Confirmed: FCC Wants To Drop A Net Neutrality Atom Bomb

Confirmed: FCC Wants To Drop A Net Neutrality Atom Bomb

FCC Tom Wheeler 310x

Chairman Tom Wheeler publishes post on Wired, says " I am submitting to my colleagues the strongest open internet protections ever proposed by the FCC."

Yesterday, we talked about how the FCC was reportedly going to attempt to implement strict net neutrality regulations under Title II reclassification.

Today, FCC chairman Tom Wheeler confirmed that report, via a column published on Wired. In the column, Wheeler states very directly that he is "proposing that the FCC use its Title II authority to implement and enforce open internet protections."

The key paragraph states:

"...I am submitting to my colleagues the strongest open internet protections ever proposed by the FCC. These enforceable, bright-line rules will ban paid prioritization, and the blocking and throttling of lawful content and services. I propose to fully apply-for the first time ever-those bright-line rules to mobile broadband. My proposal assures the rights of internet users to go where they want, when they want, and the rights of innovators to introduce new products without asking anyone's permission.

While Wheeler was initially opposed to broadband reclassification, he reversed course after President Obama made his own thoughts on net neutrality clear, and the public weighted in on the FCC's website very aggressively -- to the tune of over four million comments.

But Wheeler also referenced open networks of the past, including how it was the FCC who forced AT&T to open its phone line network to all other phone companies in the 1960s. This open network, says Wheeler, is how the early, phone line-based Internet network grew so rapidly -- there was no restriction for home and educational modems when they started coming online.

The decision made by Wheeler is probably only the beginning. With politicians weighing in, and the likelihood of a lawsuit filed by the National Cable & Telecommunications Association (the cable industry's lobbying/interest group), this decision is going to be a long process, one way or another.

Source: Wired

Permalink

Sounds like playing politics may have made the interests of the people (and a lot of companies) win out against that of a small group of companies. There may be problems with the system, and this may be held in court by the NCTA for some time, but that would just be delaying the inevitable at that point.

Interesting, this looks to be history in the making. It looks like it's going our way. We'll have to wait and see but this could be great.

Please work, please work, please work... Please don't let the corporations and businesses fuck us over, PLEASE.

Alar:
Please work, please work, please work... Please don't let the corporations and businesses fuck us over, PLEASE.

I think we'll get screwed, you really trust some lapdog of the cable companies to actually protect the rights of people like us?

I think these may be the last few days for the internet as we know it...but if I'm wrong, I'll gladly eat my hat with a side of fries. :D

dalek sec:

Alar:
Please work, please work, please work... Please don't let the corporations and businesses fuck us over, PLEASE.

I think we'll get screwed, you really trust some lapdog of the cable companies to actually protect the rights of people like us?

I think these may be the last few days for the internet as we know it...but if I'm wrong, I'll gladly eat my hat with a side of fries. :D

The question is now; is he really a lapdog or rather someone who was fed up with the bullshit surrounding the telecom industry and its lobbying. These kind of messages are at least signs for the latter, anyway, and that'd be pretty cool if it were true. I'm keeping my fingers crossed for my American friends in any case.

dalek sec:
I think we'll get screwed, you really trust some lapdog of the cable companies to actually protect the rights of people like us?

I think the answer was that he was a lapdog, then a few million people started asking why exactly he was a lap dog.

'Do this thing and you'll never see public office again,' can be an awfully good motivator.

Cowabungaa:

dalek sec:

Alar:
Please work, please work, please work... Please don't let the corporations and businesses fuck us over, PLEASE.

I think we'll get screwed, you really trust some lapdog of the cable companies to actually protect the rights of people like us?

I think these may be the last few days for the internet as we know it...but if I'm wrong, I'll gladly eat my hat with a side of fries. :D

The question is now; is he really a lapdog or rather someone who was fed up with the bullshit surrounding the telecom industry and its lobbying. These kind of messages are at least signs for the latter, anyway, and that'd be pretty cool if it were true. I'm keeping my fingers crossed for my American friends in any case.

Oh... he's certainly a lapdog. But, he's a lapdog with a new master.

This is evident in how quickly his stance changed. Days ago, he was speaking out against net neutrality, just like his old cable company masters would have told him to do... but as soon as his new boss (the President, in this case) said "We're for net neutrality!", then magically his stance changed.

So basically, he's a spineless puppet... he just happens to be a spineless puppet with the right side pulling the strings in this case.

He's saying nice things, but nice things don't always hold out in the world of politics.

Right now we need to stand by the old saying. Pray for the best, prepare for the worst.

WarpedLord:

Cowabungaa:

dalek sec:

I think we'll get screwed, you really trust some lapdog of the cable companies to actually protect the rights of people like us?

I think these may be the last few days for the internet as we know it...but if I'm wrong, I'll gladly eat my hat with a side of fries. :D

The question is now; is he really a lapdog or rather someone who was fed up with the bullshit surrounding the telecom industry and its lobbying. These kind of messages are at least signs for the latter, anyway, and that'd be pretty cool if it were true. I'm keeping my fingers crossed for my American friends in any case.

Oh... he's certainly a lapdog. But, he's a lapdog with a new master.

This is evident in how quickly his stance changed. Days ago, he was speaking out against net neutrality, just like his old cable company masters would have told him to do... but as soon as his new boss (the President, in this case) said "We're for net neutrality!", then magically his stance changed.

So basically, he's a spineless puppet... he just happens to be a spineless puppet with the right side pulling the strings in this case.

This is pretty much what I was going to point out. Here's how I imagine the whole deal played out:

-Wheeler - like any good little lobbyist - was all for supporting the "right" of the cable companies to bend their customers over a barrel and go to town.
-Wheeler gets appointed as FCC chair by Obama, increasing his ability to ensure that the cable companies can continue to bend their customers over a barrel and go to town.
-The public weighs in, saying it doesn't like being bent over a barrel so the cable companies can go to town.
-Obama sees 4 million responses as 4 million voters who would be very angry with democrats if the cable companies are allowed to continue bending the public over a barrel and going to town.
-Obama declares his stance: "let's not let the cable companies continue bending their customers over a barrel so they can go to town."
-Wheeler decides his loyalty to the Democrat party is more important than his loyalty to the cable companies.

And my right-wing family/friends/acquaintances wonder why I put more trust in the government than in corporations.

Granted, I don't trust the government either, but I suspect it to be the lesser of two evils.

At least the government is accountable to the voters. Who are corporations accountable to? Shareholders? Feh.

awesome! Lets hope that this ensures that none of the european countries try to do this...

Public pressure actually hitting them hard? I sure hope so.

Let's keep this net as free as we can. x.x

The lack of competition within the internet provider industry is also something that should not be forgotten. In many areas, local governments legally prevent other ISPs from providing service via obscenely high pre-deployment barriers.

http://www.wired.com/2013/07/we-need-to-stop-focusing-on-just-cable-companies-and-blame-local-government-for-dismal-broadband-competition/

I understand the sentiment in wanting to not be screwed over by ISPs (believe me, I hate them as much as you do). But I would like the option of putting my money in another provider's hands, instead of regulating the same provider and hope they don't screw me over again.

So the former president of the National Cable & Telecommunications Association (and CEO of the Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association) will be fighting against them now? Wheeler used to be one of those lobbyists, now hes fighting against the people who paid to get him in there.............I plan to be disappointed, but who knows.

Props to this guy and to everyone at the FCC. Hope you guys can make this go through.

image

about damn time! fight for the users!

really though, hopefully this isn't a front and some actual changes help. Tired of internet providers being able to bend us over with huge dildos constantly and say "tough shit".

EAT THAT, VERIZON!

's what you get for throwing a fit and crying with your lawyers

RJ 17:

WarpedLord:

Cowabungaa:

The question is now; is he really a lapdog or rather someone who was fed up with the bullshit surrounding the telecom industry and its lobbying. These kind of messages are at least signs for the latter, anyway, and that'd be pretty cool if it were true. I'm keeping my fingers crossed for my American friends in any case.

Oh... he's certainly a lapdog. But, he's a lapdog with a new master.

This is evident in how quickly his stance changed. Days ago, he was speaking out against net neutrality, just like his old cable company masters would have told him to do... but as soon as his new boss (the President, in this case) said "We're for net neutrality!", then magically his stance changed.

So basically, he's a spineless puppet... he just happens to be a spineless puppet with the right side pulling the strings in this case.

This is pretty much what I was going to point out. Here's how I imagine the whole deal played out:

-Wheeler - like any good little lobbyist - was all for supporting the "right" of the cable companies to bend their customers over a barrel and go to town.
-Wheeler gets appointed as FCC chair by Obama, increasing his ability to ensure that the cable companies can continue to bend their customers over a barrel and go to town.
-The public weighs in, saying it doesn't like being bent over a barrel so the cable companies can go to town.
-Obama sees 4 million responses as 4 million voters who would be very angry with democrats if the cable companies are allowed to continue bending the public over a barrel and going to town.
-Obama declares his stance: "let's not let the cable companies continue bending their customers over a barrel so they can go to town."
-Wheeler decides his loyalty to the Democrat party is more important than his loyalty to the cable companies.

This is the EXACT scenario I picture as well.

I'm quite certain Wheeler is well aware that he's not going to be the FCC Chairman forever.

And at this point it's quite literally the Cable Companies and their pocket politicians against just about everyone else. Regardless of how Wheeler's picturing his future there's little to no advantage in siding with the cable companies, even if he'd go back to lobbying his reputation would be in serious issues and I wouldn't count on said industry to watch out for him.

Better to side with everyone else and build up your reputation, there's no shortage of other parties spending vast amounts of money on lobbying efforts who're in support of net neutrality. Or heck, just retiring peacefully without being regarded as the guy who fucked up the internet.

Millions of comments got Wheeler to change his tune. Maybe millions of people cancelling internet for a month would get the telecom companies to change their tune as well? In this day and age if should not be that hard to get a nation wide boycott of internet services for a month to let these companies know we are not joking around. Just my opinion.

Hmm, lots of optimism, but remember talk is cheap. It's quite possible that this attempt is still one designed to screw us over, but less overtly than usual. I'm still going to wait until he's unveiled the changes, rather than celebrate too early.

OK, as someone who hasn't really been following this whole 'net neutrality' thing: Could somebody please tell what net neutrality is, and whether it's good or bad?

talker:
OK, as someone who hasn't really been following this whole 'net neutrality' thing: Could somebody please tell what net neutrality is, and whether it's good or bad?

PING!

Net Neutrality refers to the use of the internet in a manner that is not strongly controlled by the business companies that provide the browser connections and such. To wit, if the internet were a long road fromn place to place - and in a way, it is - they would normally be selling us a good horse and buggy to take us around. But...if they're able to run everything, they would be able to determine how fast your horse is allowed to go and sell that nag at any price. They could throttle not just you, but anyone, including other businesses. It would be war.

So...

OT: Yes, dance, you snivelling puppet! Dance to our tune and leave our shit alone!

looks like the whole SOPA incident made people much more aware of the importance of net neutrality, good to see definitive steps being taken in the right direction

talker:
OK, as someone who hasn't really been following this whole 'net neutrality' thing: Could somebody please tell what net neutrality is, and whether it's good or bad?

This is a really good video that explains the whole net neutrality situation quite well.

Quick version - The fast lanes the cable companies are proposing are bad for consumers, fucking GREAT for cable companies and shareholders.
Net neutrality is awesome.

[EDIT]Thanks to Lilani for pointing out my mistakes.

SpaceLaser:
The lack of competition within the internet provider industry is also something that should not be forgotten. In many areas, local governments legally prevent other ISPs from providing service via obscenely high pre-deployment barriers.

http://www.wired.com/2013/07/we-need-to-stop-focusing-on-just-cable-companies-and-blame-local-government-for-dismal-broadband-competition/

I understand the sentiment in wanting to not be screwed over by ISPs (believe me, I hate them as much as you do). But I would like the option of putting my money in another provider's hands, instead of regulating the same provider and hope they don't screw me over again.

I imagine that will be addressed at some point in the future once the Internet is even more ubiquitous and necessary for daily life. However, the very least this will do in regard to conversations about monopolies is prevent ISPs from arguing that one way to create competition among companies would be to offer fast lanes.

In other news, it's fascinating to watch the anti-Obama conservatives find ways to outright lie about this in order to argue it isn't good and that it's "Obamacare for the Internet."

WaysideMaze:
Quick version - It's bad for consumers, fucking GREAT for cable companies and shareholders.

Don't...you have that backward? I don't have time to watch an 11 minute video at the moment, net neutrality is good and helps customers. Fast lanes are the ones that would hurt customers and help cable companies.

Lilani:

WaysideMaze:
Quick version - It's bad for consumers, fucking GREAT for cable companies and shareholders.

Don't...you have that backward? I don't have time to watch an 11 minute video at the moment, net neutrality is good and helps customers. Fast lanes are the ones that would hurt customers and help cable companies.

My apologies. You are entirely right.

Put it down to new shift patterns and a lack of sleep haha. Thanks for the correction, I'll edit it now.

WaysideMaze:

Lilani:

WaysideMaze:
Quick version - It's bad for consumers, fucking GREAT for cable companies and shareholders.

Don't...you have that backward? I don't have time to watch an 11 minute video at the moment, net neutrality is good and helps customers. Fast lanes are the ones that would hurt customers and help cable companies.

My apologies. You are entirely right.

Put it down to new shift patterns and a lack of sleep haha. Thanks for the correction, I'll edit it now.

No problem, I was just having trouble piecing together what I assumed was the positive message in the video with your comment, lol.

"N" is for "no survivors"?

Am I only one who is suspicious?

WarpedLord:
So basically, he's a spineless puppet... he just happens to be a spineless puppet with the right side pulling the strings in this case.

Or maybe he's one of the few reasonable people left on earth and simply changed his opinion when confronted with a convincing argument, as opposed to being a stubborn jackass who is more concerned with saving his own pride than making actual progress.

Who knows tbh.

 

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