FCC Chairman Wheeler Hints at New Net Neutrality Rules

FCC Chairman Wheeler Hints at New Net Neutrality Rules

FCC Tom Wheeler 310x

Full details on the FCC's plans for broadband providers will be unveiled in February.

While speaking at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas yesterday, FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler offered a small preview of what we can expect in his new net neutrality rules.

The full set of rules and regulations won't be revealed until next month, but the Chairman's comments during his talk show that reclassification under Title II is a strong possibility, meaning internet service providers could soon receive the same treatment as other utilities.

If the new net neutrality rules do indeed go the reclassification route, the move would be a marked shift for Wheeler. The Chairman bristled at the idea when proposed by President Obama late last year.

"We're going to propose rules that say that no blocking, no throttling, [no] paid prioritization, all that list of issues," said Wheeler, "and that there is a yardstick against which behavior should be measured. And that yardstick is 'just and reasonable.'"

The FCC will vote on these new rules on February 26th.

Reclassification of broadband would bring ISP's under stricter purview by the federal government -- Title II of the Telecommunications Act, specifically. But the FCC will likely offer up some concession with these rules, similar to concessions made to wireless providers in the 1990's. While broadband providers might be subject to regulations on speed, access, and open networks, the feds would not, have a say on price (hence the compromise talk).

ISP's like AT&T have already balked at the idea of reclassification, saying such a move would stifle infrastructural and innovation. But if the wireless industry (in all its current 4G glory) is an example of how government regulation works, such talk could ultimately end as a bluff.

Source: LA Times | Image Credit: LA Times

Permalink

Well good, if true. It's about time he manned up and grew a pair.

crimson5pheonix:
Well good, if true. It's about time he manned up and grew a pair.

This isn't about "growing a pair." It's about crafting a set of rules that will hold up to scrutiny from the courts, Congress, the President, and private industry. That's not a very easy goal to accomplish.

-Devin Connors

I'm always a little iffy about standards that are called "reasonable"... Especially if what is defined as "reasonable" is likely to be judged by this or another appointee right out of the cable/telecommunications industry.

If multiple video streamers come to market at the same time, and some of those options are specifically backed by particular ISPs, this could get very ugly. As an example.

crimson5pheonix:
Well good, if true. It's about time he manned up and grew a pair.

I don't think he goes net neutrality because he wants to.

We don't know the whole the story - but I am 100% certain that there is a lot of political lobbying and infighting going on between WHeeler, Obama and the big ISPs...

webkilla:

crimson5pheonix:
Well good, if true. It's about time he manned up and grew a pair.

I don't think he goes net neutrality because he wants to.

We don't know the whole the story - but I am 100% certain that there is a lot of political lobbying and infighting going on between WHeeler, Obama and the big ISPs...

Why would there be infighting between Wheeler and the big ISPs? He's their man, yet another revolving-door industry insider that writes laws to suit their industry and then walk away from their regulatory job to a nice fat directorship as reward. The only reason you don't already have legislation in place that would have ended net neutrality pretty much entirely is that conflicting corporate interests turned their own lobbying machines on the government and media to a degree sufficient to generate a public outcry against the original proposals.

And Devin Conners; forgive me, but fuck private industry. The idea that the private sector should be involved in crafting the legislation meant to regulate them can be made to sound very reasonable indeed on paper, but the reality always has and always will be that it's an utterly terrible idea, since they simply use the opportunity to strangle anything remotely effective at birth and riddle the rest with so many loopholes as to render it pointless.

To be fair he is just a Dingo.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkjkQ-wCZ5A

If this is true, then it's at least a start. I read somewhere they want to reclassify "broadband" as 25 Mbps, not 10. But that's an uphill battle with all the "wah, we need money for that kind of infrastructure" (despite it being there in many cases) talk going on. Also, what did Wheeler really say about the "[no] paid prioritization." Those brackets scare me.

Now, I'd like to know how they are going to handle all these anti-competitive ISPs. If the FCC is going to use the lack of price regulation as a bargaining chip, they better help with this free market issue where ISPs have almost no competition in many areas of the US. We are well aware of the (lack of) customer service Comcast gives its subscribers. (There are also great stories popping up recently about how one service rep offers a great deal, and when a customers calls back months later asking why their bill is so high, the next rep says they cannot acknowledge that offer. Making the customer service team no different from the sales team, and making threats of termination if no upsales are made, just does wonders for the reputation of the company.) Then there's the fact that some ISPs have successfully lobbied against local public broadband projects in areas they have no current interest in, just so they can expand to that area with no competition years later. Finally, the mergers of major corporations have no benefit to the consumers. They're just another way to control content and/or eliminate competition.

We could all be able to enjoy good internet at decent prices while the companies remain profitable. But, many company heads want it all, and it will take a large percent of the public voicing their opinions to show the big shots that they can't have it all. It also helps when government position aren't filled by people led by a carrot on a string. It would be great news to find out Wheeler isn't pulling our leg and has done a gret about of legimate negotiations on behalf of the American public.

Ark of the Covetor:
And Devin Conners; forgive me, but fuck private industry. The idea that the private sector should be involved in crafting the legislation meant to regulate them can be made to sound very reasonable indeed on paper, but the reality always has and always will be that it's an utterly terrible idea, since they simply use the opportunity to strangle anything remotely effective at birth and riddle the rest with so many loopholes as to render it pointless.

Private industry would be fine if the average citizen had equal power in legislation. But with the 2 party system, with their closed off primary elections, and the massive lobbying industry, along with the money to fund it, it's hard for the average person to even find time to keep track of all of the backroom deals companies are making with politicians.

The facts that the FCC at least accepted open public opinions on its website and we can still write to the offices of these politicians show that we have some voice left. Whether or not that voice is ignored remains to be seen. Then all we are left with is voting with our wallets, which, as I described above with the anti-competitive stance most major ISPs take, will be very hard. So yeah, fuck the current shape private industry has allowed itself to become.

Kaihlik:
To be fair he is just a Dingo.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkjkQ-wCZ5A

They say they won't eat our babies, but why should we trust the word of a Dingo?

Ark of the Covetor:
And Devin Conners; forgive me, but fuck private industry.

"Fuck private industry," says the person who undoubtedly relies on private industry to a) survive, and b) live a comfortable life.

And my name? You best come correct, sucka.

-Devin C-O-N-N-O-R-S

From the article I read yesterday, I thought he was going for a more hybrid approach. Title II between large infrastructure servers 'n' stuff, and something more throttled for the end users. Even if I have that backwards, it sounds like something that would still be poisonous for the internet.

good bye US internet, been nice knowing ya.

It takes skill or should I say an art form to understand the language of politics. If you read what Wheeler says it appears he is open to the idea of title II. But he didn't mention what he said to FO*** magazine that he would not "string tie" the internet to all of the articles of title II.

One of these articles in particular in which he wants exemption was to have these companies not register with state governments where they place lines and keep them abreast of any yearly state tax. The problem comes in part of what you don't see as what this exception would do. In essence it gives these companies the ability not to report to state authorities for any upgrades done to their lines. This is leaving a loop hole in which companies could state "they put in new lines" when in fact they didn't and still could get a tax break. This would weaken the enforcement of any net neutrality when laws required things to implement for a cleaner service. But as it stands I believe the general public read Wheelers statements and somewhat hopes for the best, but in the end its all just going to come down to rewording the same thing.

Devin Connors:

Ark of the Covetor:
And Devin Conners; forgive me, but fuck private industry.

"Fuck private industry," says the person who undoubtedly relies on private industry to a) survive, and b) live a comfortable life.

And my name? You best come correct, sucka.

-Devin C-O-N-N-O-R-S

Lol. Your title does you justice I see.

I don't know. To an outsider US politics always seems batshit insane. That's not to say our own politicians are any better, but they don't make it quite so blatantly obvious that it's big industry that dictates the rules.

I mean, are we really OK with corporations setting the rules they need to abide by?

It's about on par with saying thieves should be able to dictate what qualifies as theft and what doesn't. Kind of ridiculous to think they would do anything other than create rules that work in their favour at the expense of everyone else, and yet that's how we go about things with corporations trying to dictate what rules they need to obey.

Whatever happened to the idea that the law exists to protect weaker members of society from being abused by stronger ones? Otherwise, why even have laws?
Might makes right is perfectly workable without any laws whatsoever, but clearly we decided that wasn't an acceptable way to run a society...

Yet somehow we've (and americans in particular) decided that nothing should be allowed to get in the way of the almighty profit motive. (Even though plenty of examples show regulation of certain activities tends to create outcomes that are better for the majority of people in a society than just letting corporations do whatever they like.)

It's crazy. Capitalism isn't a pragmatic economic system anymore. It's become a religion. Which apparently must be obeyed no matter what the consequences...

CrystalShadow:
Lol. Your title does you justice I see.

I don't know. To an outsider US politics always seems batshit insane. That's not to say our own politicians are any better, but they don't make it quite so blatantly obvious that it's big industry that dictates the rules.

I mean, are we really OK with corporations setting the rules they need to abide by?

It's about on par with saying thieves should be able to dictate what qualifies as theft and what doesn't. Kind of ridiculous to think they would do anything other than create rules that work in their favour at the expense of everyone else, and yet that's how we go about things with corporations trying to dictate what rules they need to obey.

Whatever happened to the idea that the law exists to protect weaker members of society from being abused by stronger ones? Otherwise, why even have laws?
Might makes right is perfectly workable without any laws whatsoever, but clearly we decided that wasn't an acceptable way to run a society...

Yet somehow we've (and americans in particular) decided that nothing should be allowed to get in the way of the almighty profit motive. (Even though plenty of examples show regulation of certain activities tends to create outcomes that are better for the majority of people in a society than just letting corporations do whatever they like.)

It's crazy. Capitalism isn't a pragmatic economic system anymore. It's become a religion. Which apparently must be obeyed no matter what the consequences...

While there are undoubtedly people who see capitalism as a religious doctrine that must be adhered to, I think the reason these ideas take hold and become pervasive throughout US society is simply because most people here can't name a single government program that benefits them that works well and on budget. We use public schools, but they suck, we use public roads, but they tend to suck. People in many cases don't trust or like private industry as a whole, but prefer it over incompetent government programs. You may have heard of Obamacare, a dense, complex, and confusing system that is expensive and the majority of people don't see the real value of.

So when a politician claims that the economy is bad not because of big banks but because of too much government regulation, control, and intrusion, it sounds believable. It also doesn't help that the cornerstone of our country is built on a fundamental distrust and dislike of government as being a necessary evil, and that it should be given as little power over the common man as possible.

'just and reasonable

The problem in most cases when this comes up is that what is just and reasonable is not defined by the act that states this. this means that its open to interpretation, and this often leads to such cases as people getting fined for being naked in their own home because somone walking by decided to look through the window and saw a penis. apperently thats a "Reasonable offence" as determined by the police officer it was reported to.

But the FCC will likely offer up some concession with these rules

No concessions should be made. there is no reason to give more freedom to companies that proved they dont deserve any.

Devin Connors:

"Fuck private industry," says the person who undoubtedly relies on private industry to a) survive, and b) live a comfortable life.

Not really. Those things are ensured by government, provided its competent. Private industry is merely a tool of a government to do things. it should never be treated as anything else. you have private property because government allows you to.

Strazdas:
you have private property because government allows you to.

No no, Strazzy...that's Communism. Communism determines how you live without much wiggle room or personal say in the matter. The US has always been "Here's a system by which you micromanage yourselves with only loose monitering from us, and we get a regular fee for our service (which is taxes).".

I wonder if there are consumer benefits that will suffer from this. For example: My mobile provider gives me Spotify premium for a reduced price and all the data to and from Spotify doesn't count towards my data cap. Is this "paid prioritization". I burn upwards of 3 GB of data with Spotify and I wouldn't want to pay extra for getting a higher cap.

Devin Connors:

Ark of the Covetor:
And Devin Conners; forgive me, but fuck private industry.

"Fuck private industry," says the person who undoubtedly relies on private industry to a) survive, and b) live a comfortable life.

And my name? You best come correct, sucka.

-Devin C-O-N-N-O-R-S

It's pretty clear from the rest of my post what context I believe private industry should be getting topped in, so I can only assume your ignorance is willful.

Capitalism exists, corporations exist, and given certain conditions are met they function better than other economic systems we've tried given our present circumstances. That doesn't mean it's a flawless system, it doesn't mean private interests supersede collective or individual public interests, and acknowledging reality as it stands does not require the total cessation of critique.

Now, would you care to actually address the point, or are you just going to keep strutting about like that spouting bollocks?

EDIT: And actually, no mate, I don't depend on private industry to survive and live a comfortable life, in fact left to private industry I'd be dead in a gutter because disabled people don't make good worker-drones. I continue to survive and live (moderately)comfortably because the people of my country decided to take collective action through government to ensure the poorest and most vulnerable didn't end up dead, starving, or forced to resort to criminality. Maybe that's why I'm not as eager as some to lick the boots of our Great Captains of Industry; they never gave a fuck about me or people like me, the government did, (most of)the people did.

It's a step in the right direction, at least the internet for the time being can go on being awesome and open.

Yeah, and I bet that yardstick is noneuclidean.

FalloutJack:

Strazdas:
you have private property because government allows you to.

No no, Strazzy...that's Communism. Communism determines how you live without much wiggle room or personal say in the matter. The US has always been "Here's a system by which you micromanage yourselves with only loose monitering from us, and we get a regular fee for our service (which is taxes).".

actually, quite the opposite. in communism, the people own everything, including the property. in our current society private property exists, because it is defined by law as something you have a right to protect. the law is enforced by government. if said law were to dissapear, the concept of private property would as well. then there would be a lot of "i cna hold this stuff at gunpoint" anarcistic crap. Now, government enforcing us our rights cannot do it as a charity, they need to eat too, and thus we pay for it in form of taxes. now, the system is hardly perfect because its run by humans, so correution happens.

Its also ironic to see Us always touting their "Freedoms" while being one of the least free countries.

Strazdas:
Zoop

No, you definitely have that backwards. You can't just use "If a law were to change" as an argument, because then it would no longer be classified the way it is. The people own nothing in Communism, because their government CAN take and do anything they want, on demand, no fuss. In the US, you can protest (properly), you can sue, you can write your representative, and so on. In other countries, that really isn't always the case. Ah, but riddle me this: Why does everyone want to be here?

FalloutJack:
because then it would no longer be classified the way it is.

Exactly my point. This clasification is what makes private property. Without it it would just be ownership in anarcy.

There is no government in communist, so im not sure what your on about. Communism is ruled by community - by people themselves.

Yes, you can do all those things in US because government exists that controls those things via laws and enforcement. In democratic society it works via agreement between majority (in form of voting) and people in the government. of course corruption changes these relationships.

And yes, you are correct, there are some countries that are dictatorships or outright facist.

I dont know what do you mean by here. the escapist? well its a great website, my favorite actually. Oh, you mean US? well then no, not everyone want to be there. people that want things like proper education system, universal healthcare, progressive jail system, sane politicians prefer to stay in Europe.

Strazdas:

FalloutJack:
because then it would no longer be classified the way it is.

There is no government in communist, so im not sure what your on about. Communism is ruled by community - by people themselves.

No no, that's the definition of a true anarchy, one where just everybody does their thing for the greater good (as opposed to the anarchy that is just chaos). I'm afraid you have this wrong, my friend.

In any case, I was indeed asking about the US. You may say sane people stay in Europe, but I disagree. It's highly desired as a place to live and be. The only reason for that is if people feel it can render improvement to their lives.

FalloutJack:

Strazdas:

FalloutJack:
because then it would no longer be classified the way it is.

There is no government in communist, so im not sure what your on about. Communism is ruled by community - by people themselves.

No no, that's the definition of a true anarchy, one where just everybody does their thing for the greater good (as opposed to the anarchy that is just chaos). I'm afraid you have this wrong, my friend.

In any case, I was indeed asking about the US. You may say sane people stay in Europe, but I disagree. It's highly desired as a place to live and be. The only reason for that is if people feel it can render improvement to their lives.

Anarchy - when everyone does what they want.

Communism - when people work together for common goals in self-governing enviroment that they think are good.

you dont seem to understand what anarcy means too, not only communism.

Well i agree that there are plenty of countries that are worse to live in than US. For example your main immigration source - mexico.

Ah yes, just and reasonable. And I, former lobbyist of big telecommunications and still undoubtably in their pocket, will make that distinction for the good of their wallets. Look at how noble and high minded I am.

Obama put fucking Pennywise in charge of the daycare and is now surprised that a few kids are missing. God I hate Tom Wheeler.

Strazdas:
Snip

Strazzy, you're wrong.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anarchy - No government.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/communism - Totalarian government.

Your definition of Communism is actually definition 1-C of Anarchy, not any of Communism. Perhaps you were thinking 1-B of Communism was it, but I have read up on things. The government decides in the end. Now, I understand that people have different views in your neck of the woods, but Russia and China are famously Communistic and they are not ruled by their communities. And if you still don't buy it, send Vladimir Putin an email and ask him.

Also...

FalloutJack:

Strazdas:
Snip

Strazzy, you're wrong.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anarchy - No government.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/communism - Totalarian government.

Your definition of Communism is actually definition 1-C of Anarchy, not any of Communism. Perhaps you were thinking 1-B of Communism was it, but I have read up on things. The government decides in the end. Now, I understand that people have different views in your neck of the woods, but Russia and China are famously Communistic and they are not ruled by their communities. And if you still don't buy it, send Vladimir Putin an email and ask him.

Also...

it seems you havent read your own links.

Not sure what you read up on, but clearly you do not understand what communism is. after all you just claimed that Soviet Union and china were communist. Yeah, they claimed to be when being completely opposite. thats called propaganda.

There really is no point discussing this further until you go and learn what communism is.

Strazdas:
Snip

No, you did not read them. BEHOLD!

com·mu·nism
noun \ˈkäm-yə-ˌni-zəm, -yü-\

: a way of organizing a society in which the government owns the things that are used to make and transport products (such as land, oil, factories, ships, etc.) and there is no privately owned property

Full Definition of COMMUNISM
1
a : a theory advocating elimination of private property
b : a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed
2 capitalized
a : a doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialism and Marxism-Leninism that was the official ideology of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
b : a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production
c : a final stage of society in Marxist theory in which the state has withered away and economic goods are distributed equitably
d : communist systems collectively

The other reason you're confused is because while Marx stated that final stage in communism, it never happens because nobody ever willingly gives up power. Ergo, that's the communism there is. And if it does, it's the rare form of anarchy. Thusly...

an·ar·chy
noun \ˈa-nər-kē, -ˌnär-\

: a situation of confusion and wild behavior in which the people in a country, group, organization, etc., are not controlled by rules or laws

Full Definition of ANARCHY
1
a : absence of government
b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority
c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government
2
a : absence or denial of any authority or established order
b : absence of order : disorder <not manicured plots but a wild anarchy of nature - Israel Shenker>
3 : anarchism

There, you see? No government. Government-controlled resources in one and no government in the other. Communism and anarchy defined. And the US is neither one of these. Your argument is disproven.

FalloutJack:
snip

sigh.

yes. your link had a bad definition as second of the possible 4. and it has one incorrect definition in anarchy. just like it has incorrect defintion of miracle among the possible ones. This is caused by heavy misuse of words (for example: your posts).

Saying that communism was the official ideology of SU is like saying that freedom is the official policy of KKK. its actions, not "official policies" that define government types. And while Lenin may have had partially communist ideals (though the real communists were crushed by lenin when he gained power), Stalin was just your regular run off the mill facist dictator. the "party leaders" that went after him werent all the same, but they only came around at the time the SU was crumbling already and didnt do much.

There are no "communism there is". there is no large scale communism happening anywhere in the world or in human history. all we got are small scale examples, such as some villages in Italy during WW when they were cut off from the rest of the world, or the famous communist factory experiment.

I also find it completely hilariuos how anyone can call anarcy utopian. well perhaps only the very naive. as the main definition correctly defines here - it is absence of rules or laws. thus, it is NOT communism, due to communism having rules and laws that are decided by the populace. For example in communism if you murder somone its very likely you will be comprehended and sent to jail for a crime, whereas in anarcy you have commited no crime, though its much more likely that somone is going to shoot you back in revenge.

Communism cannot be government controlled because in communism there is no government. What you are talking about here is what Marx called socialism, hence the final goal being called communism - its a different thing.

Strazdas:
Nope

No, Strazzy. You stare at the truth and boldly deny it to my face. You don't get to decide that facts aren't facts on a whim, especially when Russia and China both have official homepages which state what they are: Communist. Enough. Your claims do not fit the facts.

FalloutJack:

Strazdas:
Nope

No, Strazzy. You stare at the truth and boldly deny it to my face. You don't get to decide that facts aren't facts on a whim, especially when Russia and China both have official homepages which state what they are: Communist. Enough. Your claims do not fit the facts.

North Korea officialy calls itself "Democratic People's Republic of Korea". I guess since they say it it must be true!

Strazdas:

FalloutJack:

Strazdas:
Nope

No, Strazzy. You stare at the truth and boldly deny it to my face. You don't get to decide that facts aren't facts on a whim, especially when Russia and China both have official homepages which state what they are: Communist. Enough. Your claims do not fit the facts.

North Korea officialy calls itself "Democratic People's Republic of Korea". I guess since they say it it must be true!

And with that, I bring the discussion to a close. Simply scoffing at the evidence doesn't disprove it. It all lines up the way I said.

 

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here