4 ms·

The FTC is taking over and will uphold net neutrality, the FCC is giving it to the FTC who can run it better for consumer protections. The rules for the last

The FTC is taking over and will uphold net neutrality, the FCC is giving it to the FTC who can run it better for consumer protections. The rules for the last 2 years and the 300+ page document will go away under the FCC, but that doesnt mean the FTC will not do anything. This will change the classification from title-2 regulation to title-1 regulation, and enforce privacy protections and access/censorship restrictions. The end of the world it is not, and the hyperbole is at an alltime absurd level. As for access, 5 years, LTE 5, Viasat3/4 will provide coverage around the world. FCC guidelines for internet access at the pole will go into communities to allow the breaking up of limited choice ISP for some communities. Google fiber and Facebook internet already helped promote the change.

sorrymate 9y ago
Reclassification from title-2 to title-1 is the only thing preventing ISP providers from ending Net Neutrality. I disagree with your statement. This change would have serious consequences.
bluetwo 9y ago
My belief is that the hyperbole is far too little, far too late. This will be as bad as people say, and the only thing that looks like it might save us is the courts.
mtgx 9y ago
Wrong. They say the FTC will be responsible for enforcing consumer protections, but then they went right ahead and eliminated most of them, while giving some BS reasons for doing so: > "We eliminate the formal complaint procedures because the informal complaint procedure, in conjunction with other redress options including consumer protection laws, will sufficiently protect consumers. > Additionally, we eliminate the position of Open Internet Ombudsperson because the staff from the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau—other than the Ombudsperson—have been performing the Ombudsperson functions envisioned by the Title II Order. > We also eliminate the issuance of enforcement advisory opinions, because enforcement advisory opinions do not diminish regulatory uncertainty, particularly for small providers. Instead, they add costs and uncertain timelines since there is no specific timeframe within which to act, which can also inhibit innovation." Also, I don't think any other "consumer protection" ever upheld the idea that ISPs shouldn't be nickle and diming consumers by splitting the internet into service packages, like what's happening in Portugal. The net neutrality rules were those consumer protections, and the ones the ISPs wanted most to eliminate. Oh, and as a bonus, they also eliminated the rules that said there shouldn't be any interconnection fees - like the stuff that got Verizon and Comcast to drastically slow-down Netflix and YouTube the last time around (before net neutrality passed), until the two companies had to pay up. > "We believe that applying Title II to Internet traffic exchange arrangements was unnecessary and is likely to inhibit competition and innovation. We find that freeing Internet traffic exchange arrangements from burdensome government regulation, and allowing market forces to discipline this emerging market is the better course. Indeed, the cost of Internet transit fell over 99 percent on a cost-per-megabit basis from 2005 to 2015. Google and Netflix didn't fight the net neutrality repeal this time around because they thought they were safe. I think they will regret not fighting the repeal very soon.
- aerotwelve 9y ago
  Brilliantly put. Just to add one more point: many of us are now bound by forced arbitration agreements with our ISPs. That more or less eliminates the courts as an option for class or individual action. It's convenient that Pai glossed over this little fact. That means we're stuck with the FTC, and only the FTC. And if they don't do anything for you, that's too bad. This will be devastating, mark my words.
anigbrowl 9y ago
OK Dr. Pangloss
dragonwriter 9y ago
> The FTC is taking over No, they aren't. Unless the FTC v. AT&T 9th Circuit decision gets reversed, they can't do anything in this area, unless the FCC also reverses the Title II classification of telephone service, since that decision blocks much FTC action involving firms that are common carriers, even when the action concerns non-common-carrier operations of the firm. And many ISPs are telcos that would be protected from FTC regulation by that ruling.

sorrymate 9y ago

Reclassification from title-2 to title-1 is the only thing preventing ISP providers from ending Net Neutrality. I disagree with your statement. This change would have serious consequences.

bluetwo 9y ago

My belief is that the hyperbole is far too little, far too late. This will be as bad as people say, and the only thing that looks like it might save us is the courts.

mtgx 9y ago

Wrong. They say the FTC will be responsible for enforcing consumer protections, but then they went right ahead and eliminated most of them, while giving some BS reasons for doing so: > "We eliminate the formal complaint procedures because the informal complaint procedure, in conjunction with other redress options including consumer protection laws, will sufficiently protect consumers. > Additionally, we eliminate the position of Open Internet Ombudsperson because the staff from the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau—other than the Ombudsperson—have been performing the Ombudsperson functions envisioned by the Title II Order. > We also eliminate the issuance of enforcement advisory opinions, because enforcement advisory opinions do not diminish regulatory uncertainty, particularly for small providers. Instead, they add costs and uncertain timelines since there is no specific timeframe within which to act, which can also inhibit innovation." Also, I don't think any other "consumer protection" ever upheld the idea that ISPs shouldn't be nickle and diming consumers by splitting the internet into service packages, like what's happening in Portugal. The net neutrality rules were those consumer protections, and the ones the ISPs wanted most to eliminate. Oh, and as a bonus, they also eliminated the rules that said there shouldn't be any interconnection fees - like the stuff that got Verizon and Comcast to drastically slow-down Netflix and YouTube the last time around (before net neutrality passed), until the two companies had to pay up. > "We believe that applying Title II to Internet traffic exchange arrangements was unnecessary and is likely to inhibit competition and innovation. We find that freeing Internet traffic exchange arrangements from burdensome government regulation, and allowing market forces to discipline this emerging market is the better course. Indeed, the cost of Internet transit fell over 99 percent on a cost-per-megabit basis from 2005 to 2015. Google and Netflix didn't fight the net neutrality repeal this time around because they thought they were safe. I think they will regret not fighting the repeal very soon.

aerotwelve 9y ago
Brilliantly put. Just to add one more point: many of us are now bound by forced arbitration agreements with our ISPs. That more or less eliminates the courts as an option for class or individual action. It's convenient that Pai glossed over this little fact. That means we're stuck with the FTC, and only the FTC. And if they don't do anything for you, that's too bad. This will be devastating, mark my words.

anigbrowl 9y ago

OK Dr. Pangloss

dragonwriter 9y ago

> The FTC is taking over No, they aren't. Unless the FTC v. AT&T 9th Circuit decision gets reversed, they can't do anything in this area, unless the FCC also reverses the Title II classification of telephone service, since that decision blocks much FTC action involving firms that are common carriers, even when the action concerns non-common-carrier operations of the firm. And many ISPs are telcos that would be protected from FTC regulation by that ruling.