Nov 22 2017
10:03 am

NYT: FCC Plans Net Neutrality Repeal in a Victory for Telecoms

The Federal Communications Commission released a plan on Tuesday to dismantle landmark regulations that ensure equal access to the internet, clearing the way for internet service companies to charge users more to see certain content and to curb access to some websites.

The proposal, made by the F.C.C. chairman, Ajit Pai, is a sweeping repeal of rules put in place by the Obama administration. The rules prohibit high-speed internet service providers, or I.S.P.s, from stopping or slowing down the delivery of websites. They also prevent the companies from charging customers extra fees for high-quality streaming and other services.

The new rules would also prohibit states from enacting regulations to preserve net neutrality.

FCC chair Ajit Pai said "the FCC would simply require internet service providers to be transparent about their practices so that consumers can buy the service plan that’s best for them."

Raise your hand if you have a choice of internet service providers in your local service area.

Here's how the end of net neutrality will change the internet

FCC's next step on net neutrality: Blocking the states

EFF: Net Neutrality


Who Should Pay for Netflix?

Cisco Visual Networking Index: "IP video traffic will be 82 percent of all consumer Internet traffic by 2021, up from 73 percent in 2016"

bizgrrl's picture

"Who should pay for

"Who should pay for Netflix?"

Good article.

bizgrrl's picture

I am surprised at the amount

I am surprised at the amount of internet traffic taken by video. Video viewers are getting a deal. Am I paying for their good deal, since I rarely watch videos over the internet?

MikeK's picture

I rarely drive in Loudon

I rarely drive in Loudon County however I'm OK with them having roads.

bizgrrl's picture

Yes, you pay taxes for roads.

Yes, you pay taxes for roads. We can add taxes for supplementing the internet and companies such as Netflix.

fischbobber's picture

I'm to sure I'm understanding your point.

Are you for or against net neutrality?

Mike Knapp's picture

Not buying it

Thanks for posting this Randy.

Reading what Pai has been saying his are very clear signals in the direction of broadening/bridging service reach. How? He says that by classifying ISP's as Title II utilities these companies have less incentive to invest in improving their networks and less incentive to build out the last miles. Pai's stance is that by waving net neutrality and declassifying them as Title II utilities ISP's like comcast/verizon will have more cash to do build-out. Of course this is also what the companies are saying which also says something. On this issue the current Trump-selected FCC chair and ISP's are on the same webpage.

Is there a track record that his stance is correct? ISP's have been sitting on boat loads of cash for a while and yet have built-out very little into zones without service. Add to that the fact that Pai et al are very much against the Lifeline program net neutrality advocates are rightfully suspicious that this proposed policy change will have the supposed intended consequences.

Neutrality advocates instead are logically suspect of the notion that deregulation will somehow compel the increasingly consolidated media oligopoly to provide service to those without or to level pricing for services. The driving idea is that competition in the market will somehow translate into build-out and price constraints.

IMV this should be seen in the larger context of the economy over time. The basic concept of keeping these large, powerful economic and political actors within some set of state regulation is an idea not exactly born out of the recent past. One bottom line is that Title II allows for pricing controls that say carriers may charge prices but they may not discriminate. We should support this idea out of moral and economic grounds. It's the radical idea that the public should have the power to set prices rather than monopolistic cable and telecommunications networks. If things shoiuld change the US may end up looking more like Portugal.

Another question - what are the policy fixes that will allow for wider internet access in a country with large swaths of area with low population density? If competition is the answer then perhaps one solution is to unbundle local loops.

WhitesCreek's picture

Let's get over calling this

Let's get over calling this net neutrality. It will be net censorship.

Mike Knapp's picture

They “promise” not to throttle...

John Eggerton at Broadcasting and Cable - ISPs Renew Pledges Not To Block or Throttle

ISPs were renewing their pledges not to block or throttle or otherwise discriminate against legal online content.

That comes as the FCC under Republican chairman Ajit Pai prepares to reverse the Title II common carrier classification of ISPs and eliminate the bright-line rules against such conduct, leaving it to the Justice Department to determine if any such conduct is anticompetitive, and the Federal Trade Commission to enforce those ISP pledges.

The FCC cited those pledges in announcing the planned rollback of those rules.

Mike Knapp's picture

And then there is this piece - fake signatures

More than a Million Pro-Repeal Net Neutrality Comments were Likely Faked

Key Findings:²
One pro-repeal spam campaign used mail-merge to disguise 1.3 million comments as unique grassroots submissions.
There were likely multiple other campaigns aimed at injecting what may total several million pro-repeal comments into the system.
It’s highly likely that more than 99% of the truly unique comments³ were in favor of keeping net neutrality.

Official Medium account of New York State Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman -
An Open Letter to the FCC

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.


TN Progressive

TN Politics

Knox TN Today

Local TV News

News Sentinel

State News

Local .GOV

Wire Reports

Lost Medicaid Funding

To date, the failure to expand Medicaid/TennCare has cost the State of Tennessee ? in lost federal funding. (Source)

Search and Archives