91–100 of 437 posts
This seems to be strong evidence that government is better at keeping trade free than an 'unregulated free market'?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a republican congress that will shut this down. No we didn't.
The FCC is an 'independent' agency which means that while congress can ask questions, make suggestions, apply pressure, and vote on members of the commission it cannot force the FCC to introduce, accept, or reject any proposed rule-making. Like most regulatory agencies, the purse power is limited since the FCC is funded by regulatory fees (I say limited and not zero because I believe the fees are paid by industry to…
However, I don't think Congress will act in this case. One reason Congress delegates regulation to specific agencies is because Congress does not have the expertise to craft the proper regulations. As a Republican, it seems to me the FCC has taken a balanced approach to regulation in this case, so I don't see much negative feedback by Congress.
The comments on this post are some of the most depressing things I've ever read in response to a regulatory decision. References to Tom Wheeler being a Nazi. Someone calling the plan "Obama-fi." A user who says this: > tom wheeler, seriously, it would be a great thing if you and everyone like you contracted ebola and died a horrible death. This is like giving the entire U.S. population free pizza for a year, and half…
Because you don't understand their argument, they must be wrong, right? And no I can't explain you their argument because whenever I do so I get downvoted. The government wants their hands on all means of communication. The FCC basically shunned the public from using radio waves and TV waves. Now they're going to shun us away from the internet. The same organization, the FCC, will do this as they previously did with…
Why are libertarians so pro- free market when this is a perfect example of how the 'unregulated free market' has no problem manipulating in the name of greed and control at the expense of consumers? This seems to be strong evidence that government is better at keeping trade free than an 'unregulated free market'?
I think libertarians are not naive; they're old boys accustomed to dealing with other old boys in that network. So they see free market working pretty well in that context, and want to extend it.
"there will be no rate regulation, no tariffs, no last-mile unbundling" Translation?
Title II includes several sorts of provisions that apply to "common carriers" very similar to, e.g., how railroads were regulated back in the day. The government sets the prices for carriage (rate regulation), and carriers have to lobby the government to change prices (tariffs). Last-mile unbundling means that carriers must lease out their physical infrastructure to competitors at some wholesale price. These things a…
Now that I'm in the US, I don't see why Comcast can't lease out the last mile to other ISPs for reasonable wholesale rates.
The internet wouldn’t have emerged as it did, for instance,
if the FCC hadn’t mandated open access for network equipment
in the late 1960s. Before then, AT&T prohibited anyone
from attaching non-AT&T equipment to the network.
Yes, the last-mile is a natural monopoly, but there's a wide gulf of possible solutions between "Let AT&T kill all competitors" as they have been for the last century and "Have the FCC regulate competition into existence" as they did in 1996 [1]. Neither of those extremes worked, and to the extent that this policy seems to understand that, it looks like a good outcome. The line about "no rate regulation, no tariffs, no last-mile unbundling" is especially promising in this regard.
However, the proof is in the pudding, and I think we have yet to see an FCC that is truly effective in inspiring local broadband competition through regulatory policies.
[0]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingsbury_Commitment
[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_Act_of_1996
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is an absolutely valid question, but it also has a flip-side: what obligation does law enforcement have to regulate content that you and I, as open-Internet believers, agree is unlawful? Shall we allow illegal content in order to err on the side of caution?
I think reality is already on the heavy surveillance side as known (like this example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A ). So some push should be done in the opposite direction.
I understand the NSA is associated with all kinds of serious issues, but it doesn't help us figure anything else out when the subject changes to NSA even when it doesn't really apply.
I personally learned the importance of open networks the hard way. In the mid-1980s I was president of a startup, NABU: The Home Computer Network. My company was using new technology to deliver high-speed data to home computers over cable television lines....But NABU went broke while AOL became very successful....While delivering better service, NABU had to depend on cable television operators granting access to thei…
How then, with this powerful backstory, did Wheeler choose not to unbundle last mile access? The cable networks are still closed.
So as someone who has been lightly following the debate, and is not familiar with the FCC's process, what are the next steps to actually start enforcing mobile and landline broadband as Title II? I also wonder how long it will take for the reclassification to become enforceable, and how long the existing companies will have to "become compliant".
The next step is for the FCC to vote on the proposal Wheeler is submitting and officially propose the rules (depending on whether they choose to do so as an Notice of Proposed Rulemaking or as a Interim Final Rule with Comment Period, there may or may not be a separate action after that needed to actually put the rules into effect; since this is the action in response to comment on a previous NPRM, I don't think they need to go the NPRM route again, but I think they can choose to, but my knowledge of the detailed requirements of federal administrative procedure is somewhat fuzzy.)
> I also wonder how long it will take for the reclassification to become enforceable, and how long the existing companies will have to "become compliant".
I think that the effective dates would be specified in the proposal, so when the FCC officially issues it we'll know.
Using this authority, I am submitting to my colleagues the strongest open internet protections ever proposed by the FCC. These enforceable, bright-line rules will ban paid prioritization, and the blocking and throttling of lawful content and services. I propose to fully apply—for the first time ever—those bright-line rules to mobile broadband. My proposal assures the rights of internet users to go where they want, wh…
These enforceable, bright-line rules will ban paid prioritization, and the blocking and throttling of lawful content and services of 'lawful content and services'. I don't mean to ruin a good thing, but is it implied here that ISPs may become the gatekeepers? I don't want what happened to YouTube (automatic content blocking because it's "unlawful") to take place with the general internet. One of the most important as…