Net Neutrality: President Obama's Plan for a Free and Open Internet

Robert17 said:

A rather lengthy, 5 minutes, read but very useful to the discussion:

http://reason.com/archives/2014/11/12/net-neutrality-is-a-lousy-idea

Click to expand...

Just like telephone companies are required to wire up every house more or less regardless of cost, ISPs would be required to bring all infrastructure up to a minimum standard. Let's be clear about something—it makes no economic sense from a society-wide perspective to make such a large investment to serve so few people. It's a handout to rural Internet consumers, pure and simple.

Click to expand...

Silver_Pharaoh said:

Irritates me as I'm in a very rural area [in the eyes of an ISP] where ISP's charge $70+/month for a package that would cost $30 in the city.

They should bring everyone up to a better internet standard. There's 1000+ people within 10KM radius of me who would love to pay a tab more for better internet. They won't lose money out here, they simply won't make as much as they want.

Click to expand...

Don't let it happen...​

'Cuda340 said:

Basic business......Can't blame them for that. Also note Title II Regulation = American


You should check out: Government of Canada launches program to bring high-speed Internet to rural and remote communities -- Connecting Canadians website As it relates to you directly.


Anyway, back to the thread....

Click to expand...

The corporate battle lines over the new federal rules for the Internet have been well established. Vocal technology startups have been leading the charge for muscular regulations for broadband access, and Internet service providers including Comcast (CMCSA) and Verizon (VZ) have been arguing loudly for more flexibility. Blue chip companies without obvious tech interests have kept a lower profile.

But a corporate alliance with subtle interests in this fight has been quietly pushing the Federal Communications Commission for strict broadband rules. In a series of meetings this year attended by representatives from Ford Motor (F), Visa (V), United Parcel Service (UPS), and Bank of America (BAC), participants urged FCC commissioners to reclassify broadband service under Title II, according to documents filed with the FCC.

Click to expand...

hokiealumnus said:

Very interesting...

Behind Closed Doors, Ford, UPS, and Visa Push for Net Neutrality

Click to expand...

Klint Finley Business Date of Publication: 12.04.15. Time of Publication: 5:56 pm


The FCC Is Being Forced to Defend Net Neutrality in Court


To anyone who thought the net neutrality debate was behind us, the FCC found itself defending its regulations before a panel of judges considering the ISP’s objections to the new rules.

If the US appeals court judges rule against the FCC, the agency’s new regulations could be toast, meaning Internet providers like Comcast could offer “paid prioritization,” often called Internet “fast lanes,” to those willing to write a check. The decision isn’t expected until next year.

In February, the FCC effectively reclassified broadband Internet providers as “common carriers,” meaning the government could regulate them much like telephone companies or other industries. It followed that by passing the Open Internet Order that outlined specific non-discrimination policies. The broadband industry of course cried foul, and the US Telecom Association filed suit in July, arguing that the FCC didn’t have the authority to pass such sweeping regulation without congressional approval.

On Friday, several broadband providers and industry advocates pleaded their case before the made their case before the US Court of Appeals in Washington, DC, while the FCC and net neutrality organizations like Public Knowledge defended the regs.

It’s hard to know just how the judges, Sri Srinivasan, Stephen F. Williams and David S. Tatel, are leaning. Srinivasan, appointed by President Obama in 2013, hasn’t said anything about net neutrality and technology. Williams, appointed by Ronald Reagan in 1986, is generally seen as skeptical of regulation, but perhaps not so rigid as to guarantee he’ll side with the telcoms. Some have argued the decision could come down to Tatel, who Bill Clinton appointed in 1994. Tatel ruled against the FCC in its case against Verizon in 2010, arguing the agency lacked the authority to stop Verizon from throttling BitTorrent traffic because broadband providers weren’t common carriers. Net neutrality opponents believe that ruling provided a map for regulators to follow to establish legally sound anti-discrimination protections. But critics argue Tatel’s general opposition to regulatory overreach suggests he will side with them.

The Hill suggests that their questions during the hearing suggest Tatel and Srinivasan may favor the FCC, with Williams leaning toward the carriers.

Even if the court rules in the FCC’s favor, net neutrality isn’t out of hot water. The telco industry can appeal to the Supreme Court, and House Republicans have included an anti-network neutrality rider in a spending bill. A GOP victory in the presidential election could complicate matters further. On the other hand, if the controversial TransPacific Partnership trade deal passes, some legal experts believe the FCC may get the authority to enforce network neutrality.

Regardless of how the court rules, Comcast, the country’s largest fixed-line broadband provider, is forbidden from discriminating against certain types of traffic by conditions of its merger with NBCUniversal.

Click to expand...