FCC Chair To Revise Horrible Proposed Net Neutrality Rules

[RossaLincoln]

FCC Chair To Revise Horrible Proposed Net Neutrality Rules

FCC Chair Tom Wheeler plans to release changes to proposed Net Neutrality regulations, possibly as soon as tomorrow. These revisions are, however, not likely to address substantive complaints.

What a difference a period of extended, massive criticism can make. Two weeks after unveiling proposed new rules for the Internet that would, unambiguously, The Wall Street Journal reports [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/video-games/editorials/11350-The-FCCs-Net-Neutrality-Sellout-A-Wakeup-Call-And-A-Slap-In-The-Face].

The proposed rules, first unveiled on April 23, would allow ISPs to charge higher rates to those companies able or willing to pay, in exchange for faster speeds for their sites. Critics have condemned the proposed rules on the grounds that they would enshrine a tiered Internet into law, effectively ceding financial control of the online marketplace to the biggest and wealthiest companies, while shutting out smaller operations and startups. Tom Wheeler spent decades working for the cable industry before taking command of the FCC last November, and the proposed rules are widely seen as a blatant give away from a former industry leader to his previous employers.

Initial criticism came from rank and file Internet users and journalists, and the FCC at first appeared inclined to issued a statement [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/134143-FCC-on-Open-Internet-All-Options-Are-on-the-Table] in support of net neutrality that requested the FCC "protect users and Internet companies on both fixed and mobile platforms against blocking, discrimination, and paid prioritization".

Given how these things work, it was likely the entrance of major companies that influenced Wheeler's decision to revisit his proposal. However, supporters of net neutrality shouldn't yet rest easy. According to the report, the revisions will be designed to address the massive outpouring of criticism, but will largely involve further clarification that the commission "will scrutinize the deals to make sure that the broadband providers don't unfairly put nonpaying companies' content at a disadvantage". In other words, it's a band-aid where an amputation is needed.

That said, the apparent willingness of the FCC to bend, somewhat, in response to criticism is a hopeful sign. The commission is at least aware of, and taking into account the massive criticism it brought upon itself.

The revised proposal is expected to be unveiled sometime tomorrow (Monday, May 12.) We will be following the story closely.

Permalink

 

[1337mokro]

We decided to put in a limit of 10'000 dollars that you can be gauged for.

Screw it!

This could be fixed by a single piece of legislation! Make internet companies fall under the FCC authority. Instead they are fucking around with new codes and regulations! They want net neutrality dead. It's what wheeler was hired to do!

 

[Erttheking]

You know, it really is kind of pathetic how half hearted all of this is. "Oh don't worry, we'll revise it!" Here's an idea, bring Net Neutrality back! Problem solved! Ugh, my fucking government.

 

[Zaydin]

We decided to put in a limit of 10'000 dollars that you can be gauged for.

Screw it!

This could be fixed by a single piece of legislation! Make internet companies fall under the FCC authority. Instead they are fucking around with new codes and regulations! They want net neutrality dead. It's what wheeler was hired to do!

With Republican opposition to Net Neutrality (Because they view it as government regulation) and how obstructionist they've been, do you really think it'd go anywhere? All it takes is one senator being given enough money from the telecoms that want an end to Net Neutrality, and any bill to enshrine it into law will be dead in the Senate.

 

[zalithar]

We decided to put in a limit of 10'000 dollars that you can be gauged for.

Screw it!

This could be fixed by a single piece of legislation! Make internet companies fall under the FCC authority. Instead they are fucking around with new codes and regulations! They want net neutrality dead. It's what wheeler was hired to do!

Actually it wouldn't even require legislation. All it would take for the FCC to have authority over this would be, for them to reclassify broadband internet as a 'common carrier service' (if I recall correctly). The reason this wasn't done already is cause Wheeler is either: a soulless corporate shill, or a spineless pathetic wimp. Take your pick; either should be enough to discredit him.

 

[Tanis]

Tom Wheeler is a traitor to the American ideal.

Tom Wheeler is a wolf watching the hen house.

Tom Wheeler needs to be fired.

 

[008Zulu_v1legacy]

The supposed changes will just be a re-write stating the same things as said before, but in a way to make it sound like there will be no tiered shenanigans.

 

[Therumancer]

We decided to put in a limit of 10'000 dollars that you can be gauged for.

Screw it!

This could be fixed by a single piece of legislation! Make internet companies fall under the FCC authority. Instead they are fucking around with new codes and regulations! They want net neutrality dead. It's what wheeler was hired to do!

With Republican opposition to Net Neutrality (Because they view it as government regulation) and how obstructionist they've been, do you really think it'd go anywhere? All it takes is one senator being given enough money from the telecoms that want an end to Net Neutrality, and any bill to enshrine it into law will be dead in the Senate.

I have mixed opinions on it myself. To be honest I want both governments and businesses to keep their hands off the internet. This is one of those cases where I have to weigh two equally bad situations. On one hand I could wind up being reamed by corporations that will make doing anything online prohibitively expensive. Even if we regular users are not directly charged, we will be charged by a raise in the cost of services and doing business to cover the increased money companies will be paying for their priority access. On the other hand if we give it over to the FCC, we're basically giving more acknowledgement of the FCC, and the government, to regulate The Internet, and that kind of thing snowballs. The FCC tends to mostly act as a government censorship organization, as opposed to one that protects free speech, while this is more or less unrelated, it's very easy to say "if they have authority over this, we cannot claim they do not belong offline, and can thus use it towards justifying them being given authority over these other things as well...".

Given my own limited income and less than wonderful future prospects, I don't like the idea of the internet becoming even more expensive than it already is since it and online gaming in particular is one of the few things that still gives me any joy. At the same time I generally see corporations, as much as I hate them, as a lesser evil than government involvement. Corporations can always been regulated later, and laws involving them changed, once the government gets increasingly up in your business it's nearly impossible to get them out. I have to say I'd love for everyone to just bugger off, but if I have to choose bad or worse, I guess I'll take the corporations, and hope with time we'll see more sane legislation. I want there to be as few government hooks into the internet as possible.

Of course realistically The Internet will wind up being totally dominated by both of them anyway, so I guess it really doesn't matter. It's all about slowing the process... the internet I fell in love with oh so long ago has been dead for a while and it's just getting worse. At my age I doubt there will ever been another big face of relative freedom like this originally was within my lifetime, and if there is, I'll probably be too old for it.

 

[RvLeshrac]

We decided to put in a limit of 10'000 dollars that you can be gauged for.

Screw it!

This could be fixed by a single piece of legislation! Make internet companies fall under the FCC authority. Instead they are fucking around with new codes and regulations! They want net neutrality dead. It's what wheeler was hired to do!

With Republican opposition to Net Neutrality (Because they view it as government regulation) and how obstructionist they've been, do you really think it'd go anywhere? All it takes is one senator being given enough money from the telecoms that want an end to Net Neutrality, and any bill to enshrine it into law will be dead in the Senate.

I have mixed opinions on it myself. To be honest I want both governments and businesses to keep their hands off the internet. This is one of those cases where I have to weigh two equally bad situations. On one hand I could wind up being reamed by corporations that will make doing anything online prohibitively expensive. Even if we regular users are not directly charged, we will be charged by a raise in the cost of services and doing business to cover the increased money companies will be paying for their priority access. On the other hand if we give it over to the FCC, we're basically giving more acknowledgement of the FCC, and the government, to regulate The Internet, and that kind of thing snowballs. The FCC tends to mostly act as a government censorship organization, as opposed to one that protects free speech, while this is more or less unrelated, it's very easy to say "if they have authority over this, we cannot claim they do not belong offline, and can thus use it towards justifying them being given authority over these other things as well...".

Given my own limited income and less than wonderful future prospects, I don't like the idea of the internet becoming even more expensive than it already is since it and online gaming in particular is one of the few things that still gives me any joy. At the same time I generally see corporations, as much as I hate them, as a lesser evil than government involvement. Corporations can always been regulated later, and laws involving them changed, once the government gets increasingly up in your business it's nearly impossible to get them out. I have to say I'd love for everyone to just bugger off, but if I have to choose bad or worse, I guess I'll take the corporations, and hope with time we'll see more sane legislation. I want there to be as few government hooks into the internet as possible.

Of course realistically The Internet will wind up being totally dominated by both of them anyway, so I guess it really doesn't matter. It's all about slowing the process... the internet I fell in love with oh so long ago has been dead for a while and it's just getting worse. At my age I doubt there will ever been another big face of relative freedom like this originally was within my lifetime, and if there is, I'll probably be too old for it.

Other than some Newscorp paranoid-delusions masquerading as "news", exactly where do you get any of these ideas that "the government" will "regulate the internet," rather than regulating the companies which are gateways to the internet?

"The government" already has the power, legally speaking, to regulate the content of the internet. They don't need any new regulations to do that, and they certainly don't need the FCC.

In point of fact, corporations are FAR more dangerous than any government, because they (as anti-speech advocates continuously remind us) are not bound by the First Amendment.

 

[Wonder Mike]

Tom Wheeler is nothing but an ISP crony. He will do everything in his power to destroy net neutrality and sell us all out for the massive profits the monopolies pay him to commit his treason against Americans. Tom Wheeler is the poster boy for the proper use of the death penalty, execute the politicians that ignore the will of the people.

 

[mistwolf]

Not even a band aid, a prayer that all people will hear/care about is 'we are revising it' and it will pass while everyone is distracted. Which hopefully isn't working, but I don't have real faith in the people involved not to be easily distracted by theatrics while the substance just continues unchanged.

 

[Therumancer]

[


Other than some Newscorp paranoid-delusions masquerading as "news", exactly where do you get any of these ideas that "the government" will "regulate the internet," rather than regulating the companies which are gateways to the internet?

"The government" already has the power, legally speaking, to regulate the content of the internet. They don't need any new regulations to do that, and they certainly don't need the FCC.

In point of fact, corporations are FAR more dangerous than any government, because they (as anti-speech advocates continuously remind us) are not bound by the First Amendment.

You know, if you want to have a serious discussion with me, it might be nice not to start off with a confrontational insult. What's more if you, or others, ever wondered why I pretty much tell people to do their own research, this is why. At least it's clearly stated here. Your basic approach is to say "well, I'm going to omit anything that you could possibly show me as being from some paranoid lunatic" and make it clear you already know the other side and have dismissed it, so why should I even bother to discuss anything with you?

That said, you are fundamentally correct that when it comes to free speech issues corporations are more dangerous. I have long argued that private individuals, or corporations, should not have the ability to control someone's free speech, deny them platforms, or take action against them (firings, etc...), when that power is denied even elected officials in the government.

That said, we already have that issue with corporations, the government has merely been trying to build up the inertia to be able to act officially against things like "hate speech" and anything else it can somehow justify, but we're not quite there yet.

On the subject of the internet, I do not believe that things like this stand alone. Just because your paranoid does not mean they *aren't* out to get you (so to speak) and as I said giving the FCC more of a hold on the internet for any reason, means it can start using that hold to justify moving into other areas. When it comes to power grabs things do not always follow an obvious, linear, structure with a clear path or purpose. You start out by grabbing every thing you can get, and then using those points, as scattered as they might be, to work towards what you want to do, it becomes easier to say "since we already have authority over all of this, it makes sense to let us do this as well". It won't move from this kind of net regulation immediately to censorship, but it is a foothold, and I believe in giving the government as few footholds as possible, as the more it has, the more able it becomes to move onto bigger things like attacks on free speech. As far as the FCC's ability to legally regulate communications on the internet, it's fairly limited compared to what it can do elsewhere, and I prefer to keep it doing as little as possible. I see the issue of private censorship as something entirely different.

But yes, I do happen to agree with a lot of those "paranoid nut jobs" you refer to when it comes to curtailing government power. I've made no secret of the fact that I'm a Republican and against the federal government doing much
of anything, I believe far more on a focus on state and local power, and that broad, modern interpetations of the constitution do not justify federal power grabs. To someone who is in favor of a powerful federal government, and indeed might even think the idea of "states" is archaic and that everything should be together under one regulatory body that has undisputed nation-wide authority on all things, I and the roughly 50% of the population like me from the other major political party represent paranoid whack jobs. The nation is heavily polarized and this is one of the biggest philosophical disputes in the country and hardly anything that is going to be resolved one way or another by yelling
at each other on the internet. I have enough liberal sentiments in terms of worker's rights (I'm not pure right wing)
to be fairly anti-corporate, but in absolute terms I see the government as a bigger evil. If you prioritize things in the opposite direction that's fine, a lot of people do agree with you. In an issue like this I pretty much figure we're screwed either way so it comes down to the lesser evil of two very bad options, don't get the impression that because I'm saying I think The Federal Government is a greater evil that I am endorsing some great love for corporations gouging internet prices because I'm not, in fact that screws me over as I pointed out. I don't always favor what benefits me the most right there in the short term, I feel in the big picture The Government is a bigger problem and will screw me worse in the long run... of course I'm getting screwed either way.

 

[Nowhere Man]

The fight continues. I don't trust this son of a ***** one bit and I hope this consortium continues to apply pressure and remain vigilant. No rolling over. And no falling for vague re-wordings of proposals. Fucking weasel.

Tom Wheeler is a traitor to the American ideal.

Tom Wheeler is a wolf watching the hen house.

Tom Wheeler needs to be fired.

These words should be posted everywhere on and outside the internet.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

Tom Wheeler is a traitor to the American ideal.

Tom Wheeler is a wolf watching the hen house.

Tom Wheeler needs to be fired.

He won't be fired. He was hired by Obama who's just as crooked as Wheeler. The people need to sign the petition demanding his resignation for the White House to even consider it.

 

[Colt47]

Tom Wheeler is a traitor to the American ideal.

Tom Wheeler is a wolf watching the hen house.

Tom Wheeler needs to be fired.

He won't be fired. He was hired by Obama who's just as crooked as Wheeler. The people need to sign the petition demanding his resignation for the White House to even consider it.

We need him out of there, but we also need someone in there that will actually attempt to preserve net neutrality. Otherwise we are just tossing out one guy and replacing him with another equally bad one. This is turning into our generations potential great prohibition.

 

[Griffolion]

These are just changes in language and rhetoric. The revisions are still proposing the same thing, what's changed is that Wheeler has made a couple of toothless threats, and is going to invite outside comment on the key issues. The decision has already been bought and paid for by the corporations, they are just trying to make it look like what the people think matters.

We need him out of there, but we also need someone in there that will actually attempt to preserve net neutrality. Otherwise we are just tossing out one guy and replacing him with another equally bad one. This is turning into our generations potential great prohibition.

There has been a revolving door between the FCC and the ISP's for years now. Corruption is rife. Wheeler himself was a two-times cable industry lobbyist prior to his current chair at the FCC. He's bought and paid for, like every other FCC chair has been.

 

[TiberiusEsuriens]

Something I did not know until this weekend, but the current head of the FCC used to be a lobbyist for Comcast cable. It's all starting to make sense now. (because he's still a lobbyist for Comcast, get it?)

 

[Something Amyss]

We decided to put in a limit of 10'000 dollars that you can be gauged for.

They can also now demand payment in untraceable Bitcoins.

Problem solved!

Not if the problem is "corporations don't have enough freedoms."

(Because they view it as government regulation)

Ironically, they will add much more regulation to ensure "freedom."

Just look at all the tampering they've done with radio, TV, etc.. And no, they're not alone, but they're supposed to be the anti-regulation party, so saying "the nanny state party does it too" isn't relevant here.

Tom Wheeler is a traitor to the American ideal.

Tom Wheeler is a wolf watching the hen house.

Tom Wheeler needs to be fired.

Tom Wheeler IS the American ideal.

Something I did not know until this weekend, but the current head of the FCC used to be a lobbyist for Comcast cable. It's all starting to make sense now. (because he's still a lobbyist for Comcast, get it?)

I think the answer is clear. We need to get politics out of politics.

 

[loa]

Not a fan of how a good chunk of my internet would be affected by the corrupt money-infested politics of the "land of the free, home of the brave".
One call of obama to wheeler, reminding him of who he's working for could easily fix this but nope.
He hired a comcast lobbyist to "fix" net neutrality for a reason after all.

 

[tangoprime]

Tom Wheeler is a traitor to the American ideal.

Tom Wheeler is a wolf watching the hen house.

Tom Wheeler needs to be fired.

He won't be fired. He was hired by Obama who's just as crooked as Wheeler. The people need to sign the petition demanding his resignation for the White House to even consider it.

Pretty much this. So many of his (even top level) appointees are crooked as hell, and Wheeler was a former cable industry lobbyist. How a "former" cable industry lobbyist gets to be in an appointed position in charge of the bureaucracy that regulates the cable industry is pretty clear, and the same story with pretty much every "scandal" since President Obama took office- either he's completely crooked, or completely incompetent. Neither of these are acceptable traits in a leader, especially the chief executive of a nation.