Republicans plan to push back against net neutrality in 2015

[gwb-trading]

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.

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.

Obviously Ted Cruz does not know what "Net Neutrality" is

 

[WeToddDid2]

Obviously Ted Cruz does not know what "Net Neutrality" is

I don't understand how anyone can know what "Net Neutrality" is as defined under the new FCC regs except for the people at the FCC that have seen the 317 page document. I will reserve judgement until after the document is released.

Also, what other regs are in the document besides "Net Neutrality" as defined by the FCC?

I know there will be new taxes on everyone's internet bill in the form of surcharges.

Does "Net Neutrality" apply to the FCC itself? In other words, can the FCC in its reasonable judgement block content?

 

[WeToddDid2]

Are the new FCC regs a backdoor way to do this?

http://www.independentsentinel.com/drudge-beware-fec-joins-attacks-on-free-speech-of-conservatives/

There is a serious and multi-prong effort by Democrats to restrict the free speech of individuals and groups. The latest is a plan by the FEC to regulate free online political sites to include free youtube postings and blogs like Drudge and Sean Hannity.

Free speech on the Internet has not been regulated but Democrats want to regulate it. It’s an enormous overreach by government – the FEC does not legitimately have the power to regulate free speech on the Internet.

 

[WeToddDid2]

What is the "general conduct rule"?

What authority does the "general conduct rule" give to the FCC?

Can the FCC pick winners and losers under the "general conduct rule"?

These guys are starting to have seller's remorse. I am not familiar with this entity.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/02/dear-fcc-rethink-those-vague-general-conduct-rules

For many months, EFF has been working with a broad coalition of advocates to persuade the Federal Communications Commission to adopt new Open Internet rules that would survive legal scrutiny and actually help protect the Open Internet. Our message has been clear from the beginning: the FCC has a role to play, but its role must be firmly bounded.

Unfortunately, if a recent report from Reuters is correct, the general conduct rule will be anything but clear. The FCC will evaluate “harm” based on consideration of seven factors: impact on competition; impact on innovation; impact on free expression; impact on broadband deployment and investments; whether the actions in question are specific to some applications and not others; whether they comply with industry best standards and practices; and whether they take place without the awareness of the end-user, the Internet subscriber.

Who decides what "best standards and practices" are?

Should Fox News be shut down in the year of a presidential election because they are not adhering to "best standards and practices"?

Should Breitbart be shut down in the year of a presidential election because in the FCC's reasonable judgement Breitbart is harming competition?

Is Chick-fil-a adhering to the most likely perpetually moving target of "best standards and practices" because they have servers attached to the internet?

 

[fhl]

Obviously Ted Cruz does not know what "Net Neutrality" is

And I presume you think late night comedian John Oliver has more knowledge on the issue than Sen Ted Cruz.

 

[WeToddDid2]

Is your business considered an ISP under the new regs when employees attach their computers to the business network?

Can the FCC now regulate any private/public business's private network because it is attached to the internet?

 

[WeToddDid2]

Unfortunately, if a recent report from Reuters is correct, the general conduct rule will be anything but clear. The FCC will evaluate “harm” based on consideration of seven factors: impact on competition; impact on innovation; impact on free expression; impact on broadband deployment and investments; whether the actions in question are specific to some applications and not others; whether they comply with industry best standards and practices; and whether they take place without the awareness of the end-user, the Internet subscriber.

If a business is doing better than it's competition because the owner works harder, is that harming competition?

Is Linked harming Twitter?

 

[gwb-trading]

And I presume you think late night comedian John Oliver has more knowledge on the issue than Sen Ted Cruz.

Yes, Cruz is pretty much an idiot on the issue.

 

[Ricter]

The job creators know best how much bandwidth the little people need.

 

[gwb-trading]

Is your business considered an ISP under the new regs when employees attach their computers to the business network?

Can the FCC now regulate any private/public business's private network because it is attached to the internet?

No, business networks that are not connected to the internet are still private. Business Networks that are out-sourced to companies like AT&T using MPLS, etc. via monthly payment plans with associated service level agreements to connect multiple business locations are not subject to FCC regulations.

Net Neutrality is solely focused on the public internet, the concept being that an ISP can not put one source of content (e.g. Google) in a fast lane while placing their competitor (e.g. Yahoo) in the slow-lane based on the content provider paying the ISP high levels of green-mail.

I think it is absurd that ISPs expect content providers to pay huge sums to be in the fast lane. Even worse a company like Google would have to pay dozens of large service providers hundreds of millions of dollars each.... and each ISP could demand monstrous sums of money to be in the fast lane. You say this won't happen? It already has - Netflix has already paid Comcast and Verizon to stop them from deliberately degrading streaming from Netflix and be in the "fast lane" - strangely enough both carriers failed to live up to their commitments after the agreement even after Netflix reportedly paid over $200 Million to each of them.

Furthermore many of these ISPs provide video services themselves. What do you think about a Cable Company slowing down Netflix to a crawl so they can force their own online video service on paying customers. Net Neutrality prevents this from happening and is one of the founding concepts of the Internet.