Posted on 02/12/2015 7:41:53 PM PST by E. Pluribus Unum
Be careful what you wish for. That is the message for companies such as Google and Facebook as US regulators move ahead with a plan to enshrine the idea of an open internet in regulation.
On the face of it, the big internet companies will have scored a significant victory if the Federal Communication Commission votes, as expected, for its new “net neutrality” rules this month. The regime is intended to make sure broadband and other network providers cannot block or otherwise hold internet services to ransom.
Who could take issue with such a noble purpose? Telecoms regulation is not usually the kind of thing to excite much public interest, but this is a cause that has reverberated widely. Populist campaigns like the one waged over net neutrality, however, do not allow for much in the way of nuance.
The problem comes with the form the rules will take. With heavy nudging from the White House, the FCC has opted to repurpose an authority it was given under an old telecoms law, known as Title II, to make it apply to the internet era.
Like all deeply technical issues that become political footballs, it has not been hard for the rival camps to turn this into opposing talking points. Depending on where you stand, it is either bold action to protect an open internet or inappropriately sweeping, utility-style regulation.
What is indisputable is that the legislation the FCC is relying on was designed for circuit-switched telephone networks in a different age. The only way to adapt it to modern times is to suppress certain parts of Title II and implement it piecemeal. The FCC promises a light touch: in particular, it says it will avoid price regulation or any requirements that might force operators to unbundle their networks.
If history is any guide, a challenge in the courts will follow. There is simply too much at stake for the regulations not to be tested. And, as was the case with the last approach to net neutrality, it is not beyond the courts to reject the FCC’s compromise as unduly arbitrary.
This is where things could become dicey for companies such as Google and Facebook. Who knows how some future FCC would interpret its new Title II powers, or whether a court would order a different implementation of the law. Price regulation of the internet’s interconnection agreements would always be a looming threat.
It is not just the impact in the US itself that is at stake. There is also the question of what message US regulators are about to send to the rest of the world. The risk is that Washington will be seen to be giving a nod of approval to the idea of extending traditional telecoms rate regulations to the internet. "The risk is that Washington will be seen to be giving a nod of approval to the idea of extending traditional telecoms rate regulations to the internet"
Telecoms operators in Europe have argued strenuously for this in the past. They would like to see internet companies forced to pay more to access customers over their networks. The idea has so far failed to carry the day in the international forums where such issues are debated, but could get a new lease of life if the US is perceived to be sanctioning telecom-style regulation of the internet.
Even under the FCC’s current plans, there is a risk that the informal agreements between internet companies and network providers governing the terms on which they connect could be subjected to closer scrutiny. That is unlikely to be welcomed at the likes of Google, which operates one of the largest global networks for carrying internet traffic.
Some business models that favour the internet companies could also be under threat. Ajit Pai, a Republican commissioner on the FCC, claimed this week that the new rules would bar “zero-rating” arrangements. These are the deals under which mobile companies offer access to certain internet services without charging customers’ data plans — a marketing arrangement that keeps mobile fees low but favours zero-rated services over others.
Facebook has used this model extensively to provide subsidised access to its service in the developing world. If the US is seen to question the idea, international challenges may follow.
It is ironic, then, that the internet companies have little choice but to keep their mouths shut and go along with the Obama administration’s approach to net neutrality regulation. The groundswell of public support — and the strong backing from within their own engineering ranks — makes it hard to take a stand that would make them appear to be against the idea. For better or worse, this is one regulatory bandwagon that now seems unstoppable.
They’re going to take our free speech. :(
And all we’re going to get is some holier than thou lecture about how it will make America a better place. :(
I can imagine all kinds of stuff they will trot out to frighten the shekel into going along with their nefarious plans.
Keep an eye out for “news” stories about innocent little children being kidnapped and sold into slavery by internet perverts, little old ladies being swindled out of their paltry savings, folks dying from fake medicines being sold over the ‘net...
All needed to “keep us safe” from “bad things”. (Like criticism of big bro, who knows best what we should eat, drink, think, and say)
If you’re STILL not sure how to feel about the intentionally confusing 332 page FCC monstrosity called Net Neutrality (that the FCC WOULDN’T LET US SEE), all you really need to know is that this is OBAMA’S effort to bring to heel the burgeoning internet alternative – that’s hammering him and his BS into the ground – to Big Brother’s statist propaganda dispensing TELESCREEN. Go online and search “Senators and Representatives who support or oppose net neutrality”. In the support column you will find the usual leftist democrat suspects. There ya’ go!
Let the marketplace make these decisions. IF the big boys like Comcast, Charter and others start playing games with the consumers, THEN it will be time to surgically rein them in with targeted legislation.
That the very leftist Consumer Union supports obozo’s proposal speaks volumes.
I have a shop on Etsy and the Etsy management are pushing for this Net Neutrality. On the Etsy forums today there was an announcement from the Management and they were praising Chairman Wheeler and asking for Etsy sellers to write a card thanking him for his “Courage” and dedication to pushing it through. A few Etsy sellers are excited and are all for it too. Etsy is going to take the Etsy Thank you cards and personaly hand them to Mr. Wheeler.
I love Etsy but the past couple of years they are really getting progressive. People are stupid.
I wonder if this will spawn cellphone call connected and based BBS hubs.
Cell phones have a top speed of ~9600 (Cingular) - 14400 bps (Verizon/Sprint) when used in this manner...
I’ve seen many articles on the NN subject and they all seem to only address what the effect might be on internet providers.
Can any of you savvy FReepers explain in plain English what the effect would be on a non-techie person like me that just uses a desktop PC to access via broadband various sites and doesn’t use the internet for anything else?
Would appreciate better understanding the impact on low level users like myself. .........Thanks in advance!
With government involved, more control, new rules, regulations, censorship, taxes, fines and fees will be incrementally imposed.
Government destroys, corrupts or mismanages nearly everything it becomes involved with.
So there ya have it.
The 0bamaites have a website here, see the names--Reid, Pelosi, Franken, Sanders, Schumer, Warren, Obama and even pictures Wheeler of the FCC with the bad guys.
Here's the spiel from their page: Cable companies are famous for high prices and poor service. Several rank as the most hated companies in America. Now, they're attacking the Internet–their one competitor and our only refuge–with plans to charge websites arbitrary fees and slow (to a crawl) any sites that won't pay up. If they win, the Internet will never be the same.
Their argument is laced with lies coached as dishonest melodramatic blather designed to excite the uneducated into following their lemming-pack to the destruction of internet freedom.
The good guys have a website here and the video alone is here
Bottom line, it will cost you lots more money so illegals and Eric Holder’s people can get it for free.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.