JMHO Loc: Utah

Trust me, it isn't.

saloopo Loc: Colorado

All I see is a Notice of Proposed rulemaking dated May 15, 2014. Your reference ends on page 99. where are pages 100 thru 187? You didnt mention the Dissenting Statements of the Commissioners Pages 93 - 99. The president's push "dramatically changed where the FCC was heading," but it dutifully, implemented the plan. The new legislation, the commissioner added, is ominous for consumers.

Trooper745 Loc: Carolina

Eventually, because of the government getting involved, the internet will be as well run and well liked as the US Postal Service.

straightUp Loc: California

Me too.

AuntiE Loc: 45th Least Free State

http://medium.com/mercatus-scholar-commentary/five-myths-about-net-neutrality-9886d5639bcc

Five Myths about Net Neutrality

In view of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) vote on February 26 to regulate the Internet under Title II of the New Deal–era Communications Act, it is critical to understand what these “net neutrality” rules will and will not do.

Columbia Business School professor Eli Noam says net neutrality has “at least seven different related but distinctive meanings….” The consensus is, however, that net neutrality is a principle for how an Internet Service Provider (ISP) or wireless carrier treats Internet traffic on “last mile” access — the connection between an ISP and its customer. Purists believe net neutrality requires ISPs to treat all last-mile Internet traffic the same. The FCC will not enforce that radical notion because networks are becoming more “intelligent” every year and, as a Cisco network engineer recently put it, equal treatment for all data packets “would be setting the industry back 20 years.”

Nevertheless, because similar rules were twice struck down in federal court, the FCC is crafting new net neutrality rules for ISPs and technology companies. Many of these Title II provisions reined in the old Bell telephone monopoly and are the most intrusive rules available to the FCC. The net neutrality rules are garnering increased public scrutiny because they will apply to one of the few bright spots in the US economy — the technology and communications sector.

As with many complex concepts, there are many myths about net neutrality. Five of the most widespread ones are dispelled below.


Reality: Prioritization has been built into Internet protocols for years. MIT computer scientist and early Internet developer David Clark colorfully dismissed this first myth as “happy little bunny rabbit dreams,” and pointed out that “[t]he network is not neutral and never has been.” Experts such as tech entrepreneur and investor Mark Cuban and President Obama’s former chief technology officer Aneesh Chopra have observed that the need for prioritization of some traffic increases as Internet services grow more diverse. People speaking face-to-face online with doctors through new telemedicine video applications, for instance, should not be disrupted by once-a-day data backups. ISPs and tech companies should be free to experiment with new broadband services without time-consuming regulatory approval from the FCC. John Oliver, The Oatmeal, and net neutrality activists, therefore, are simply wrong about the nature of the Internet.


Reality: Even while lightly regulated, the Internet will remain open because consumers demand an open Internet. Recent Rasmussen polling indicates the vast majority of Americans enjoy the open Internet they currently receive and rate their Internet service as good or excellent. (Only a small fraction, 5 percent, says their Internet quality is “poor.”) It is in ISPs’ interest to provide high-quality Internet just as it is in smartphone companies’ interest to provide great phones and automakers’ interest to build reliable cars. Additionally, it is false when high-profile scholars and activists say there is no “cop on the beat” overseeing Internet companies. As Federal Trade Commissioner Joshua Wright testified to Congress, existing federal competition laws and consumer protection laws — and strict penalties — protect Americans from harmful ISP behavior.


Reality:The FCC’s net neutrality rules are not an effective way to improve broadband competition. Net neutrality is a principle for ISP treatment of Internet traffic on the “last mile” — the connection between an ISP and a consumer. The principle says nothing about broadband competition and will not increase the number of broadband choices for consumers. On the contrary, net neutrality as a policy goal was created because many scholars did not believe more broadband choices could ensure a “neutral” Internet. Further, Supreme Court decisions lead scholars to conclude that “as prescriptive regulation of a field waxes, antitrust enforcement must wane.” Therefore, the FCC’s net neutrality rules would actually impede antitrust agencies from protecting consumers.


Reality: Intelligent management of Internet traffic and prioritization provide useful services to consumers. Net neutrality proponents call zero-rating — which is when carriers allow Internet services that don’t subtract from a monthly data allotment — and similar practices “dangerous,” “malignant,” and rights violations. This hyperbole arises from dogma, not facts. The real-world use of prioritization and zero-rating is encouraging and pro-consumer. Studies show that zero-rated applications are used by millions of people around the globe, including in the United States, and they are popular. In one instance, poor South African high school students petitioned their carriers for free — zero-rated — Wikipedia access because accessing Wikipedia frequently for homework was expensive. Upon hearing the students’ plight, Wikipedia and South African carriers happily obliged. Net neutrality rules like Title II would prohibit popular services like zero-rating and intelligent network management that makes more services available.


Reality:First, the FCC’s rules will make broadband more expensive, not cheaper. The rules regulate Internet companies much like telephone companies and therefore federal and state telephone fees will eventually apply to Internet bills. According to preliminary estimates, millions of Americans will drop or never subscribe to an Internet connection because of these price hikes. Second, the FCC’s rules will not make Netflix and webpages faster. The FCC rules do not require ISPs to increase the capacity or speed of customers’ connections. Capacity upgrades require competition and ISP investment, which may be harmed by the FCC’s onerous new rules.

To see more from Mercatus scholars on net neutrality, visit mercatus.org/netneutrality.



Sent from my iPad

straightUp Loc: California

The USPS (aside from being just as reliable as UPS and cheaper) is a government operated service. That isn't the same thing as an FCC regulated service in the private sector. A closer comparison would be the telephone service, or radio and television, all of which have been regulated under the Federal Communications Act since the start of their commercial value.

I just get the impression that a certain mindset is somehow intentionally oblivious to the difference.

So, yeah... maybe some taxes. But despite the politics, I have always thought the industries that the FCC regulates have provided reliable service. The CEO's are making plenty of money and the consumers get some fair protection too. Really, not such a bad deal.

It's not socialism. If anything, it's capitalism with referees.

straightUp Loc: California

Oh, man... I actually didn't notice that... I didn't get to anything over 99. Now, *I* feel like a dumbass. ;)


I wasn't sure there would be much value in writing a lot of detail in my OP. But, I like that you brought it up.

So... there's a lot being said. I'll pick one. Ajit Pai says this regulation will overturn everything Clinton was trying to do when he suggested we "let the internet grow". I wonder how in touch he is with the changes in the industry. The infrastructure is pretty well built up at this point, there isn't much room left to grow once everyone is connected. The growth that needs to happen now are applications and content. In other words, Netflix needs to grow... Verizon, you guys are done and look at your market share, you should be frickin' happy!

He also says the new regulation allows for paid prioritization under unspecified circumstances. OK.. so that one's kinda spooky. I'd like to know a little more about what he means by unspecified circumstances.

cSc61 Loc: Austin

It's not 187 pages, it's 184 paragraphs ending on page 65. The remaining 34 pages make up Appendix A & B.

straightUp Loc: California

Auntie - I know you're just showing me someone's perspective... I'm just going to interject as if I were addressing the author.

sir ;) - I disagree. Last I checked there was no reason why "last mile access" should ever be involved in the increased intelligence of a network. Networks on the Internet are designed within a framework of layered protocols. The intelligence of a network increases with the applied processing power of computers, which increases as you go up through the protocol stack. The ISP's need only deal with levels 1-3.

1. Physical (radio waves, copper wire...)
2. Datalink (ethernet, wifi, CDMA...)
3. Network (IP)

So, once you get to the IP level, you have an end-to-end connection as far as the Internet goes. This is the level where your router goes and the chance of intelligence diminishes at lower levels. The most we even WANT from the ISP is the fastest router possible. Routing... nothing else.

Very close to being the same thing as a post office system. Your package doesn't get hand carried from your house to your mama's house by one person who knows the whole route; It gets shoved from one post office to another based on a routing pattern of zip codes and even if none of the workers actually knows the whole route it *does* get to you're mama's house. That's all we want from the ISP.

Dang... not even at #1 yet?


The net neutrality rules are being applied to only one part of that technology/communications sector and it's not any of the parts that are shining. It's the part that could probably get a free ride off the parts that *are* shining if they can "customize" their "service plans".


OK... all that stuff I said about protocol levels? That applies here. I said the ISP only needs to deal with levels 1-3... There are another 4 levels above that...

4. Transport (TCP, UDP...)
5. Session (HTTP, FTP...)
6. Presentation(HTML, XML...)
7. Application (applications that do stuff)

If people are talking face-to-face with a doctors through new telemedicine applications it means the application on level 7 is configuring the which protocols to use down through the stack to the IP level. The ISP has no business knowing anything about the information being passed through the IP packet - just route it. The magic happens in the way the two applications at either end of the connection coordinate the flow of information into the IP level.

Now, I agree that we should be concerned about the availability of bandwidth for critical communication, especially if that bandwidth can be consumed by viral videos of farting cats. But the FCC isn't new to this kind of problem. This is why have the emergency broadcast system. To be honest I would be happier with the allocation of radio communication outside the Internet to handle high priority situations.


That's pretty vague. Which consumer protection laws?


kinda stretching that one... lol...


That can all be done at the application level. The ISP does not need to be involved.


I disagree. As I've already said "intelligent network management" can be done above the third protocol level and is therefore not necessary for the ISP to get involved (as much as they want to) As for what net neutrality proponents are calling zero-rating, this is not a concern of the FCC regulation as far as I can tell, nor has it been a concern of Title II. In fact the concern of the FCC regulation is blocking. Blocking will be prohibited. This does not prevent zero-rating services. In fact zero-rating has much less chance on a network where the Internet service providers are blocking low revenue traffic (like zero-rated) to save bandwidth for premium customers.


The fees all come from the service providers the government has nothing to do with those fees. The only thing the government and it's regulations add to the bill are taxes.


That's ridiculous. The Internet is becoming more and more critical to our daily lives. People will find other ways to save $5/mo than to avoid paying taxes on their internet bill.


No one is saying the FCC is requiring upgrades. This sounds like an argument that's been twisted. What the FCC is requiring is that ISP do not intentionally block traffic which means they can't intentionally make Netflix slower.

BTW, if anyone is interested... the 7 levels that I refer to, isn't some video fantasy game, it's something call the ISO Reference Model for Data Communications.

AuntiE Loc: 45th Least Free State

I will stay with Mercatus, thank you. They have yet to fail me.

By the way, I know of absolutely no one paying only $5 per month for Internet.

Frankly, you do not know exactly what the FCC is going to do. You may believe you know; however, the rules have not been promulgated as yet. You are taking it from a technical standpoint...not possible consumer issues. If Comcast is all for it, I guess we all should be, right?

straightUp Loc: California

Ah... I see that on the TOC now. "para"... So... only 99 pages in all.

straightUp Loc: California

OK, whatever.


Auntie... we were talking about the impact taxes have on the bill not the entire bill. Don't exaggerate the impact of taxes by blaming them for the whole bill. The federal tax on a cell phone bill is 5.82%. According to JD Associates, the average cell phone bill is $80.00 so the average tax per month is $4.65. There is more variation in base prices between competitors. Trust me, tax is the least of your concerns when it comes to the bill.


Auntie, I think you're confused. It's already a done deal and I already linked to the rules which have been available to the public to review for a year now. cSc61 is the only other one on this thread that has bothered to actually read it, the rest of you are just ignoring it thinking the real thing is going to hit some time in the future.

I understand there has been some last minute changes, so I guess we can expect some differences, but the from what I can see, the basic idea is to bring Internet Service Providers under the same or similar set of rules that govern phone, radio and television.

The FCC is not a secret operation. Every rule they enforce is available to the public and subject to the bounds of the Constitution. You just need to make sure you aren't reading outdated web pages.


I was disqualifying the false statements and exaggerations being made by Mercatus on a technical basis, which is directly related to consumer issues. Just in case you forgot, we are talking about technology services.


What makes you say that?

straightUp Loc: California

Update: I've been looking around for this 300+ page document. A lot of news reports about this FCC ruling are neglecting to say much if anything about this. A source that I personally trust, EFF, is confirming that there is in fact such a document that details the regulation and that it's not widely available yet. This does bother me. The EFF is also expressing some concern about this. But they are nevertheless applauding the FCC for classifying the Internet as a public utility and that classification is a lot of what I'm excited about. I think there is enough known about Title II, the proposed regulation and the net neutrality dialog to understand the intended purpose of reclassification and to celebrate the decision to do it.

I guess my feeling is that either way, Internet access is subject to foul play, but I think we can expect a lot less foul play under Title II than otherwise.

JMHO Loc: Utah

Like I said, and you blasted me for it, the real and final document has not been released to the public. As one of the FCC Commissioners stated "the final regulations listed in the unreleased document are far worse than you can imagine." And, like I said before, whenever the government gets involved, expect a screwed up internet...censorship...taxes...slower internet...less investment in the internet...etc, etc, etc....

JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida

I will never understand the liberal mindset. Straightup is obviously intelligent and educated. Why do people like him trust the government to step in to an industry and do a better job? I guess they go by examples; ACA, SS, Federal budget, etc.,. It is peoples view that government bureaucrats can be trusted to do a better job than the private sector that drive conservatives nuts. I imagine our view that the government generally screws up everything drives them nuts.