The people have spoken, and the Government has Listened. FCC "saves" the Internet!

FINALLY!

Federal Communication Commission(FCC) Chairman Tom Wheeler waits for a hearing at the FCC December 11, 2014 in Washington, DC. Brendan Smialowski/AFP/Getty Images

After more than a decade of debate and a record-setting proceeding that attracted nearly 4 million public comments, the time to settle the Net Neutrality question has arrived. This week, I will circulate to the members of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) proposed new rules to preserve the internet as an open platform for innovation and free expression. This proposal is rooted in long-standing regulatory principles, marketplace experience, and public input received over the last several months.

Broadband network operators have an understandable motivation to manage their network to maximize their business interests. But their actions may not always be optimal for network users. The Congress gave the FCC broad authority to update its rules to reflect changes in technology and marketplace behavior in a way that protects consumers. Over the years, the Commission has used this authority to the public’s great benefit.


Tom Wheeler
Tom Wheeler is the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission.


The internet wouldn’t have emerged as it did, for instance, if the FCC hadn’t mandated open access for network equipment in the late 1960s. Before then, AT&T prohibited anyone from attaching non-AT&T equipment to the network. The modems that enabled the internet were usable only because the FCC required the network to be open.

Companies such as AOL were able to grow in the early days of home computing because these modems gave them access to the open telephone network.

I personally learned the importance of open networks the hard way. In the mid-1980s I was president of a startup, NABU: The Home Computer Network. My company was using new technology to deliver high-speed data to home computers over cable television lines. Across town Steve Case was starting what became AOL. NABU was delivering service at the then-blazing speed of 1.5 megabits per second—hundreds of times faster than Case’s company. “We used to worry about you a lot,” Case told me years later.

But NABU went broke while AOL became very successful. Why that is highlights the fundamental problem with allowing networks to act as gatekeepers.

While delivering better service, NABU had to depend on cable television operators granting access to their systems. Steve Case was not only a brilliant entrepreneur, but he also had access to an unlimited number of customers nationwide who only had to attach a modem to their phone line to receive his service. The phone network was open whereas the cable networks were closed. End of story.

The phone network’s openness did not happen by accident, but by FCC rule. How we precisely deliver that kind of openness for America’s broadband networks has been the subject of a debate over the last several months.

Originally, I believed that the FCC could assure internet openness through a determination of “commercial reasonableness” under Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. While a recent court decision seemed to draw a roadmap for using this approach, I became concerned that this relatively new concept might, down the road, be interpreted to mean what is reasonable for commercial interests, not consumers.

That is why I am proposing that the FCC use its Title II authority to implement and enforce open internet protections.

Using this authority, I am submitting to my colleagues the strongest open internet protections ever proposed by the FCC. These enforceable, bright-line rules will ban paid prioritization, and the blocking and throttling of lawful content and services. I propose to fully apply—for the first time ever—those bright-line rules to mobile broadband. My proposal assures the rights of internet users to go where they want, when they want, and the rights of innovators to introduce new products without asking anyone’s permission.

All of this can be accomplished while encouraging investment in broadband networks. To preserve incentives for broadband operators to invest in their networks, my proposal will modernize Title II, tailoring it for the 21st century, in order to provide returns necessary to construct competitive networks. For example, there will be no rate regulation, no tariffs, no last-mile unbundling. Over the last 21 years, the wireless industry has invested almost $300 billion under similar rules, proving that modernized Title II regulation can encourage investment and competition.

Congress wisely gave the FCC the power to update its rules to keep pace with innovation. Under that authority my proposal includes a general conduct rule that can be used to stop new and novel threats to the internet. This means the action we take will be strong enough and flexible enough not only to deal with the realities of today, but also to establish ground rules for the as yet unimagined.

The internet must be fast, fair and open. That is the message I’ve heard from consumers and innovators across this nation. That is the principle that has enabled the internet to become an unprecedented platform for innovation and human expression. And that is the lesson I learned heading a tech startup at the dawn of the internet age. The proposal I present to the commission will ensure the internet remains open, now and in the future, for all Americans.

 

currently seems to good to be true. Only time will tell if they really did listen.

 

Republicans Call Foul Play Over New Net Neutrality Proposal

The biggest news on the internet last week was about the internet itself, specifically FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler's announcement that he will be proposing that broadband be reclassified under Title II, allowing everyone equal, unbiased access to the internet. In November, President Obama called on the FCC to support net neutrality by exercising the Title II option. When Wheeler did exactly that on Wednesday, some members of Congress grew suspicious.

According to The Wall Street Journal, Rep. Jason Chaffetz, who is chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, contacted Wheeler on Friday asking for all correspondence, calendar appointments, and visitor logs between the FCC and The White House as the GOP grows suspicious of Wheeler's change in policy.

Wheeler's Wednesday proposal is a drastic turnaround from previous net neutrality proposals he's made, including a 99-page train wreck he proposed in May last year. Speaking with C-Span on the controversial issue, Gigi Sohn rejected the idea that The White House had any "improper influence," as described by Chaffetz, on Wheeler's decision and simply that Obama's November statement "[gave] him cover to do something that he already was thinking about doing."

All of this is really just the first step in what will be a long battle to actually get Wheeler's future vision of wired (and wireless) internet into law. The battle for net neutrality is really just beginning and even before the big telecoms get their day in court, it seems congress will be the proposal's first challenger. [The Wall Street Journal]

Image via Getty Images

 

FCC Approves Net Neutrality Rules For 'Open Internet'


http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way...net-neutrality-up-for-vote-today-by-fcc-board

 

I hear you. Just posting to say if this failed cable companies would of raped us even more than what they do now. Sites like this would of forced the admin to pay more just to make sure the performance side of this site is decent for all of the visitors. Overall our internet sucks when you compare it to the rest of the world. I don't think we are even in the top ten and these cable companies would like to make our performance worst (if you don't pay a lot more of course).

For example in South Korea the standard is 100mbit/s down for only $20 a month .

 

Of course they are mad. They wanted to create special lanes and spread their fiber optic network limiting competition.

F Verizon.

 

It's a historic day for the internet. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) just passed the strongest net neutrality rules in this country's history. This is great news! But let me repeat: The battle for net neutrality is still not over. In a sense, the real battle begins now.

Now that the vote is in, a number of parties—namely cable companies and Republicans in Congress—are going to challenge the FCC's authority in an attempt to push these rules under the rug. That's what Verizon did in 2011, the last time the agency passed strong net neutrality rules, and it's all but certain that cable companies will try to do it again. Meanwhile, the Republican-led Congress might intervene with a net neutrality bill that would curtail the FCC's ruling, but that prospect seems less likely in the wake of the their inability to get such a bill together before today's vote.

Lawsuits Will Ensue

So how will the private sector respond? Big telecom companies have made it dreadfully clear that they do not like the FCC's new net neutrality rules. These rules reclassify the internet under Title II of the Telecommunications Act and forbid bad things like paid prioritization (also known as "fast lanes"), website blocking, and traffic throttling. These restrictions are good for consumers, but bad for cable company profits.

So there are going to be some lawsuits. AT&T more or less promised to sue earlier this month when it seemed like the FCC would take Obama's excellent advice and reclassify the internet. The company said in a blog post that those who didn't think the FCC should yield to compromise "are only deceiving themselves." Meanwhile, the cable lobby has also made it very clear that they want to challenge the rules in court as well.

"I think it's just too dramatic, too serious a change not to ask the court to review the propriety of what the commission did particularly when so much of it rests on whether it had the authority to do it in the first place," Michael Powell, president and chief executive of the National Cable and Telecommunications Association, told The Washington Post recently. Too dramatic, too serious a change.

Long story short, there will be a lot of lawsuits. Even the small cable companies are going to sue.

Republican Congress Will Fight Back

We've long known that Congress could intervene in this whole process. That could be a good thing for the open internet, but it looks like it's going to be a bad thing. Republicans in Congress have hinted at such an outcome. Alarmists like Ted Cruz have called the FCC's new rules "Obamacare for the internet," a take that's not only dumb but also dangerous. Others say that the government is going to start setting the price for internet service. This is not true.

Take bad boy Fred Upton, for instance. Upton—who holds personal investments in AT&T, Comcast, and Verizon—has introduced legislation that prohibit things like paid prioritization but also eliminate the agency's authority to regulate internet service providers. This is a dangerous thing for these net neutrality rules, again, because in the 2011 Verizon lawsuit that killed the FCC's old net neutrality rules, a judge ruled that the agency overstepped its authority. "A legislative answer to the net neutrality question will finally put to rest years of litigation and uncertainty," Upton said recently.

Upton's contemporaries have talked up the court challenges, too. Texas Republican Joe Barton calls the new rules "net nonsense." (Very cute, Joe.) At a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee hearing on Wednesday, Barton run his mouth about the FCC's new rules. "It's not going to work," he said. "It is going to be tested in court and it's going to fail in court."

Of course, this remains to be seen. The rules will be challenged in court, and Congress will consider Upton's legislation. That's a little bit anxiety-inducing if you love the internet.

So, like we've said before, it's not quite time for the we-saved-the-internet parade. It's definitely time to take a deep breath and accept the fact that things are heading in the right direction. Challenges abound. But we're on a good path to a better internet. Finally.

http://gizmodo.com/net-neutrality-wins-what-now-1688183094