FCC reclassifies the internet as a utility

[DLD]

I apologize for hijacking a rumor thread (which itself is frowned upon by the site's mods).

But this deserves a serious discussion.

I'll leave a few links and quotes to start the debate -

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/inter...-175113045.html;_ylt=AwrBJSB9kPZUvHEAmYLQtDMD

Wheeler’s proposal is aimed at keeping service providers from making deals with certain companies to provide faster access to their content, something Democrats in Washington and small-time websites like Etsy and Vimeo say protects consumers from having their browsing experience controlled by their broadband provider.

The new rules will also give the FCC the power to oversee interconnection deals, which allow companies like Netflix Inc. (NASDAQ: NFLX) to pay a service provider to connect to their network.


Service Providers Fight Back


Thursday’s FCC ruling is expected to kick off a wave of lawsuits from service providers like Comcast Corp (NASDAQ: CMCSA) and Verizon (NYSE: VZ), who vowed to fight the new regulations when they were first announced ...

http://arstechnica.com/business/201...e-rules-not-even-close-to-utility-regulation/

Wheeler said the new system includes "only four" hard and fast rules: bans on Internet service providers blocking traffic, throttling traffic, and prioritizing traffic in exchange for payment, and a requirement to be transparent about network practices.


Any other actions by Internet providers will be judged on a case-by-case basis to determine whether it is "just and reasonable," he said....

Consumers will be able to complain that their bills are too high and seek relief from the FCC, which telecom lobby groups have claimed is tantamount to rate regulation. But Wheeler drew a distinction between settling complaints on a case-by-case basis and telling operators exactly what kinds of terms they can offer to consumers...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...future-for-the-internet/?wprss=rss_technology

While the goal of preserving the remarkably free and open global Internet is one that no one disagrees with, I have great fears about both the intended and unintended consequences this unprecedented shift in policy will have on the perpetual motion machine of innovation that the Internet has long supported.


And I’m not alone. On Tuesday, for example, at an event sponsored by the Georgetown Center for Business and Public Policy, I asked David Farber, professor of computer science and public policy at Carnegie Mellon and the FCC’s chief technologist from 2000 to 2001, what he thought of the FCC’s proposal. Farber, a principal inventor of the government networks that ultimately became the Internet, didn’t mince words. “Title II,” he said, “is a catastrophe.”

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ernet-regulation-plan-obama-accused-meddling/

Republican Commissioner Ajit Pai, who delivered some of the most scathing criticism of the plan Thursday, warned the policy represents a "monumental shift" to "government control of the Internet."

He warned of a litany of negative consequences, intended or not, from the net neutrality plan. He said it allows rate regulation -- and, ultimately, rates will go up and broadband service will slow. Pai said that while the plan defers a decision on applying a service fee to Internet bills -- much like is applied to phone bills -- that surely will change. "The order explicitly opens the door to billions of dollars in new taxes," he said. "Read my lips: More new taxes are coming. It's just a matter of when."

 

[DPStewart]

There is no debate.

Letting an extremely tiny group of insanely wealthy men start dictating data lanes and speeds on the WORLD wide web would be utter insanity.

Nothing the nay-sayers SPECULATE about could ever be as destructive and horrible as the Giant Always Seeking Monopoly American Cable/Telecom abuses that have already occurred over and over and over again. Their track record is Iron-Clad. BAD.

Have we already all forgotten about when the US Government had to step in and break up the GOLIATH BELL/AT&T monopoly the first time?
And funny - but that corporate monster DID cause exactly what the scare-mongers lie about - stagnation and terrible over-priced service and products.

...those who do not learn from history...

 

[eleison]

There is no debate.

Letting an extremely tiny group of insanely wealthy men start dictating data lanes and speeds on the WORLD wide web would be utter insanity....

Are you talking about men in Congress - the "think of the children" people? I trust corporations more than I trust the government. The internet is what it is now because the government wasnt involved. first is internet speed, what next? no adult content because "think of the children"? The "fairness" doctrine? No website that discusses the wiki leaks? with corporations you know where they stand. it's about money. With the government, it's a whole lot trickier. They want to regulate everything, even what you do in the bedroom.

Yes, monopolies are bad. you don't fight monopolies with regulation. You fight it by opening competition. Give the government an inch, they will take a mile. Not worth the risk.

 

[refocusedmedia]

This thread will likely not survive due to politics, but the fact is a free and open world wide web is the only correct answer. This ruling by the FCC is a big step toward preserving that, and it's all the more encouraging that they did so due to large public outcry even in the face of intense lobbying.

 

[David Jimerson]

No politics, guys. This isn't new.