More Reading

Post navigation

124 Comments

  • Funny they wanna say Title II regs applied to IP access will kill innovation. Last I remember, ILECs and CLECs didn’t become unprofitable because of regulation, they went the way of the dinosaur because of mobile phones and mobile networks!

    Verizon et al. cannot bullsh*t their way out of this one, ohhhhh no.

  • Personally, I’m disappointed that the folks here at DL would be so naive as to support more government regulation of the internet.

  • Surprise surprise, the 2 companies that do the most throttling of data are the first to speak on not wanting regulation.

  • In my experience, anytime the government regulates business the only one who benefits is the government.

  • Not that they wouldn’t be whining regardless of what the FCC said today…well played Droid-Life 😉

  • The weirdest thing about this comments section is the people that are arguing against net neutrality. It’s like they are forgetting that they are USING the internet to say they should be trampled by internet providers.

  • In summary, Verizon and ATT were wanting to make a lot of money throttling your access, and had companies lining up to pay. Now “heavy regulation” is killing that option. F u

  • I agree with the sentiment that more govt. intervention is not a good thing. They say that they will keep the internet open, but when the government starts making decisions for us, we’re in trouble. I hate the ISPs just as much as the next person, but I would rather try my luck with a private company than that of the govt.

    • That statement is completely ignorant of the reality of Net Neutrality. If you’re going to fall for the big bad government argument than there is no hope for you. Please learn what Net Neutrality really is before you overdose on corporate Kool-Aide.

      • Maybe we just believe there is a difference between what Net Neutrality should be and what we’re going to end up with.

  • AT&T’s response: “The FCC cannot mandate that a service be offered on a common carrier basis without, at a minimum, a finding that a particular provider has market power in a particular geographic market.”

    I have one broadband internet provider that serves my area. So clearly, this provider has “market power” in my area. Therefore, AT&T agrees that this ISP should be held under common carrier basis.

    Right, AT&T?

  • AT&T’s response: “The FCC cannot mandate that a service be offered on a common carrier basis without, at a minimum, a finding that a particular provider has market power in a particular geographic market.”

    I have one broadband internet provider that serves my area. So clearly, this provider has “market power” in my area. Therefore, AT&T agrees that this ISP should be held under common carrier basis.

    Right, AT&T?

    • AT&T would argue that you get cellular and/or satellite service in your area, throwing out any argument one may have for “market power”.

      Doesn’t matter too much though. The court battles over this one will be long and filled to bursting with rhetoric on all sides.

      There is simply not enough popcorn in the world for this one…

      • But let’s say, theoretically, that the cellular or satellite service in my area is not broadband (which is now defined as >= 25Mbps). I then only have 1 broadband provider in my area, correct?

        • Did I mention the court battles? 😉

          The new definition of “Broadband” will be more than one of them, I am sure.

    • AT&T would argue that you get cellular and/or satellite service in your area, throwing out any argument one may have for “market power”.

      Doesn’t matter too much though. The court battles over this one will be long and filled to bursting with rhetoric on all sides.

      There is simply not enough popcorn in the world for this one…

  • “FCC has engaged in no analysis of market power on a geographic market basis” — odd, I didn’t know AT&T had a guy who knows everything the FCC does… also I am sure the FCC CEO wouldn’t just start down this battle without some plan as to how he would at least come close to winning… also this is the FCC… they have actually a good record of getting things like this into effect in the past.

    • You may want to do some research about the lobbyists to the FCC as well as FCC regulators former employers.

  • Verizon…Says the company utilizing everyone’s cookies without their consent for personal gain

  • Verizon…Says the company utilizing everyone’s cookies without their consent for personal gain

  • Verizon…Says the company utilizing everyone’s cookies without their consent for personal gain

  • “Net Neutrality” will be the Trojan Horse by which the government burdens us with SOPA/PIPA.

    It sometimes scares me how much people can support one and hate the other without realizing they are likely two sides of the same coin.

    • Not really. Title II regulations apply to the businesses providing the infrastructure for the internet, and the rules for how data packets can and can’t be handled.

      SOPA/PIPA was an attempt to directly regulate the *content* of the data packages, and hand over complete and unadulterated control over normally lawful transactions to an outside force, namely the RIAA and MPAA.

      Those are two very, very different issues. Controlling the pipes does not mean controlling what enters and exists them.

      • “Controlling the pipes does not mean controlling what enters and exists them.”

        The former lends itself to the latter quite easily.

        • It is a clear contradiction for the FCC to create rules precluding data packets from being blocked or throttled by a carrier, and then to turn around and use their regulatory authority to force the carriers to do exactly that. One provision or the other would completely fail upon a legal challenge (make no mistake, there *would* be one), and we’d be right back where we are now.

    • Not really. Title II regulations apply to the businesses providing the infrastructure for the internet, and the rules for how data packets can and can’t be handled.

      SOPA/PIPA was an attempt to directly regulate the *content* of the data packages, and hand over complete and unadulterated control over normally lawful transactions to an outside force, namely the RIAA and MPAA.

      Those are two very, very different issues. Controlling the pipes does not mean controlling what enters and exists them.

    • Not really. Title II regulations apply to the businesses providing the infrastructure for the internet, and the rules for how data packets can and can’t be handled.

      SOPA/PIPA was an attempt to directly regulate the *content* of the data packages, and hand over complete and unadulterated control over normally lawful transactions to an outside force, namely the RIAA and MPAA.

      Those are two very, very different issues. Controlling the pipes does not mean controlling what enters and exists them.

  • I can’t decide whether Stephenson or Shamwow will make the most outlandish woe-is-me statement…

  • I’m more interested in the inevitable responses from republicans about how not giving large corporations everything they want will somehow kill the internet.

    • You do realize that this thing has more bipartisan agreement than pretty much anything else these buffoons do, yes? The only area where you’ll see more bipartisan agreement is in the importance of lining their own pockets and fleecing the populous.

    • Do you realize that Comcast, one of the very corporations that necessitates this legislation, had many executives heavily donate to the Obama campaign? Greed has no political party.

  • Weirdly, I think Verizon Wireless has been the best as far as wireless carriers go in this area. AT&T limits unlimited data users to 5GB before being throttled, Verizon would let you download 500GB and not do anything about it. T-Mobile got rid of all grandfathered plans and removed employer discounts, and limits you when roaming to something like 50-100MB, where Verizon will let you roam as much as you’d like. Unlike T-Mobile and AT&T, Verizon doesn’t prioritize certain applications or services, making start up companies have a better chance (If you could stream Spotify for free versus paying to use a new startup service), etc. etc.

  • Surprised at the tech media’s reaction to this today. More government control over the industry will not lead to positive results. The problem is state supported regional monopolies.

    • This is one step towards ending state supported regional monopolies. This will make google fibre build out fibre more freely and the competition will increase.

        • You realize that this sort of sweeping conservative generalization is totally meaningless, right?

          “Government regulation” can refer a huge range of different things. “Government regulation” helped build the US economy in vital ways, and still offers many protections for small businesses against massive ones (although these protections are being eroded all the time). “government regulation” is what help keeps food safe, streets paved, and schools running. Witthout a doubt, there are tons of examples of terrible “government regulation.” But the perspective that suggests everything would be better if government based on a social contract just disappeared – well, that’s just plain ignorant.

          In this case, nearly every reputable analyst has said Net Neutrality will lead to greater freedom of choice and privacy protections for individuals. Who’s speaking out against Net Neutrality – big corporations who benefit from less freedom of choice and less privacy protections.

          • Pro tip: if you’re gonna support state power, don’t trot out roads and public schools as examples

          • Pro tip: if you’ve never been to a failed state and seen the quality roads or schools there, shut your mouth.

            Across the board, the countries that rank highest in terms of transportation and education have significant government intervention. I’m not saying “government regulation” is always the right approach or always works well. What I’m taking issue with is this extreme conservative view that less government is always better.

          • Why so angry?

            You’re factually incorrect. Facts are not “extreme”. The USA spends more per student than almost all developed countries, with mediocre results. And you can’t complain about “crumbling roads & bridges” in one pitch and then claim the state is responsible for great transportation in the next.

            But sure, just shut your mouth, great argument there

          • Are any of the countries on the list that beat the US not subsidizing their schooling, or controlling it altogether? Which country has less government regulation, that beat the US, that is on the list? As for roads and bridges…. lack of funding… an inability to raise taxes… stale government… but nothing to do with regulation. Your points are irrelevant.

          • Yes, there are nations on the list that take less from the people and have a higher quality output. Lack of funding? What happened to the stimulus I was forced to pay for?

            Anyway, back to the topic at hand…today’s announcement does nothing to improve ISP service, if anything it harms it.

          • My question wasn’t taxation, it was socialization. If we are talking about regulation, which I think we still are (?) the question isn’t how much are the people taxed, the question is how involved is government in the sector. Most of the developed nations in the world have a more socialized schooling and healthcare system than the US. So, while the US spends more, it is less involved as well. Which, it could be argued, is what is causing the negative results you are mentioning. As for the stimulus… I don’t recall a stimulus package that was dedicated for infrastructure. Maybe I just don’t recall it though. I know there has been some fund put aside for it… but, in Utah, for example, the infrastructure system is incredibly underfunded. The state, and the federal government actually, are considering a tax raise on gas in order to start covering the gap. But, to your point, some things are better handled by the state. I’d argue that creating net neutrality helps everyone in the long run.

          • Zee, apologies for the snark, I thought I was replying to James again. I was referring to the trillion dollar stimulus from 09/10. I agree that control and spending are not directly proportional.

    • There has to be a balance, and right now, there is too much corporate control over the internet. I’m amazed at how some people think giving monopolies everything they want will lead to less monopolies.

      • They are right… each monopoly will be consumed by the bigger monopolies until there is only one monopoly to rule them all…

      • They are right… each monopoly will be consumed by the bigger monopolies until there is only one monopoly to rule them all…

      • They are right… each monopoly will be consumed by the bigger monopolies until there is only one monopoly to rule them all…

      • Who enabled them to become monopolies in the first place? Government. And their solution is…even more government. I don’t see much “balance”, and don’t like being forced into the FCC’s opinion (which can be bought and sold like any large state power)

        • Open markets allow for monopolies, not government. Government is the only thing that can actually break the monopoly. The only contribution gov has to creating a monopoly is not acting. So… yes, the solution is to get the government involved.

          • Sure, Monsanto’s patented traits are in 80-95% (depending on crop and data source) of GM crops in the US. But Monsanto does not have a monopoly on the seed market. It’s dominated by DuPont and Monsanto (30-40% each), with Syngenta, Dow, Bayer, and hundreds of smaller, independently owned seed companies. It’s actually quite similar to the mobile phone market.

          • I’m sorry, maybe I misunderstand some of what you said, but do you not think that the mobile phone market is, at least in some respects, monopolized?

        • Open markets allow for monopolies, not government. Government is the only thing that can actually break the monopoly. The only contribution gov has to creating a monopoly is not acting. So… yes, the solution is to get the government involved.

        • Open markets allow for monopolies, not government. Government is the only thing that can actually break the monopoly. The only contribution gov has to creating a monopoly is not acting. So… yes, the solution is to get the government involved.

        • The FCC is actually going to *remove* regulations, not add to them. Currently, ISPs have used local and state legislatures to carve themselves out favorable regulations. This move would invalidate all of the piecemeal local regulations and introduce a single unified regulatory authority in their place. That also makes any changes or appeals more apparent to a wider audience based on the significantly larger scale, creating a higher level of scrutiny overall.

        • What the hell are you even talking about? The government allowed them to become monopolies? I guess in so far as we have antitrust laws that are almost never invoked now because such a large portion of our government is a wholly owned subsidiary of corporate America. Then yes in that sense the government did allow for these monopolies, however to then argue that since the government has not acted to protect consumers in the past, so you don’t want them to act to protect consumers now is asinine and self defeating.

          • That’s not what I argued. Govt set up barriers to entry that otherwise did not exist, ensuring a monopoly.

      • Who enabled them to become monopolies in the first place? Government. And their solution is…even more government. I don’t see much “balance”, and don’t like being forced into the FCC’s opinion (which can be bought and sold like any large state power)

      • Who enabled them to become monopolies in the first place? Government. And their solution is…even more government. I don’t see much “balance”, and don’t like being forced into the FCC’s opinion (which can be bought and sold like any large state power)

    • The tech media and really every company built on the internet want barriers to entry to be low and the marketplace to be fair. This forces the ISPs to keep the internet that way so of course the tech media is going to be happy with this.

    • Seriously? When has regulations that gave consumers recourse for unethical/illegal corporate behavior through punitive government action ever been a bad thing? I can name countless examples of when the removal of such regulations has been disastrous not just for consumers but for entire economies, eg: margin borrowing, savings and loan regulations, subprime lending… On and on. Can you name a single instance where government regulation/consumer protection has ever harmed anything but a corporation’s short term profits?

      • If you think moral hazard had no role in subprime…that artificial interest rates from the Fed were not a MAJOR factor…you do not understand the unintended consequences of excessive state intervention.

        Regulations often come through mandates and forcing people to act in a certain way. Regulating healthcare…regulating student debt…regulating banks (ie TARP and Sarbox)…you may interpret them as “consumer protections” but they carry very serious costs to the consumer.

        Seriously?

  • ROFL… “blah blah blah… but then we can’t abuse our monopolies as much as we used to!”

  • “Moreover, Congress is working on legislation that would codify open internet rules once and for all”

    They forgot to add “that will benefit us.. The supplier.”

    • The Corporations are Writing the Legislation for their Paid-In-The-Pocket Congressmen to bring to the floor of the Capitol

      US citizens are going to have to get off their butts and draw a line in the sand for once and unite if corporations get their way on this.

    • Or a variation of: “I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror, and were suddenly silenced.”

  • It just seems weird that Wheeler would jump over to support net neutrality all of a sudden- even with public opinion going that way, when has that ever mattered to the government? I’m weary of this being a false flag in order to slip other things in or take public attention away from what’s happening to the internet.

Comments are closed.

Related Posts

back to top