Four major trade associations representing broadband providers today asked for an immediate halt to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) decision to reclassify the providers as common carriers under Title II of the Communications Act.
From the Ars Technica article:
The Federal Communications Commission today voted to enforce net neutrality rules that prevent Internet providers—including cellular carriers—from blocking or throttling traffic or giving priority to Web services in exchange for payment. The most controversial part of the FCC's decision reclassifies fixed and mobile broadband as a telecommunications service, with providers to be regulated as common carriers under Title II of the Communications Act. This decision brings Internet service under the same type of regulatory regime faced by wireline telephone service and mobile voice, though the FCC is forbearing from stricter utility-style rules that it could also apply under Title II.
However, things aren't cut and dry. One petition for a stay came from two cable groups, the National Cable & Telecommunications Association (NCTA) and the American Cable Association (ACA). Another petition came from the CTIA Wireless Association on behalf of mobile carriers and USTelecom on behalf of telcos including AT&T and Verizon. AT&T and CenturyLink also signed on to the CTIA/USTelecom petition.
From the NCTA.com article:
NCTA President & CEO Michael Powell said, “While we continue to strongly support enforceable open Internet protections, we are deeply concerned that Title II regulation will immediately harm the industry and consumers, and retard efforts to deploy next generation networks throughout the country. We further believe that the FCC’s decision to shift from a national policy of light Internet regulation established by Congress to heavier regulation risks undercutting the dynamic innovation, entrepreneurial activity and consumer freedom that has been the hallmark of the Internet’s success
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Gravis on Monday May 04 2015, @05:52AM
the only thing they are afraid of is losing out on an extortion racket. they are trying to muddy the waters when it's very plain and very simple, let traffic flow at the same speed regardless if it connects to google, netflix or joe shmoe's server.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @05:53AM
creating two independent internets? One is open and relatively unregulated, the other is locked up and controlled by the major corporations. The latter can have any restriction or crap-for-pay service that these guys want. Then let the consumer decide which one they want.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by tangomargarine on Monday May 04 2015, @06:13AM
That's what they were already trying, more or less. The "regulated one" (the "fast lane") would get priority regardless of whether it was legal to do so.
My bet would be they'd pull a Windows 8 and decide,* a couple years later, that people didn't like the unregulated one as much (because nobody likes slow speeds) and then use that to justify jettisoning it, and we're left with only the regulated one.
*commission somebody to perform a study that concludes
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @08:32AM
If they can jettison it, then it wasn't independent. I'm not suggesting one ISP offer two solutions, I'm advocating two independent systems administered by two independent groups. The big ISPs that want this kludge of spend-as-you-go internet can build the whole thing from scratch while the open internet is the one we have now and is wrested away from those jerks.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @02:34PM
> I'm advocating two independent systems administered by two independent groups.
If the cost of a cable plant for an ISP was not such a huge barrier to entry, that would be a mighty fine idea.
But the physical constraints of the laws of physics being what they are, we have to deal with the reality of natural monopolies.
(Score: 1) by redneckmother on Monday May 04 2015, @08:38PM
Excellent! They can do it without the Title II protections and monies that enabled the existing backbone.
Mas cerveza por favor.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by davester666 on Monday May 04 2015, @06:44AM
You have it backwards. the "open" one is regulated by the FCC so they can't screw around as much, while the unregulated one is the one controlled by the ISPs.
Of course, the unregulated one, in the short term at least, will be much much better, because they will have peering and fast lanes so it goes really fast, while the regulated one will have very limited interconnects to other ISPs, no local peering, and will be much much slower. After a few years, the ISPs will claim "see, unregulated is better" and go for not supporting the 'regulated' internet.
And then you'll really get the pole up your ass.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Monday May 04 2015, @03:55PM
No. I don't feel like letting the shitty one lay cable across my property.
(Score: 4, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @06:07AM
Price-gouging oligopoly is dead set against margin-reducing regulation. News at 11.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @07:04AM
(Score: 5, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Monday May 04 2015, @07:19AM
Fuck the ISP's, the carriers, the corporations big and small. Collectively, they have taken billions upon billions of dollars from government, for the express purpose of reaching that "last mile". Every damned one of them has used the money to better position themselves in the cities, in highly competitive markets. There are millions of Americans who still don't have broadband. By the time I get 5 meg connectivity, the standard will be 100 meg or greater. People who live in more remote areas than I do are still relying on 56k dial up.
Fuck 'em all. We all need to start writing our representatives, and force them to get the industry under control.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @12:25PM
We all need to start writing...
We... We???!!!
*YOU* need to start writing. After all, this is the US of mighty fuckin' A where we all care only about what is in our own wallet... Fuck you and your wallet.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by PartTimeZombie on Tuesday May 05 2015, @12:50AM
How many millions have you contributed to his or her re-election campaign?
These ISP's and cable companies spend millions making sure the right legislation is passed, and you're going to write a letter?
Good luck with that.
Of course if happen to be a politically connected millionaire, then ignore the above.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Whoever on Monday May 04 2015, @09:16AM
No. That's completely false. If the industry had not fought the earlier net neutrality regulations, the FCC would not be going down the Title II route now.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @12:12PM
the ISP run movie/radio/tv streaming should not be delivered to your house on a VLAN!
What I don't understand is that though it is easy to hamper-exclude a "garage" run netflix who has no real own network infrastructure, it seems waayyy more profitable if the big have-own-network-infrastructure ISPs run the media-producing part of their company as a subsidiary and then cater to the WHOLE DAMN WORLD WIDE internet?
too much competition? maybe.
then again the big media producing -aka- brain-wash factories -aka- day time tv are also putting logs in the way of this.
internet global ... why i cannot watch TV from ANYWHERE ... easily? maybe that would make the head of chief propaganda ministers of each country x-plode?
(Score: 2) by cafebabe on Monday May 04 2015, @02:12PM
That only works if your content is above average in the long term. If "above average" is defined in terms of revenue then this it is easy to see that having a captive audience most likely leads to revenue.
1702845791×2
(Score: 4, Informative) by Geezer on Monday May 04 2015, @03:06PM
Whenever you can get the whole American broadband industry to squeal and blow smoke like a fire at a hog farm, you know you're doing something right.
While I'm generally opposed to intrusive government, I do recognize the need for reasonable regulation of markets and this is a case in point.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by CyprusBlue on Monday May 04 2015, @07:48PM
The best possible review of the new regulation framework that could have occurred is that it infuriates Michael Powell, the guy that caused this awful mess in the first place.
Kudos!
(Score: 1) by TestablePredictions on Tuesday May 05 2015, @09:47PM
Will Title II give the broadband providers legal indemnification against what bits get transferred on their "pipes"? Will it effect the legal requirements for warrants, wiretaps, and data retention policies? (An academic question, I know.)
If yes, then I believe we can settle down the outcry in very short order.