http://townhall.com/tipsheet/conncarroll/2015/02/26/fcc-approves-net-neutrality-regulations-n1962931
FCC Approves 'Net Neutrality' RegulationsIf you like what Obamacare has done to health care, you are going to love what the Federal Communications Commission is about to do to the internet.
The FCC voted by a slim 3-2 margin Thursday to pass new "net neutrality" regulations that give the federal government unprecedented control over how the internet is managed.
Just as Obamacare was supposed to make health care cheaper for all Americans, net neutrality is supposed to guarantee "free and open access to the internet," according to FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler.
Wheeler's new regulations essentially turn internet service providers into public utilities the same way Obamacare turned health insurance companies into heavily regulated wards of the state. And just as Obamacare has expanded paper health coverage to millions of Americans, while making it much harder for most people to actually see a doctor, net neutrality will also bring uncertainty and stagnation to the internet in the name of providing equal access to all.
Technology entrepreneur and Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban recently explained his opposition to net neutrality regulations to The Washington Post:
If it ain't broke, don't fix it. ... Things have worked well. There is no better platform in the world to start a new business than the Internet in the United States. ... I want there to be fast lanes because there will be applications that need fast lanes. We are just now entering a period where we are seeing new ways to create and use high bitrate applications.
People like to use movies and TV shows as a reference to issues that could occur on the Internet. [But] the real issue is that there will be many applications that we can't foresee today. [And] we need those applications to not just have priority, but guaranteed quality of service.
I want certain medical apps that need the Internet to be able to get the bandwidth they need. There will be apps that doctors will carry on 5G networks that allow them to get live video from accident scenes and provide guidance. There will be machine vision apps that usage huge amounts of bandwidth. I want them to have fast lanes.
You can read the Mercatus Centers' 5 Myths About Net Neutrality here {Iposted this infor with this forum}and The Heritage Foundation's 8 Myths About Net Neutrality here. {I did not post Heritage Foundation, as our Progressives would discount them}
Also like Obamacare, the FCC is expected to be sued almost immediately, causing uncertainty in the industry for years. Already in 2014, a federal court struck down a 2010 FCC regulation on this same issue.
https://medium.com/mercatus-scholar-commentary/five-myths-about-net-neutrality-9886d5639bccFive Myths about Net NeutralityIn view of the impending Federal Communications Commission (FCC) vote to regulate the Internet under Title II of the New Dealera 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 Obamas 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 FCCs 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 FCCs 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 dont 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 FCCs 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 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 FCCs 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 FCCs onerous new rules.
To see more from Mercatus scholars on net neutrality, visit mercatus.org/netneutrality.
. (