft could pay large sums of money to ISPs to get fast upstream connectivity to end users, while reducing the speeds of their smaller competitors to a crawl.

However, net neutrality aims to prevent such scenarios to ensure a level playing field for all internet users regardless of who they are. The rules also prevent anti-consumer behavior, like the so-called "zero-rating" schemes that involve ISPs arbitrarily exempting particular websites and services from data caps to boost their traffic artificially.

This week's vote to restore net neutrality has received widespread support from activists and former FCC commissioners, who believe that it will lay the bedrock for a consumer-friendly internet. However, it also has some notable dissenters, including Ajit Pai, who criticized the FCC's actions as a "complete waste of time" and blamed "a gaggle of Beltway partisans" for imposing an unwanted regulation on American citizens.

Permalink to story:

FCC reinstates Net Neutrality in the US to ensure a level playing field for all internet users

 

[Uncle Al]

The law also needs to charge the IP with responsibility for dealing with hackers. Too many IP's blame the consumer and refuse to "lock out" identifiable intruders, not even for a fee. Since the hackers gain access THROUGH the IP's equipment, they should be responsible for identification and lock out of these intruders.

 

[Neatfeatguy]

The law also needs to charge the IP with responsibility for dealing with hackers. Too many IP's blame the consumer and refuse to "lock out" identifiable intruders, not even for a fee. Since the hackers gain access THROUGH the IP's equipment, they should be responsible for identification and lock out of these intruders.

Sure, that'll happen just as soon as the FCC puts and end to robocalls.

 

[The Talking Tech]

Finally, this should have been repealed on Day 1 since Biden took office...but it's better late than never.

 

[Plutoisaplanet]

Finally, this should have been repealed on Day 1 since Biden took office...but it's better late than never.

Why, do you have bad or expensive internet service or anything? Also what does Biden have to do with this, do you think it's being passed specifically because it's an election year?

 

[hahahanoobs]

So basically this is gonna come up every few years and the reactions will be the same every time.

 

[human7]

Finally, this should have been repealed on Day 1 since Biden took office...but it's better late than never.

Why, do you have bad or expensive internet service or anything? Also what does Biden have to do with this, do you think it's being passed specifically because it's an election year?

Reason it wasn't done earlier in Biden's administration is because the Senate stalled on approving Biden's nomination to the commission.

 

[ScottSoapbox]

Sure, that'll happen just as soon as the FCC puts and end to robocalls.

LOL! This is so good.

 

[Arbie]

Reason it wasn't done earlier in Biden's administration is because the Senate stalled on approving Biden's nomination to the commission.

Dammit - looks like we can't blame Biden for too slowly fixing this particular Trump excess. But there are and will be plenty of other chances.

 

[Indianapolis]

So did the sky ever fall after 2017? I remember all the stories from back then, and people were really freaking out. Then I never heard about it after that.

 

[human7]

So did the sky ever fall after 2017? I remember all the stories from back then, and people were really freaking out. Then I never heard about it after that.

The sky doesn't have to fall for there not to have been issues. The internet is absolutely critical to modern life, and this move effectively allows internet service provides to be regulated as if they were utilities, which they effectively are (and will soon be reclassified as again).

Without net neutrality, ISPs could, if they so chose, become gatekeepers to the kinds of content (websites) you can consume at various speeds. So, if they don't like all the bandwidth that Netflix consumes, they can charge an extra fee or slow down that content at their discretion. Naturally, these kinds of behaviors would be applied to the big players on the internet, and could be used to harm competition or suppress smaller businesses.

In practice, for most people and use cases there's not much traffic prioritization going on to matter. The many places with only one service provider are more likely to see packages which show favoritism to particular sites, and traffic like torrents might be somewhat targeted by ISPs as well. To my knowledge, net neutrality itself isn't going to make a huge difference with pricing or the internet experience, simply because ISPs have not seen it in their interest to engage in these types of arrangements at an excessive level.

The biggest reason that ISPs don't want net neutrality has less to do with treating content equally, as they need to do under Common Carrier rules, and more to do with the increased regulatory power the FTC would have over them under Title II, Rules that could be more consumer-friendly or otherwise cost them money. Examples might be rules aimed at breaking apart some of the local monopolization. They have also argued that it would give the FTC the power to regulate prices, something the FTC has said they don't intend to do. But it's politics, what the FTC does with this authority is ultimately up to the administration at that time.

 

[human7]

So did the sky ever fall after 2017? I remember all the stories from back then, and people were really freaking out. Then I never heard about it after that.

As follow up to my last comment, a couple of examples where the lack of net neutrality (allowing ISPs to prioritize content) may have caused harm are described below, but again these are fairly narrow cases. Even so, the longer we go without net neutrality, the greater the risk that these practices become more widespread.

Source: https://www.highspeedinternet.com/resources/net-neutrality

"Unsurprisingly, many of the fears of net neutrality advocates were proven true after the repeal. In June 2018, Verizon throttled the internet connection of one of the vehicles of the Santa Clara Fire Department while it was attempting to coordinate the fighting of an ongoing wildfire. Although the department had specifically chosen an unlimited data plan to avoid that exact scenario, it turned out that providers play pretty fast and loose with what constitutes “unlimited” data. The department ultimately had to pay double its normal rate to get its speed restored. A similar instance of upselling during life-threatening circumstances was reported by a family trapped in their home by Hurricane Florence.


While the fire department incident is perhaps the most egregious example, there are countless others. One study found that at least 30 ISPs were specifically targeting users based on their use of video streaming services and throttling their connections. Sprint was found to be slowing traffic to Microsoft’s Skype, which is a competitor to Sprint’s own phone services. In Utah, CenturyLink blocked its customers’ internet access to show them an ad."

 

[Arbie]

The sky doesn't have to fall for there not to have been issues

Exactly. A slowly-boiled frog doesn't see the sky falling. Nor does a nation as its rights are baloney-sliced.