Someone please explain -- why is the FCC decision about Net Neutrality bad?

[LawnLover]

I'm reading conflicting reports about it -- people happy or unhappy about it all across the political spectrum.

According to CNN Tech:

"The rules are designed to, in effect, keep the companies that own the internet's real-world infrastructure from slowing down some types of websites or apps -- say, those belonging to a competitor -- or speeding up others for high-paying clients."

How could this be a bad thing?

[Creative]

1. First and foremost, the FCC has no right to make this decision.

[Drale]

2. Why don't they

they are the Federal COMMUNICATIONS Commission, isn't the Internet a form of communication? Wouldn't that put it in the FCC's jurisdiction?

[Creative]

6. Because the law that gives them that power, did not give them the power to become

an Internet Regulatory Commission.

[onenote]

30. newspapers are a form of communications. the us mail is a form of communications

that doesn't mean the FCC has been given jurisdiction to regulate newspapers or the us postal service

[Tunkamerica]

3. that's where you're wrong. it's one of the things they do have authority on.

[Creative]

9. That's not what the courts have ruled.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-20001825-38.html

[RegieRocker]

16. Courts have been wrong before and they are wrong now.

[Creative]

27. You are correct about one thing: the courts have been wrong before, e.g., Kelo.

However, they got it right this time.

It is understandable that that the FCC would seek to broaden their powers, for that is what overbearing and authoritarian organizations always do. We see it with Chavez, Kim, etc. What I fail to understand is why many Americans are eager to see the internet regulated.

[Tunkamerica]

22. Reading the brief, the court said that the FCC had not proven it's authority

to act on Net Neutrality. I'd say this bill clears it up.

[Creative]

28. The struggle against tyranny is unending.

[TBF]

29. +1 nt

[RegieRocker]

34. They have now. authority.

[onenote]

31. can you cite to the provision of the Communications Act that gives them authority?

That's the issue: is there anything in the Communications Act that gives the FCC jurisdiction to regulate Internet Service.
The best that the FCC has been able to come up with is that because the internet is used to deliver voice and video services in competition with services that clearly are subject to FCC jurisdiction (such as telephony, broadcast TV, cable TV, and satellite) it has "ancillary" jurisdiction to regulate the Internet. The DC Circuit rejected this argument the last time and the FCC didn't even bother to seek Supreme Court review. The new rules will be challenged in court and the court, based on the earlier decision, likely will be skeptical of the FCC's position, although the FCC undoubtedly will do a better job of defending its position and thus might be able to pull off a victory.

[Creative]

5. .

[Zywiec]

10. Does the DOD have the right?

Didn't DARPA create the internet?

[Creative]

13. No and Yes.

[Tunkamerica]

23. Very helpful. And useless.

[Creative]

26. Well, since the DOD does not regulate anything, I agree.

[boppers]

20. DARPA created ARPANET. It used a different protocol. It worked very differently.

The 1822 protocol was later discarded as DARPANET joined up with other public and private networks (it was called MILNET by then), thus creating a new "Inter-network", since shortened to "Internet"....

LOL, Just realized I we re-writing this:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=9054178&mesg_id=9054604

...which was about who invented, and owned, the Internet. DARPA was only one piece of the puzzle.

[muntrv]

4. Perhaps this link may help.

http://act.boldprogressives.org/sign/sign_netneutrality_3things/?source=auto-e&referring_akid=3040.449453.sj2A7Q

[LawnLover]

12. Not much info here.

1: Corporate censorship is allowed on your phone

The rules passed today by Obama FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski absurdly create different corporate censorship rules for wired and wireless Internet, allowing big corporations like Comcast to block websites they don't like on your phone -- a clear failure to fulfill Net Neutrality and put you, the consumer, in control of what you can and can't do online.

Okay, sounds ominous, but what does that really mean? Apple already blocks websites by refusing to implement flash on the iPhone or iPad. How is this any different?

2: Online tollbooths are allowed, destroying innovation

The rules passed today would allow big Internet Service Providers like Verizon and Comcast to charge for access to the "fast lane." Big companies that could afford to pay these fees like Google or Amazon would get their websites delivered to consumers quickly, while independent newspapers, bloggers, innovators, and small businesses would see their sites languish in the slow lane, destroying a level playing field for competition online and clearly violating Net Neutrality.

I don't see this any different than charging a customer for faster service. I pay more per month so I can have a faster download/upload speed. Don't most businesses already have to pay higher fees for speed?

3: The rules allow corporations to create "public" and "private" Internets, destroying the one Internet as we know it

For the first time, these rules would embrace a "public Internet" for regular people vs. a "private Internet" with all the new innovations for corporations who pay more -- ending the Internet as we know it and creating tiers of free speech and innovation, accessible only if you have pockets deep enough to pay off the corporations.

Aren't "private internet" places merely like AOL used to be? You pay a special fee to use their network? How is this different?

By the way, many "new innovations" are created by open source software creators, and I doubt they'd limit their creations to a private internet. If you think the big corporations somehow have the market on innovation, you're crazy.

[derby378]

7. Too many loopholes, backdoors, and wink-wink-nudge-nudge deals with the telecoms

Ever handle a full-auto Uzi? I did. Put 100 rounds through a target at the gun range with one. But when all that was done, that target didn't have near as many holes as this proposed FCC legislation does. It could bleed the Internet to death.

[LawnLover]

8. Yeah, this is what I keep hearing, but

nobody ever explains WHAT those holes are. It seems to me if the telecoms can't willfully slow down the competition, that's a good thing for us.

[bemildred]

11. I'm not that upset about it.

But I see no reason to approve of it either. Net access ought to be public utility along the lines of what the phone company once was, but that seems politically unlikely for the moment.

IMHO the thing to have a war over is if there is some threat to degrade the basic level of service we now have, as opposed to allowing "premium" services.

[Dokkie]

14. my problem is that

they are tampering with a well oiled machine. Why in the world the internet needs fixing is beyond me. If the internet companies wanted to restrict content, impose tier pricing and slow down competitor websites, they would have done it already. Its not like theres any law in the books preventing them from doing so, but yet they haven't don't so in the 8+ yrs now activists have been pushing net neutrality.

Please someone please explain to me in simple terms why we need a strong net neutrality bill cos I don't get it. Also now that FCC has the power to regulate the internet, what kind of problems are we going to experience with a republican nominated FCC chairman?

[RegieRocker]

17. It keeps it well oiled.

Big business will without a doubt start tampering with it like Comcast did. I see without it a meeting of the internet corps agreeing to make changes to it that we would not like. Example: before 1976 if you had more than one phone in the house you had to pay for each phone. This was stopped by the FCC.

[Dokkie]

25. I sort of agree

But my problem is that a republican administration can now come into office and do his own tampering. What stops him now? if the FCC can just arbitrarily change the rules? I don't believe for 1 s that Comcast alone has the power to change the rules for internet in america especially. Whatever that has keep the internet well oiled should have been left alone to continue doing that and the politically motivated FCC cannot replace it

[RegieRocker]

33. what has kept it well oiled is many providers and ways to get service.

But given time that will dwindle and the inevitable would happen without the fcc. What enjoy today in phone service land line would cost much more without fcc. They are also working on cell phone service lower costs.

[pokerfan]

15. the fact that both sides hate it doesn't make it a good ruling

I for one, welcome our future ISP overlords

We don't like it, either

More surprising were the howls of dissatisfaction coming from net neutrality's backers. Didn't they just get what they wanted? Didn't Obama's campaign pledge—and Genachowski's support for that pledge—finally come through?

"Despite promising to fulfill President Obama's campaign promise of enacting Network Neutrality rules to protect an open Internet, the FCC has instead prioritized the profits of corporations like AT&T over those of the general public, Internet entrepreneurs, and local businesses across the country," thundered Sascha Meinrath of the New America Foundation. "These failures place the Internet in peril of evolving into a system that will more and more resemble another cable network rather than an open Internet."

Public Knowledge's Gigi Sohn blasted rules that "fall far short of what they could have been." Free Press called the rules "fake net neutrality," and the group's Craig Aaron complained that "the new rules are riddled with loopholes, evidence that the chairman sought approval from AT&T instead of listening to the millions of Americans who asked for real Net Neutrality."

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) said that "the FCC has failed to protect free speech and Internet openness for all users," by not applying the same rules to wireless. At the New York University School of Law, the Institute for Policy Integrity called it "a batch of tepid new rules."

Even the Future of Music Coalition, which represents artists, lamented the fact that net neutrality "seemingly falls short of offering full protections."

They don't share Baker's default view of huge ISPs, which dominate the US landscape for wireline broadband, as cuddly companies who would like nothing better than to innovate and invest. And they're deeply disappointed that wireless companies are largely excluded from discrimination rules.

"No longer can you get to the same Internet via your mobile device as you can via your laptop," complained Free Press.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/12/why-everyone-hates-new-net-neutrality-ruleseven-nn-supporters.ars

[karynnj]

18. Because Mitch McConnell and Kay Bailey Hutchinson said so

If you believe them, it is bad.

[boppers]

19. Well, for one, the CNN summary is flat out wrong.

Paying for faster access is still possible, if expensive... and necessary for some applications. This upsets people who worry that they won't be able to compete. Wireless phones can still show simple internet pages, without graphics, to cut down on bandwidth, which upsets people who want phones to be equal. Phones can even refuse to display some content (iPhone and flash comes to mind) without anybody being sued. ISP's can still sell cheap over-provisioned lines, and throttle down users who are flooding the network, which upsets folks as well.

All being said, this is the Net Neutrality that many existing stakeholders want, maintaining the status quo, rather than a radical change so people can, oh, sue Comcast for blocking spam, sue Google for not ranking them well, or sue Verizon for not giving them unlimited access.

[MODem75]

21. It is not bad. Without Net Neutrality the internet will slide into a series of fiefdoms.

You will be stuck using their services. Only be able to use their email, watch their cable TV, streaming video will be gone, no netflix, no hulu, no youtube. Unless you want to pay more money to be able to access them.

Basically technology will regress. Innovation will be stifled thanks to corporate profits.

[BzaDem]

24. It isn't a bad thing. A small group of people continue to pretend that "not good enough" regulation

is somehow worse than no regulation (where we were yesterday).

It's the same logical error that people made about HCR, about Social Security back in the 30s, etc.

[robcon]

32. Power grab by FCC - who gave them that power?

In a democracy the legislature or constitution has to give an agency that kind of power.