6 ms·

The FCC fines people for broadcast obscenity. It requires the 'v-chip' censorship technology in televisions. The FCC enforces telecom system wiretap rules (CAL

by gojomo 12y ago

The FCC fines people for broadcast obscenity. It requires the 'v-chip' censorship technology in televisions. The FCC enforces telecom system wiretap rules (CALEA). The FCC's decisions on mergers and spectrum auctions often amount to giant handouts to politically-favored corporations. Had the 'Clipper Chip' been a mandated encryption technology in the 90s, the FCC would've enforced its use. The national internet blacklists of the UK and Australia are maintained through their local equivalents of the FCC. Title II regulation was designed for the plain-old-telephone-system monopolies, where there was even less choice (one provider!) than the very worst of current local broadband markets. The internet, without any FCC rules, thrived and completely eclipsed that slow-moving regulated market. But after this 'reclassification', new federal rules will limit what ISPs can offer and charge, regardless of what paying customers prefer, under the 1930s telephone/utility model. Upstart services offering novel cross-subsidized speed/latency improvements will require federal pre-approval or risk outright prohibition. ISPs will have to keep a DC commission staffed by loyalists of the two national parties happy, or else discretionary interpretations will go against them. This is not a victory for either the internet or the "little guy".

paulhauggis 12y ago
I've been saying this since it was announced. The FCC has a 332 page plan to regulate the Internet (which the public does not have a chance to even look over before it is passed). What else is in there? Even if the current administration doesn't use the power they will now be given, whose to say it won't happen in the future? Doesn't this bother anybody? We need more transparency, especially in something as important as this.
- tzs 12y ago
  > The FCC has a 332 page plan to regulate the Internet (which the public does not have a chance to even look over before it is passed) No, the FCC does not have a 332 page plan to regulate the internet. Tom Wheeler has a plan, although it is much much shorter to 332. The 300+ pages is for a document that includes his plan, a long explanation of the reasons and the authorities for each part, and a long look at the large number of comments that were received after last years FCC plan. The FCC will have a plan if the Commissioners vote in a couple day to make adopt Wheeler's plan, at which point it will then be available for public comment so that we can all see it and comment. After that, the FCC decides to adopt it or not. > Even if the current administration doesn't use the power they will now be given, whose to say it won't happen in the future? Doesn't this bother anybody? Adopting Title II with forbearance now does not really make it significantly easier for a future FCC to use the powers that this FCC is forbearing. If this FCC does not adopt Title II, all that changes is that future FCC would have to adopt Title II.
  - paulhauggis 12y ago
    "The FCC will have a plan if the Commissioners vote in a couple day to make adopt Wheeler's plan, at which point it will then be available for public comment so that we can all see it and comment. After that, the FCC decides to adopt it or not." 300+ pages is not "much shorter" than 332. "The FCC will have a plan if the Commissioners vote in a couple day to make adopt Wheeler's plan, at which point it will then be available for public comment so that we can all see it and comment. After that, the FCC decides to adopt it or not." Which means the people don't really have a say in the matter. We can see and comment on it after the proposal is already pretty much a done deal. Would you like to be able to comment on the new president (rather than vote) after they are being sworn into office? I think not. "all that changes is that future FCC would have to adopt Title II." Once new FCC powers are in place, do you actually think we have a chance at getting rid of them? History says no. Taken from this article: http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2015/02/23/house-chairman-urges-fcc-transparency/23882079/ http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2015/02/23/house-chairman... "Also today, FCC commissioners Ajit Pai and Michael O'Rielly too asked for Wheeler to release the proposal to the public and postpone the Thursday vote to allow for 30 days of public comment." There is a reason the FCC doesn't want the public to go through the proposal..and it is most likely not good. Again, why are we trusting the same government that has been spying on us for so long. Did the Snowden leaks teach us nothing? I'm still waiting for an argument as to why more transparency, especially when it comes to something as important as regulating the Internet, is not important.
    - warfangle 12y ago
      > Which means the people don't really have a say in the matter. Remember that time when the FCC made available for public comment new rules regarding internet fast lanes? Remember when, after receiving so many comments that their database crashed, they decided that it might not be a good idea? > Once new FCC powers are in place, do you actually think we have a chance at getting rid of them? History says no. Well, considering broadband was once under the purview of Title II and now is not and now the FCC is considering it again.... how much of a grasp do you have on history? > "Also today, FCC commissioners Ajit Pai and Michael O'Rielly too asked for Wheeler to release the proposal to the public and postpone the Thursday vote to allow for 30 days of public comment." Well, good for them. Unfortunately, that's not how commissions work. The commission votes to release a proposal for comment. If that vote passes, it's released for comment. They then vote on whether to enact it based on comment, or revise the proposal and then vote again on whether or not to release it for public comment. FCC rule proposals are not enacted without a public comment period.
nemo 12y ago
The FCC has made its share of mistakes, but that doesn't necessarily mean this will be one. "Title II regulation was designed for the plain-old-telephone-system monopolies, where there was even less choice (one provider!) than the very worst of current local broadband markets." My mom has one ISP to choose from (and dismal service.) More than half the population of the US have access to a single broadband provider. "The internet, without any FCC rules, thrived and completely eclipsed that slow-moving regulated market." When behemoth broadband providers began openly plotting to predatorily damage some of the things that had helped provide for the internet's success, it was clear to most that some kind of regulations were needed. "new federal rules will limit what ISPs can offer and charge, regardless of what paying customers prefer." I have yet to hear from a single paying customer that actually wanted what the ISPs were plotting. "Upstart services offering novel cross-subsidized speed/latency improvements will require federal pre-approval or risk outright prohibition." Yeah, they would need approval if they wanted to offer that particular service, though I am not sure how to find that disappointing. "This is not a victory for either the internet or the "little guy"." Perhaps, why not see what actually happens before making broad speculative declarations, though?
- brandonmenc 12y ago
  > My mom has one ISP to choose from (and dismal service.) Net Neutrality changes this how?
  - zachwood 12y ago
    Net Neutrality isn't supposed to change this, it's to help ensure she's not being taken advantage of due to her lack of choices.
    - protomyth 12y ago
      Can you give a technical definition of what you believe Net Neutrality is?
  - netheril96 12y ago
    Net neutrality does not change the monopoly of ISPs. Net neutrality is necessitated by the monopoly. Where the market forces have failed, only regulation can protect the consumers.
lutorm 12y ago
where there was even less choice (one provider!) than the very worst of current local broadband markets. I have exactly one choice of wired "broadband" provider: TWC. I'm not sure you know what you're talking about.
- gojomo 12y ago
  There are no DSL providers where you are? That's very rare. Unfortunately, FCC net neutrality regulations do nothing to encourage new competitive entry. By homogenizing service offerings – closing off forms of billing/revenue that might finance new entrants, and increasing compliance costs/risks – it could make things worse. Also, you've qualified things as "wired", implying you do have wireless options, which keep improving. The Title II POTS regulation was designed for a world with truly just one phone provider per address. You've got at the very least 1 wired plus 1 or more wireless.
  - whyaduck 12y ago
    DSL may be widely available, but it often can't be considered broadband. At my home (in a large-ish suburb) the fastest DSL connection I can get is 5 Mbps.
    - gojomo 12y ago
      5Mbps was "broadband" (>3Mbps) until the FCC made an arbitrary goalpost-moving redefinition a few weeks ago. 5Mbps is more than enough for live HD videoconferencing and 720p HD TV/movie downloads (Netflix/ITunes/Amazon) faster-than-realtime. Yeah, I like it when multi-GB software or datasets download in a few minutes... but I'm in the bandwidth-huffing 1%. If almost everyone has competitive options for everything they regularly use, but a few of the heaviest users have to buy from a single best provider in their area, that doesn't sound like a national "rescue the net!" emergency to me. Just a temporary inconvenience for early adopters.
      - warfangle 12y ago
        5Mbps advertised, or 5Mbps actual? There's that unfortunate clause, "speeds up to." Netflix recommends an internet speed of at least 5.0Mbps for HD quality streaming. Which means your 'up to 5.0mbps' connection, depending on network congestion and oversell, will probably end up being SD or lower. Videoconferencing at 640x480, 30fps, uses ~512kbps. for 1080p video conferencing with two participants, you need 2-8Mbps connection on both ends. For 720p, you need 2-6Mbps on both ends. Hugo is 3.99GB in 720p on iTunes. If a 5Mbps connection can be sustained for the entire length of file transmission, you could download it in about 108 minutes. The film is 126 minutes long. That's technically faster-than-realtime, but good luck getting an "up to 5Mbps" connection to sustain 5Mbps for two hours. You could start the download, take the dog for a walk and make a bowl of popcorn and then hope your connection speed doesn't drop thirty minutes in.
dragonwriter 12y ago
> Title II regulation was designed for the plain-old-telephone-system monopolies, where there was even less choice (one provider!) than the very worst of current local broadband markets. The internet, without any FCC rules, thrived and completely eclipsed that slow-moving regulated market. Various FCC rules applied to the internet during the time it began to thrive as a public service (including much of what passed for "broadband" in the early days being subject to Title II regulations.) > But after this 'reclassification', new federal rules will limit what ISPs can offer and charge, regardless of what paying customers prefer, under the 1930s telephone/utility model. Except to the extent that they won't, due to the application of forbearance. From the outlines that have been released, most of the "1930s telephone/utility model" won't apply, but of course the details won't be certain until after an actual order is adopted by the FCC, and the details could change from what was covered b the released outlines. > ISPs will have to keep a DC commission staffed by loyalists of the two national parties happy, or else discretionary interpretations will go against them. Insofar as the FCC has legal authority to regulate, that's already true whether or not the FCC adopts the particular regulations under discussion now. And, of course, in the same way, its equally true that ISPs also have to keep the Congress -- likewise made up of loyalists of the two national parties -- happy, or else legislation will go against them. (And, guess what, the courts, too -- after all, its hardly as if federal judges aren't also generally appointed from the pool of party loyalists.) All of this independently of whatever regulations the FCC chooses to adopt this week.
tzs 12y ago
> The FCC fines people for broadcast obscenity. So? Congress mandated these fines. One of the FCC's jobs is to enforce them. That has no relevance to the net neutrality regulation discussion > It requires the 'v-chip' censorship technology in televisions. So? Congress specifically said that the FCC had to require that TV's be equipped with a feature to allow viewers to block programs by rating. Completely irrelevant to the net neutrality regulation discussion.

by gojomo 12y ago

paulhauggis 12y ago

I've been saying this since it was announced. The FCC has a 332 page plan to regulate the Internet (which the public does not have a chance to even look over before it is passed). What else is in there? Even if the current administration doesn't use the power they will now be given, whose to say it won't happen in the future? Doesn't this bother anybody? We need more transparency, especially in something as important as this.

tzs 12y ago
> The FCC has a 332 page plan to regulate the Internet (which the public does not have a chance to even look over before it is passed) No, the FCC does not have a 332 page plan to regulate the internet. Tom Wheeler has a plan, although it is much much shorter to 332. The 300+ pages is for a document that includes his plan, a long explanation of the reasons and the authorities for each part, and a long look at the large number of comments that were received after last years FCC plan. The FCC will have a plan if the Commissioners vote in a couple day to make adopt Wheeler's plan, at which point it will then be available for public comment so that we can all see it and comment. After that, the FCC decides to adopt it or not. > Even if the current administration doesn't use the power they will now be given, whose to say it won't happen in the future? Doesn't this bother anybody? Adopting Title II with forbearance now does not really make it significantly easier for a future FCC to use the powers that this FCC is forbearing. If this FCC does not adopt Title II, all that changes is that future FCC would have to adopt Title II.
- paulhauggis 12y ago
  "The FCC will have a plan if the Commissioners vote in a couple day to make adopt Wheeler's plan, at which point it will then be available for public comment so that we can all see it and comment. After that, the FCC decides to adopt it or not." 300+ pages is not "much shorter" than 332. "The FCC will have a plan if the Commissioners vote in a couple day to make adopt Wheeler's plan, at which point it will then be available for public comment so that we can all see it and comment. After that, the FCC decides to adopt it or not." Which means the people don't really have a say in the matter. We can see and comment on it after the proposal is already pretty much a done deal. Would you like to be able to comment on the new president (rather than vote) after they are being sworn into office? I think not. "all that changes is that future FCC would have to adopt Title II." Once new FCC powers are in place, do you actually think we have a chance at getting rid of them? History says no. Taken from this article: http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2015/02/23/house-chairman-urges-fcc-transparency/23882079/ http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2015/02/23/house-chairman... "Also today, FCC commissioners Ajit Pai and Michael O'Rielly too asked for Wheeler to release the proposal to the public and postpone the Thursday vote to allow for 30 days of public comment." There is a reason the FCC doesn't want the public to go through the proposal..and it is most likely not good. Again, why are we trusting the same government that has been spying on us for so long. Did the Snowden leaks teach us nothing? I'm still waiting for an argument as to why more transparency, especially when it comes to something as important as regulating the Internet, is not important.
  - warfangle 12y ago
    > Which means the people don't really have a say in the matter. Remember that time when the FCC made available for public comment new rules regarding internet fast lanes? Remember when, after receiving so many comments that their database crashed, they decided that it might not be a good idea? > Once new FCC powers are in place, do you actually think we have a chance at getting rid of them? History says no. Well, considering broadband was once under the purview of Title II and now is not and now the FCC is considering it again.... how much of a grasp do you have on history? > "Also today, FCC commissioners Ajit Pai and Michael O'Rielly too asked for Wheeler to release the proposal to the public and postpone the Thursday vote to allow for 30 days of public comment." Well, good for them. Unfortunately, that's not how commissions work. The commission votes to release a proposal for comment. If that vote passes, it's released for comment. They then vote on whether to enact it based on comment, or revise the proposal and then vote again on whether or not to release it for public comment. FCC rule proposals are not enacted without a public comment period.

nemo 12y ago

The FCC has made its share of mistakes, but that doesn't necessarily mean this will be one. "Title II regulation was designed for the plain-old-telephone-system monopolies, where there was even less choice (one provider!) than the very worst of current local broadband markets." My mom has one ISP to choose from (and dismal service.) More than half the population of the US have access to a single broadband provider. "The internet, without any FCC rules, thrived and completely eclipsed that slow-moving regulated market." When behemoth broadband providers began openly plotting to predatorily damage some of the things that had helped provide for the internet's success, it was clear to most that some kind of regulations were needed. "new federal rules will limit what ISPs can offer and charge, regardless of what paying customers prefer." I have yet to hear from a single paying customer that actually wanted what the ISPs were plotting. "Upstart services offering novel cross-subsidized speed/latency improvements will require federal pre-approval or risk outright prohibition." Yeah, they would need approval if they wanted to offer that particular service, though I am not sure how to find that disappointing. "This is not a victory for either the internet or the "little guy"." Perhaps, why not see what actually happens before making broad speculative declarations, though?

brandonmenc 12y ago
> My mom has one ISP to choose from (and dismal service.) Net Neutrality changes this how?
- zachwood 12y ago
  Net Neutrality isn't supposed to change this, it's to help ensure she's not being taken advantage of due to her lack of choices.
  - protomyth 12y ago
    Can you give a technical definition of what you believe Net Neutrality is?
- netheril96 12y ago
  Net neutrality does not change the monopoly of ISPs. Net neutrality is necessitated by the monopoly. Where the market forces have failed, only regulation can protect the consumers.

lutorm 12y ago

where there was even less choice (one provider!) than the very worst of current local broadband markets. I have exactly one choice of wired "broadband" provider: TWC. I'm not sure you know what you're talking about.

gojomo 12y ago
There are no DSL providers where you are? That's very rare. Unfortunately, FCC net neutrality regulations do nothing to encourage new competitive entry. By homogenizing service offerings – closing off forms of billing/revenue that might finance new entrants, and increasing compliance costs/risks – it could make things worse. Also, you've qualified things as "wired", implying you do have wireless options, which keep improving. The Title II POTS regulation was designed for a world with truly just one phone provider per address. You've got at the very least 1 wired plus 1 or more wireless.
- whyaduck 12y ago
  DSL may be widely available, but it often can't be considered broadband. At my home (in a large-ish suburb) the fastest DSL connection I can get is 5 Mbps.
  - gojomo 12y ago
    5Mbps was "broadband" (>3Mbps) until the FCC made an arbitrary goalpost-moving redefinition a few weeks ago. 5Mbps is more than enough for live HD videoconferencing and 720p HD TV/movie downloads (Netflix/ITunes/Amazon) faster-than-realtime. Yeah, I like it when multi-GB software or datasets download in a few minutes... but I'm in the bandwidth-huffing 1%. If almost everyone has competitive options for everything they regularly use, but a few of the heaviest users have to buy from a single best provider in their area, that doesn't sound like a national "rescue the net!" emergency to me. Just a temporary inconvenience for early adopters.
    - warfangle 12y ago
      5Mbps advertised, or 5Mbps actual? There's that unfortunate clause, "speeds up to." Netflix recommends an internet speed of at least 5.0Mbps for HD quality streaming. Which means your 'up to 5.0mbps' connection, depending on network congestion and oversell, will probably end up being SD or lower. Videoconferencing at 640x480, 30fps, uses ~512kbps. for 1080p video conferencing with two participants, you need 2-8Mbps connection on both ends. For 720p, you need 2-6Mbps on both ends. Hugo is 3.99GB in 720p on iTunes. If a 5Mbps connection can be sustained for the entire length of file transmission, you could download it in about 108 minutes. The film is 126 minutes long. That's technically faster-than-realtime, but good luck getting an "up to 5Mbps" connection to sustain 5Mbps for two hours. You could start the download, take the dog for a walk and make a bowl of popcorn and then hope your connection speed doesn't drop thirty minutes in.

dragonwriter 12y ago

> Title II regulation was designed for the plain-old-telephone-system monopolies, where there was even less choice (one provider!) than the very worst of current local broadband markets. The internet, without any FCC rules, thrived and completely eclipsed that slow-moving regulated market. Various FCC rules applied to the internet during the time it began to thrive as a public service (including much of what passed for "broadband" in the early days being subject to Title II regulations.) > But after this 'reclassification', new federal rules will limit what ISPs can offer and charge, regardless of what paying customers prefer, under the 1930s telephone/utility model. Except to the extent that they won't, due to the application of forbearance. From the outlines that have been released, most of the "1930s telephone/utility model" won't apply, but of course the details won't be certain until after an actual order is adopted by the FCC, and the details could change from what was covered b the released outlines. > ISPs will have to keep a DC commission staffed by loyalists of the two national parties happy, or else discretionary interpretations will go against them. Insofar as the FCC has legal authority to regulate, that's already true whether or not the FCC adopts the particular regulations under discussion now. And, of course, in the same way, its equally true that ISPs also have to keep the Congress -- likewise made up of loyalists of the two national parties -- happy, or else legislation will go against them. (And, guess what, the courts, too -- after all, its hardly as if federal judges aren't also generally appointed from the pool of party loyalists.) All of this independently of whatever regulations the FCC chooses to adopt this week.

tzs 12y ago

> The FCC fines people for broadcast obscenity. So? Congress mandated these fines. One of the FCC's jobs is to enforce them. That has no relevance to the net neutrality regulation discussion > It requires the 'v-chip' censorship technology in televisions. So? Congress specifically said that the FCC had to require that TV's be equipped with a feature to allow viewers to block programs by rating. Completely irrelevant to the net neutrality regulation discussion.