Obama Urges FCC to Re-Classify Internet

[avandelay]

The biggest problem with "net neutrality" is that its an amorphous term that doesn't mean the same thing every time its invoked. Its like saying "gun safety" ... to us "gun safety" is the 4 rules, to a progressive "gun safety" is absolute gun control.

I don't trust Democrats and especially not Obama and his fellow travelers. He uses the term "net neutrality" because it sounds nice, and certain definitions of it are a good thing. But the reality is he doesn't believe in liberty or an open anything so I guarantee you whatever "net neutrality" scheme he's putting forward will be designed to give government more power over speech and more ability to tax.

I feel that the Net Neutrality term is being used as a sweetner to distract the people while the net is moved under gov't control and the FCC taxes the hell out of it to get the $8bn in new taxes to pay for 'free' WiFi.

[HoneyBadger]

From http://wearelibertarians.com/net-neu...new-dark-ages/

Please poke holes in this. I don't want to believe that this is 100% accurate.



Monday, President Obama urged the Federal Communications Commission to adopt tighter regulations on broadband service providers with the hope of maintaining “a free and open Internet.” He called on the Federal Communications Commission to commence treating all Internet traffic equally, this is known as Net Neutrality.
He is asking the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to reclassify internet service providers (ISPs) from “information services” under Title I as telecommunications providers under Title II regulatory guidelines.
That means treating broadband services like utilities, the president said, so that Internet service providers would be unable “to restrict the best access or to pick winners and losers in the online marketplace for services and ideas.”
In January 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the DC circuit sided with Verizon and overturned the FCC’s Open Internet rules. But it was not a total loss for the FCC. The court upheld that the FCC has authority to regulate Internet openness. The court just did not like the legal grounds the agency based its rules on. Shocking I know, the government while ruling for the plaintiff, showed the government agency the proper way of claiming such authority.
However, one must admit that on its face, it seems like a reasonable request.

One that puts the American consumer before the corporations that provide the infrastructure of the web. One of my rules of thumb, in assessing regulation and legislation, is the reaction of the affected companies. ATT, Verizon, and Comcast all had their spokespeople release a response to the President’s announcement:
“Reclassification under Title II, which for the first time would apply 1930s-era utility regulation to the Internet, would be a radical reversal of course that would in and of itself threaten great harm to an open Internet, competition and innovation”-Verizon official statement
“Today’s announcement by the White House, if acted upon by the FCC, would be a mistake that will do tremendous harm to the Internet and to U.S. national interests”-Jim Cicconi, AT&T senior executive vice president for external and legislative affairs
“To attempt to impose a full-blown Title II regime now, when the classification of cable broadband has always been as an information service, would reverse nearly a decade of precedent, including findings by the Supreme Court that this classification was proper”-David Cohen, executive vice president at Comcast
As you can see, the reaction by the broadband providers was NOT a positive one, with Comcast going as far as outlining a potential legal strategy for a lawsuit against any such classification of broadband as a utility.
While part of me revels in their misery, due to the fact that these providers are already bastard children of public-private partnerships who, to paraphrase Ron Swanson,

But,schadenfreude has no place in determining the virtue of Net Neutrality. The internet is simply too important to mankind to let emotion creep in.
So, what should be our criteria in assessing whether Net Neutrality is a good thing for the individual?
1) Will it lower the price of broadband for the individual?
2) Will it improve the quality of broadband for the individual?
3) Will it increase the government’s role in our lives and what effect would that have on the internet?

Will it lower the price for the consumer?NO

Perhaps for some in rural areas, but not for 95% of consumers. Texas deregulated their energy industry in 2000 and the effect on price was drastic for those in competitive markets:
“The regulated price per kilowatt hour in CenterPoint’s service area was 10.4 cents then. Factoring in inflation, the equivalent today would be 13.6 cents. Essentially, consumers today can buy electricity on a fixed-term contract for 44 percent less than the prices of 2001.” (Source)
Now think about your personal financial situation. When was the last time your cable bill, without introductory or teaser offers, went down? Your cellphone bill, excluding setting up a family and friends plan? How about groceries? Taxes?
The point is, competition drives down price, not regulators. If anything, the government should be deregulating the broadband industry and getting out of its way entirely, of course that assumes the government really wants to help the consumer…

Will it improve the quality of broadband for the consumer?NO

No. Let’s take a look at JD Power and Associates Consumer Satisfaction Survey of Residential Electric Companies:
“Overall customer satisfaction with residential electric utilities has increased year over year driven primarily by improvements in corporate citizenship and outage communications, according to the J.D. Power 2014 Electric Utility Residential Customer Satisfaction StudySM released today.
However, the improvements in the electric utility industry are not keeping pace with those in a variety of other service industries.
The study, now in its 16th year, measures customer satisfaction with electric utility companies by examining six factors: power quality and reliability; price; billing and payment; corporate citizenship; communications; and customer service.” (Source)
You cannot regulate a company into caring about its customers, nor can you regulate that said company invest in innovation so that they can improve their product. Only competition, free from government intervention, can increase the quality of products while simultaneously driving down the cost. So why on earth would someone limit the number of providers to one or only a select few?
Compare the cost of Lasik in 2005 to the 2014 price. Now compare the cost of an appendectomy in 2005 to 2014. Which procedure is more tightly regulated? Which one saw the price come down further? How about greater improvement in quality?

Will it increase the government’s role in our lives and what effect would that have on the internet?

So far we have learned that turning broadband into a utility will not only raise the cost of broadband it will also lower the quality of service, if history is any indicator. But would it increase government’s role in our lives and how would it affect the internet?
You would have had to have lived in an area controlled by the Islamic State over the last year and a half, to be unaware of the government’s absolute control over the internet. The US Federal Government watches every corner (Google: Snowden, Dread Pirate Roberts, Silk Road 1 and 2.0).
Now, the defeated among us may be saying, “How much more control could they possibly have? Why even put up a fight?” But that misses the point entirely.
Net neutrality may not increase the government’s role in our lives, because how exactly does one increase infinity?
But what it would do, is grant license to the broadband providers to stop innovating and investing in infrastructure, and would shift their executive’s focus to figuring out ways to squeeze as much profit as possible from their existing infrastructure. When would that moment be?
The second their accountants discovered that the cost of expanding their infrastructure would be greater than the potential profit from serving new customers.
In addition, what would happen if a disruptive technology were to emerge that threatens their profits and thus the livelihood of these government sponsored monopolies? Can you already picture politicians hitting the road to campaign about protecting jobs while lining the pockets of their SuperPAC with funds from the broadband providers?
Would you really put it past the government to ban said technology in the name of the American worker?
See Lightsquared, Aereo, and American Letter Mail Company
So to answer our question, would Net Neutrality increase the government’s role in our lives and what would it do to the internet? Net Neutrality is the equivalent of putting a restrictor plate on a drag racer. It would forever hamper the technological development of the internet.
It’s pretty clear, that unless you have given up all hope in the fight against government cronyism and are willing to accept download speeds as they exist today and no faster, Net Neutrality is an atrocious crime against the individual.
I know I am probably overly optimistic in believing that I will live to see the defeat of government cronyism, and the cynics are probably right to mock my belief in the transformative power of the internet. But the internet has been invaluable in assisting mankind with his liberation from the rule of tyrants. Where would we be if the United States had passed Net Neutrality in 1999?
Would Amazon Prime exist?
Would the Arab Spring have happened?
Would we all still be using AOL Instant Messenger instead of Facebook and Twitter?
Last, but not least, would Steve Jobs have had any reason to ever begin working on a combination wireless MP3 player and cellular phone? Would the $25 Billion annual market for mobile applications even exist?
So no. I do not accept or support Net Neutrality. I stand resolute in preventing the government from shackling the internet and damning it into a modern dark age. Why?
Because I am a libertarian, which means I dislike the world as it exists today. Rather than behave rationally and adapt to the world, as Net Neutrality supporters are so wont to do, I stand in direct opposition to it and the status quo.
The unthinking supporters, at one point or another, have probably given the picture below a Facebook like or even shared it while they were on their iPhone at a Starbucks, where they ordered a latte via the Starbucks mobile app, because they were connected to the free high speed wireless network during their wait in line:
That’s too bad because if it were up to them, and Net Neutrality had been passed in 1999, their Starbucks experience would have been much different.
They would have been waiting in line playing Snake on their Nokia 3210’s, thinking about which songs they were going to remove from their MP3 player to create space for the new ones, and getting out their wallet to pay the barista with cash.
Luckily, the world is not reliant upon Net Neutrality supporters for progress.
It relies on us. We are the crazy ones. The misfits. The rebels. We are the trouble makers, the round heads in the square holes, the ones who see things differently. We are not fond of rules or the status quo.
You can mock us, you can belittle us, but you cannot ignore us. Because we change things. We push the human race forward, we stand in opposition to government control, and we are just crazy enough to think we can change the world. Why?
Because unlike the Net Neutrality supporters who cling to their download speeds and demand internet streaming equality, We Are Libertarians. We prefer the unleashed, unrestrained internet because without it, you would not be reading this…

[Rumline]

I don't understand the ramifications of the proposed policy, so several arguments in that article don't make sense to me, such as this:

The unthinking supporters, at one point or another, have probably given the picture below a Facebook like or even shared it while they were on their iPhone at a Starbucks, where they ordered a latte via the Starbucks mobile app, because they were connected to the free high speed wireless network during their wait in line:
That’s too bad because if it were up to them, and Net Neutrality had been passed in 1999, their Starbucks experience would have been much different.
They would have been waiting in line playing Snake on their Nokia 3210’s, thinking about which songs they were going to remove from their MP3 player to create space for the new ones, and getting out their wallet to pay the barista with cash.

That conclusion appears to be a non sequitur to me. Nothing I read in the article supports it.

But what it [net neutrality] would do, is grant license to the broadband providers to stop innovating and investing in infrastructure, and would shift their executive’s focus to figuring out ways to squeeze as much profit as possible from their existing infrastructure.

What? How does "net neutrality" discourage companies from investing in infrastructure?

I do not accept or support Net Neutrality. I stand resolute in preventing the government from shackling the internet and damning it into a modern dark age. Why?
Because I am a libertarian, which means I dislike the world as it exists today. Rather than behave rationally and adapt to the world, as Net Neutrality supporters are so wont to do, I stand in direct opposition to it and the status quo.
[...]
We are the crazy ones. The misfits. The rebels. We are the trouble makers, the round heads in the square holes, the ones who see things differently. We are not fond of rules or the status quo.

The above section makes the author sound like a teenager who shops at Hot Topic because being in some sort of "counter-culture" is "cool."

[Artema]

Umm, since when are communists/socialists and big corporations on the same side? You seem to be somehow confused about what Net Neutrality actually means.

lol. Republicans and Democrats agree on 95% of things. The squabbling between them makes it easy to forget. I'm quite surprised that the president has taken a stand against this, as it is not in the nature of a socialist to pursue Net Neutrality. I can't help if you understand it from only what Ted Cruz has said. My background is computers and networking before I joined the Air Force.

[Rumline]

The biggest problem with "net neutrality" is that its an amorphous term that doesn't mean the same thing every time its invoked. Its like saying "gun safety" ... to us "gun safety" is the 4 rules, to a progressive "gun safety" is absolute gun control.

I don't trust Democrats and especially not Obama and his fellow travelers. He uses the term "net neutrality" because it sounds nice, and certain definitions of it are a good thing. But the reality is he doesn't believe in liberty or an open anything so I guarantee you whatever "net neutrality" scheme he's putting forward will be designed to give government more power over speech and more ability to tax.

I feel like this is right on the money. Up until now I thought of "net neutrality" as preventing content filtering or meddling by service providers, but I can see how it's exactly like "gun safety" as you mentioned.

[Artema]

What? How does "net neutrality" discourage companies from investing in infrastructure?

Net Neutrality would break the monopolistic nature of the USA's residential internet service. When infrastructure is to be put down the big corporations in charge of the area sue them. Net Neutrality would encourage to invest in infrastructure in order to compete. They love having no competition.

[68Charger]

lol. Republicans and Democrats agree on 95% of things. The squabbling between them makes it easy to forget. I'm quite surprised that the president has taken a stand against this, as it is not in the nature of a socialist to pursue Net Neutrality. I can't help if you understand it from only what Ted Cruz has said. My background is computers and networking before I joined the Air Force.

Whether a "big corporatation" is for Net Neutrality would depend on what their role is in the internet... Netflix is obviously FOR it, since they want to force the main core carriers to carry their traffic (which is 1/3 the internet's traffic) without paying them a dime to invest in the infrastructure...
The carriers are obviously against it... and have won lawsuits that the FCC was over-stepping their bounds when they forced Net Neutrality as they defined it.

My Career is in networks for the financial industry... while it's not the internet (It's a private network), I understand the costs and maintenance that goes into maintaining a global network. I've been doing this for a major carrier for 17 years- I won't name the carrier because I'm not speaking for them, and someone could think that I was... I'm not in PR, just a design & implementation engineer who also deals with budgets for a global network.

Net Neutrality would break the monopolistic nature of the USA's residential internet service. When infrastructure is to be put down the big corporations in charge of the area sue them. Net Neutrality would encourage to invest in infrastructure in order to compete. They love having no competition.

Again with this monopoly BS- Source?
The US has 7 Internet core providers (these are the main backbone providers, there are 1000s of ISPs at the edge who buy services from them), doesn't sound like a monopoly to me... a Monopoly means 1 provider would control it all.

you sound like you're regurgitating a narrative from the 99% groups...

[roberth]

Of course the government wants to re-classify it, they want to control the content.

This isn't hard to comprehend, we have a president who dreams of dictatorship and controlling the communications is a giant step toward his dream. He already has the major media spreading his lies and deceit, the internet is the last bastion of free speech.

This is the fairness doctrine applied to the world wide web.

[68Charger]

Here's an article from 2007, see if it still applies today:

The supporters of net neutrality regulation believe that more rules are necessary. In their view, without greater regulation, service providers might parcel out bandwidth or services, creating a bifurcated world in which the wealthy enjoy first-class Internet access, while everyone else is left with slow connections and degraded content.


That scenario, however, is a false paradigm. Such an all-or-nothing world doesn't exist today, nor will it exist in the future. Without additional regulation, service providers are likely to continue doing what they are doing. They will continue to offer a variety of broadband service plans at a variety of price points to suit every type of consumer.

Source: http://www.technewsworld.com/story/56272.html

The FCC tried to force Net Neutrality, and the courts found that they were over-stepping their authority.

On 23 September 2011, the FCC released its final rules for Preserving a Free and Open Internet. These rules state that providers must have transparency of network management practices, not block lawful content, nor unreasonably discriminate in transmitting lawful network traffic.^[112] These rules are effective 20 November 2011.
On 14 January 2014, the DC Circuit Court determined in Verizon Communications Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission (2014) that the FCC has no authority to enforce Network Neutrality rules, as service providers are not identified as "common carriers".^[113] Since the 14 January ruling, AT&T has submitted several patents ^[114] that account for specific ways to take advantage of the FCC's limited authority. Verizon is also under a mountain of allegations that they have been slowing access to both Netflix and to the Amazon Cloud services, although the company denies these allegations. Multiple independent sources have performed network speed analysis and do find slower connection times to these sites, although there is currently no proof that Verizon is purposefully causing these slowdowns.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality (there are other sources cited in the Wikipedia entry)

So when Netflix decided to enter in agreements with some ISPs directly: http://qz.com/256586/the-inside-stor...ernet-traffic/
Check figure 5... performance to Comcast's customers improved after the agreement, because it was no longer delivered through a transit network, but directly to Comcast's backbone- in short the bottleneck was bypassed because they bought BW that they were using on the content side.

If there are cases where a carrier engages in anti-competitive behaviour, there are other laws against that- and they can be sued or prosecuted.
The whole Net Neutrality debate is either about trying to get something for nothing (in the case of Netflix, as an example), or about power & taxes...

China has Nationalized Internet, you want to move in that direction by giving the Gov't more power over it?

[asmo]

I spend some $dayjob arguing about net neutrality so I am not going to do it here.. But this sums it up:

http://theoatmeal.com/blog/net_neutrality