FCC brings down the gavel on Net Neutrality

FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler just brought down the gavel on the latest moment in the Net Neutrality saga. Commissioners voted 3-2 to allow his "Notice of Proposed Rulemaking" to go ahead, meaning we have 120 days to submit comments on his terrible proposal to allow for "Internet fast-lanes" that will be available to the online services that offer ISPs the biggest bribes. The outcome that I -- and Net Neutrality advocates -- had been hoping for was that for the Commission to reject his proposal outright and tell him to come up with a better one for comment. A reminder: Wheeler is a former cable lobbyist, and the cable companies stand to make billions, forever, from his proposal.

Notable Replies

  1. This is getting scary, I really thought the proposal would get tossed out on its' ear. Time for the public to make it's hue and cry known in a big, meaningful way.

  2. Ok, net neutrality is obviously the most fair thing, which I am for.
    But, what is the big deal? Network speed/bandwidth has been increasing at a phenomenal rate, as end users we basically have video-on-demand and all other benefits of high speed access, at home, and even on our phones. Next year it'll be twice as fast.
    It's not really that the service provider would 'limit' a company's bandwidth for some nefarious purpose, they want all their clients to succeed so they make more money; preventing this just takes away their own income.
    We have many options of internet speed at home depending on how much we want to spend or use. We aren't 'bribing' our ISP, we are paying for what we need.
    Netflix wouldn't just get a 'super fast lane', they would pay for it. A smaller company could save a bunch with a lower-tier plan. And the ISP would love them to succeed and want a more expensive plan.
    And when the network can provide to your house the ability to watch 10 4k movies simultaneously, Netflix can pay for the full package and a little company can pay a tenth and still provide the same service.

  3. Yaanu says:

    I keep hope that web sites can and will realize that if an ISP is charging them out the ass for content, that they simply just purposely limit or cut off entirely any service and leave up a notice along the lines of "We're sorry, but due to rising costs, Our Website is unavailable through Time Charter And Tee, Or Whatever. Please telephone or write your local CEO and have a calm but stern discussion with him or her (but most likely him) about the situation." Sorta like when OKCupid put up a message exclusively for Firefox users a few weeks ago, only instead of browsers, it's ISPs.

    Can websites do that, actually? There has to be some way to determine that.

    EDIT: Also, turns out you have to add to your body if you're editing a post, even if it's just to change formatting. I did not know that.

  4. The Internet was supposed to decentralize everything. Yet we're still drawn to only a handful of locations, which then become behemoths and treat us like crap. We're like flies to a honeytrap. So we complain to have them change their ways, often unsuccessfully.
    The only way for any real sort of net neutrality to succeed is to decentralize ourselves. Stop using Netflix. Stop using Google. Stop using facebook. There really are actual alternatives.
    I realise the issue of neutrality goes deeper than that, but it's us who create these monsters by continually feeding them.

Continue the discussion bbs.boingboing.net

17 more replies