# Net Neutrality has just passed. Internet is now a utility.



## MannDude (Feb 26, 2015)

Well, that's something: http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/02/fcc-votes-for-net-neutrality-a-ban-on-paid-fast-lanes-and-title-ii/

What do you guys think?

Am I really the only one who feels like internet shouldn't be labeled as a utility and that it's merely a product we should be lucky to be able to use? Now that it's classified as such they can use things such as polls carrying gear/wire for other utilities to bring the internet to places that may not already have it easier, which on paper sounds great, but seems like the push doesn't address the ISP monopolies and just gives them cheaper access to bring internet to more places, likely without them reducing their end-user cost... but maximizing their profits. Hurray. Article states that ATT, Verizon, Comcast were pretty heavily against it though. I'll be honest when I say I've not kept up with the news/discussion regarding this very much so perhaps someone can enlighten me.



> This decision brings Internet service under the same type of regulatory regime faced by wireline telephone service and mobile voice


Good or bad? You tell me...

Chairman Tom Wheeler said that broadband providers have the technical ability and financial incentive to impose restrictions on the Internet. Wheeler said further:



> The Internet is the most powerful and pervasive platform on the planet. It is simply too important to be left without rules and without a referee on the field. Think about it. The Internet has replaced the functions of the telephone and the post office. The Internet has redefined commerce, and as the outpouring from four million Americans has demonstrated, the Internet is the ultimate vehicle for free expression. The Internet is simply too important to allow broadband providers to be the ones making the rules.
> 
> This proposal has been described by one opponent as "a secret plan to regulate the Internet." Nonsense. This is no more a plan to regulate the Internet than the First Amendment is a plan to regulate free speech. They both stand for the same concepts: openness, expression, and an absence of gate keepers telling people what they can do, where they can go, and what they can think.



So tell me vpsBoard, what do you think?


----------



## GIANT_CRAB (Feb 26, 2015)

Woke up this morning and saw this on Twitter too. The actual order is over 300 pages long, and it’s not widely available yet.

Here's something extracted from Ron Paul: 



Spoiler



Today the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), a non-elected federal government agency, voted three-to-two to reclassify broadband Internet as a common carrier service under Title II of the Communications Act. This means that – without the vote of Congress, the peoples’ branch of government – a federal agency now claims the power to regulate the Internet. I am surprised that even among civil liberties groups some claim the federal government increasing regulation of the Internet somehow increases our freedom and liberty.


The truth is very different. The adoption of these FCC rules on the Internet represents the largest regulatory power grab in recent history. The FCC’s newly adopted rule takes the most dynamic means of communication and imposes the regulatory structure designed for public utilities. Federal regulation could also open the door to de facto censorship of ideas perceived as threatening to the political class – ideas like the troops should be brought home, the PATRIOT Act should be repealed, military spending and corporate welfare should be cut, and the Federal Reserve should be audited and ended.

The one bright spot in this otherwise disastrous move is that federal regulations making it more difficult to use the Internet will cause more Americans to join our movement for liberty, peace, and prosperity. The federal government should keep its hands off of the Internet!

And I have to say, I very much agree to his views on Net Neutrality and FCC. Other than Net Neutrality, you guys might also want to take a look at Fast Track TPP.


----------



## ihatetonyy (Feb 26, 2015)

MannDude said:


> the ISP monopolies and just gives them cheaper access to bring internet to more places, likely without them reducing their end-user cost... but maximizing their profits. Hurray.


To speak nothing of the rest, the Big Two simply have no interest in the upkeep of their legacy copper networks, let alone expansion.. and little incentive to roll out fiber when the money is being poured into -- and made from -- their wireless divisions. Only CableCos have been pouring any money into upgrades.. turning areas where you have a choice between 3Mbps DSL and 50Mbps cable into a _real _monopoly.

For example, VZ has been slowly yet surely selling off their wireline territories -- they just sold off their customers in FL, CA and TX to Frontier, sold off AZ/ID/IL/IN/MI/NV/NC/OH/OR/SC/WA/WV/WI to Frontier in '09, and New England to FairPoint in '07. Back in '12, AT&T wanted to sell off many markets but couldn't find a buyer for them. They did manage to peddle Conneticut to Frontier in '13.

While AT&T hasn't been selling off its wireline networks at such an alarming rate, they have been trying to be released of their obligation to keep up a POTS network at all. Santa Cruz residents have been waiting a month for repairs. Verizon, after Sandy, tried to throw a cell-based service at residents whose phone service was destroyed by the storm.

Alongside the neutrality decision, the FCC also greenlit efforts for two muni-band companies to expand even though their pols had passed some incredibly ILEC/cable-co friendly legislation preventing them from doing so. This decision, more than the neutrality one, could ensure real competition, especially in states where such restrictive laws have been passed.


----------



## Kalam (Feb 26, 2015)

Pretty simple, if big business and their GOP pets are against it, it must be good.


----------



## drmike (Feb 27, 2015)

I heard the FCC chairman prior to the vote on radio saying this was horrible.  Way the FCC works is such voting matters are not made public until after the votes are counted.  Public has no right to see such.  That to me is horrendous and utter lack of transparency.

The FCC needs to generally be eliminated.  They've proven historically to be inept, destructive and pro-mega business.

The upside of this vote maybe is that as a utility they should be held to performance standards.  That bullshit Time Warner is known for with mass oversubscribe and no throughput should end up addressed and fines dished out.  Similarly, the crap with Verizon and other incumbent telcos with regional monopolies means that BILLIONS siphoned from rate payers with addon taxes for infrastructure might actually have future force to make them upgrade.  It's a damn disgrace all over the place with bandwidth options and throughput - basically are none - buy the incumbent crap and get beat or revert to regulated private line stuff like T1.

The downsized at face to this, is subjecting people to slew of new regulations, more spy layers, more taxes on services. 

I think the whole matter should be a local and state one.  The FCC shouldn't really exist and state equivalent entities should to regulate that under their limited control.  All the federal leadership does usually is makes all 50 States fairly sucky.  

I am hoping all this talk and related leads to some independent ISP options coming to market and more regional municipal fiber plays.


----------



## tonyg (Feb 28, 2015)

I can't see how this would be a bad thing for consumers. The right decision was made.


----------



## k0nsl (Feb 28, 2015)

I saw similar suggestions already in the pipeline fifteen years ago...now it's becoming more and more a reality. Disturbing.


----------



## souen (Feb 28, 2015)

I guess it could be a good thing depending on implementation, I'd wait to see how it pans out in the details.

Only problem with the utility metaphor, ISPs and policy makers might try to compare it to water or other utilities and regulate it like one, e.g. funny things like impose bandwidth caps based on the old "heavy users should be charged more" rationale (set bandwidth rather than speed-based unmetered, milk customers with overage fees). Maybe it won't happen in the US, but the Canadian counterparts have been pushing this song for several years, with the smaller ISPs trying to fight the regulatory model.


----------



## EludedHost - Jason (Mar 2, 2015)

"FCC to regulate rates, set terms and conditions of business relationships, and dramatically increase the cost of network deployment. It also gives state and federal governments new opportunities to impose taxes and fees on consumer bills."

Personally I think this is a bad idea! The government hasn't really shown them selves as a trust worthy group for protecting our privacy and freedom. "Should we believe that under Net Neutrality the government will trust the telecoms to police themselves? The government will need to verify, at a technical level, whether the telecoms are treating data as they should. Don’t be surprised if that means the government says it needs to be able to install its own hardware and software at critical points to monitor Internet traffic. Once installed, can we trust this government, or _any_government, to use that access in a benign manner?"


----------

