Republicans plan to push back against net neutrality in 2015

http://www.netcompetition.org/congr...roadband-for-google-entire-internet-ecosystem

Bold mine.

The Multi-Billion Dollar Impact of FCC Title II Broadband — for Google & entire Internet ecosystem
More...

Investors understandably have focused first on whether or not the FCC will upend the broadband Internet sector by deeming broadband a Title II common carrier service for the first time, and second whether or not the FCC actually has the legal/constitutional authority to do so.

  • However, as a result of that political and legal focus, what has been almost completelyignored is the potential multi-billion dollar impact of such an FCC decision, that by definition, would make all currently unregulated and un-metered Internet traffic bits, regulated and metered “telecommunications” tele-bits for the first time.
Simply, deeming broadband Title II legally could compel bit metering and bit payments in the U.S. for the first time.

  • That’s because of the way the law and the forbearance provision are written; they apparently do not allow for any immaculate ruling where the FCC somehow rules the service and carrier of Internet traffic are regulated, but not the Internet traffic itself that is precisely what defines the service and carrier.
  • Legally and logically, one cannot happen without the other.
  • To employ an apt metaphor here, a Title II broadband steamroller is no discriminating surgical scalpel
More...
 
If the info from below link is correct, the dems proposal of "net neutrality" gets much worse.

More from:

http://www.netcompetition.org/congr...roadband-for-google-entire-internet-ecosystem

Thus, the potential financial liability of deeming broadband Title II could be on the order of tens of billions of dollars a year on major asymmetric Internet traffic originators like Google-YouTube, but also others like Netflix, Amazon, etc. That is because:

  • Broadband (Internet traffic) is currently an unregulated information service.
  • Title II broadband would legally and logically transform unregulated information services traffic into regulated “telecommunications” traffic with cost-based metered pricing by law (See sections 251(b)(5) & 252(d)(2)(A))
  • FCC’s regulatory forbearance authority apparently does not apply to metered “telecommunications.”
  • Many Internet content and apps providers originate much more traffic than they terminate.
  • Unregulated peering is largely free.
  • The operative “telecommunications” metered rate is $.0007 per minute or translated to bits per seconds: 18 cents per gigabit per second or $182 per terabit per second. (See the methodology for all these calculations at the end of this post.)
  • Thus the potential financial liability for every one terabit per second of internet traffic asymmetry would be $5.749b per year, (if the FCC did not devise a new cost-based telecom-Internet blended bit rate.)
  • This means, in particular, Google-YouTube — as the Internet’s largest narrowcaster who sends an estimated 40 times more traffic than they receive — would have a reciprocal compensation cost liability alone of between $5.7b to 16.4b per year, depending on Google’s overall ratio of originating traffic to terminating traffic.
More...

In other words, it looks like the libtard definition of "net neutrality" is complete regulation of every bit on internet and massive taxes. That is not a surprise.
 
  • Like
Reactions: fhl
The sensible thing, if there is a need for prioritization, because of available bandwidth, etc., is to adopt a "no paid prioritization" policy, and let a public agency that has nothing to gain financially set guidelines for priority. If you allow paid priority you are opening the door to rent seeking by the ISPs. A very bad practice indeed, which will have negative consequences for innovation, competition, and the economy. Kudos to Mr. Obama if indeed "no paid priority" is his position.
 
piezoe said:
The sensible thing, if there is a need for prioritization, because of available bandwidth, etc., is to adopt a "no paid prioritization" policy, and let a public agency that has nothing to gain financially set guidelines for priority. If you allow paid priority you are opening the door to rent seeking by the ISPs. A very bad practice indeed, which will have negative consequences for innovation, competition, and the economy. Kudos to Mr. Obama if indeed "no paid priority" is his position.
More...

Oblahblah is pulling a bait and switch on this. The FCC previously passed paid priority. Verizon got is tossed in court for some reason. I haven't research it.

What is the cost of "no paid priority"?

The cost looks like complete government control of every bit on internet and taxes in the form of surcharges.
 
WeToddDid2 said:
Oblahblah is pulling a bait and switch on this. The FCC previously passed paid priority. Verizon got is tossed in court for some reason. I haven't research it.

What is the cost of "no paid priority"?

The cost looks like complete government control of every bit on internet and taxes in the form of surcharges.
More...
major concerns either way! I like the way you think!
 
FCC to vote next month on net neutrality rules
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/fcc-vote-next-month-net-neutrality-rules-001110673--finance.html

Federal regulators are expected to vote next month on rules to govern how Internet service providers like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast deal with the flow of content on their high-speed networks.

The five-member Federal Communications Commission will consider then a proposal from Chairman Tom Wheeler on so-called net neutrality rules, agency spokeswoman Kim Hart said Friday. She was confirming reports in The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal on the planned timing of the vote.

Details of the draft proposal weren't disclosed. President Barack Obama has asked the FCC to put Internet service providers under the same rules as those imposed on telephone companies 80 years ago. The aim is to protect net neutrality, the concept that all online traffic should be treated equally and given the same access to networks.

The outcome could affect the prices consumers pay for access to entertainment, news and other online content.

The idea behind net neutrality is that everyone with an Internet connection should have equal access to all legal content online, including video, music, email, photos, social networks and maps.

The idea was a fundamental tenet of the Internet from its origin. But its fate has been in limbo since January 2014, when a federal appeals court struck down the FCC's guidelines and forced the agency to come up with new rules. The court ruling said the FCC has the authority to regulate service providers' treatment of Internet traffic but that the agency failed to establish that its regulations don't overreach.

Advocates of regulating the service providers like utilities contend that the companies, if left unchecked, will create a two-tier system that funnels Internet traffic into fast and slow lanes. In that scenario, only the richest content providers will be able to pay the extra tolls to ensure that their online content is accessible through the fast lanes.

Internet service providers reject such regulation. They assert they would be prevented from recovering some of the costs for connecting to content providers that use large quantities of broadband, such as Netflix.
 
0bhwWoo.png


FCC hides new rules and won't let public see them till after they pass it.
'We'll have to pass these rules to find out what is in them'.

And all so the gov't can stop the colossal unfairness of having to pay more for express speeds.

64402_cartoon_main.jpg



In return for disincentivizing internet providers from investing in upgrades, what will get in return?

A claim that isp's won't be able to charge for express services, new rules that are so good they won't tell you what they are until after they can get it passed, and the designation of the internet as a public utility so it can now be taxed by the gov't.

Phone service has that designation and my bill adds close to fifty percent in taxes to the phone service.
 
That's the issue I have with this. If the rules being considered are so great, why aren't they public beforehand? Oh wait, because it's part of the "Most Transparent Administration in History", right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top