

FCC Head to Revise Broadband-Rules Plan - hepha1979
http://online.wsj.com/news/article_email/SB10001424052702303627504579556200630931292-lMyQjAxMTA0MDEwMTExNDEyWj

======
DigitalSea
Tom Wheeler: "You say tomato, I say to-ma-to"

It's lipstick on a pig really. The whole premise of paying for faster content
delivery needs to be shelved. Because we all know once the initial language is
approved and the laws are changed, the door is open to push more legislation
without requiring a vote as it can be under the guise of the existing
legislation.

We need to keep the pressure up and oppose this at all costs. I want to see
the likes of Mozilla, Google, Microsoft and others take this further and use
their connections, their captive audiences and money to stop this. I'm really
concerned this is actually going to happen and it's frightening. Because once
the US does this, so too will other countries (like my own Australia) thanks
to agreements like the TPP.

------
kristopolous
I think net neutrality is one of those things that the average laymen has to
be explained and doesn't intuitively understand what is in their own best
interest.

If Time Warner claims that net neutrality gives them slower more expensive
internet, then they really don't have the expertise to conclude otherwise. And
that's a problem.

As a result, the polls which are conducted show that the public doesn't want
net neutrality. see [http://heartland.org/policy-documents/majority-public-
oppose...](http://heartland.org/policy-documents/majority-public-opposes-net-
neutrality-mandate) and [http://arstechnica.com/tech-
policy/2006/09/7772/](http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2006/09/7772/)

I think that the big players need to plaster ads on things like the google
homepage which try to explain the concepts in simple-simple terms and why
having it doesn't mean "slower and pricier internet" and additionally, that
any complaints they may have about expensive slow internet is nearly 100% due
to too-little and not too-much regulation of the companies which they pay for
this so-called service.

~~~
ds9
This is one area where techies for public interest can fight back with words.

I explain it to friends and family this way:

Neutrality means the ISP delivers whatever you request on a best-effort basis
(explanation of best-effort here). Non-neutrality means the ISP gets to
_auction off your ability to connect to sites /services you want to connect
to_. In other words, you look at site A and it's fast because A paid the ISP;
but site B is slow because they paid less.

And this is wrong because (a) you pay your ISP for connectivity to everywhere,
for your own purposes, but you have no say in what they make slow or fast
based on side deals. (b) you and the site you're connecting to both have
already paid for your respective connections, but without neutrality the sites
have to pay more again to avoid artificial slowdowns.

------
andyl
It is time to re-classify ISPs as common carriers.

------
6cxs2hd6
> _In the new draft, Mr. Wheeler is sticking to the same basic approach but
> will include language that would make clear that the FCC will scrutinize the
> deals to make sure that the broadband providers don 't unfairly put
> nonpaying companies' content at a disadvantage_

Granted this is a non-quote from a source, so maybe that's the muddle. But
muddled it is. If Comcast/Verizon are allowed to demand that some companies
pay, then they're paying for... what? More bandwidth than companies who don't
pay. It seems like the weasel word here is "unfair".

Look, Comcast/Verizon are _already_ getting paid by consumers to deliver
whatever data their consumers request. It's not as if Netflix is pushing the
stuff unsolicited, like spam. So, how about Comcast/Verizon just do what the
fsck they're already being paid to do?

------
Splendor
It looks like the only change is that the FCC is promising to keep the ISPs in
check so ISPs don't abuse their proposed ability to charge companies for
access to their customers. No thanks; I'd much prefer actual ISP regulation
over empty promises.

------
fortuitous
Just as I suspected. Promising to slap their hand will do nothing. We did the
same thing with the telecommunications act in the 1990s in order to enforce
competition in the ISP space, and the entrenched telcos laughed it off. I
guess Wheeler is expecting that history won't repeat? I refuse to believe he
is this naive, he knows enforcement won't go anywhere, but he thinks everyone
else believes this so his agenda can be pushed.

------
logn
Instead, we should pass a law that prohibits regulators who have a conflict of
interest. People like Wheeler should never be allowed as FCC chairs. That he's
attempting to pass regulations that refer to his own scrutiny and evaluation
of fairness is a huge red flag.

------
webjunkie
Why don't the just use the same law the EU recently passed? No need to invent
something new and argue about it.

------
dang
Url changed from [1], which points to this article.

1\. [http://techcrunch.com/2014/05/11/fcc-said-to-tweak-
proposed-...](http://techcrunch.com/2014/05/11/fcc-said-to-tweak-proposed-net-
neutrality-rules-but-preserve-pay-for-speed/)

