Skip to main content

FCC Plans To Dismantle Net Neutrality Rules

FCC chairman Ajit Pai announced the agency’s intention to repeal a 2015 order that prevented broadband and wireless providers from either blocking or slowing down consumer access to content on the web.

The plan aims to completely eliminate the current net neutrality regulations currently in place. Pai confirmed that the vote to nullify the Obama-era net neutrality rules will take place on December 14.

Because there are three Republicans and two Democrats on the commission, and the vote will surely fall on party lines, the scrapping of net neutrality is a likely possibility.

The new proposal, which has been a long time coming, suggests that the federal government will cease "micromanaging the internet," according to Pai. A new rule would see internet service providers required to be "transparent" on their practices only so "consumers can buy the service plan that’s best for them and entrepreneurs and other small businesses can have the technical information they need to innovate."

“Additionally, as a result of my proposal, the Federal Trade Commission will once again be able to police ISPs, protect consumers, and promote competition, just as it did before 2015," Pai added.

He also spoke out against President Obama's implementation of the internet regulations from a few years ago. Under Obama, the FCC treated broadband providers like public utilities, which allowed it complete supervision over the way the internet providers conduct its policies. "Speaking of transparency, when the prior FCC adopted President Obama’s heavy-handed internet regulations, it refused to let the American people see that plan until weeks after the FCC’s vote. This time, it’ll be different," said Pai.

How will it be different? Pai said that he’ll release the proposal that details his plan to restore “internet freedom” tomorrow. He noted that this will be more than three weeks before the vote takes place on December 14.

The aforementioned proposal also states that instead of the FCC, the Federal Trade Commission is the government agency that will oversee the so-called protection of the internet. "Notably, my proposal will put the federal government’s most experienced privacy cop, the FTC, back on the beat to protect consumers’ online privacy," Pai stated.

Net neutrality requires ISPs to treat all internet data as the same regardless where it came from. The FCC's rules, however, have sparked major controversy due to their decision to place broadband providers under the same stringent regulations governing telephone networks.

  • compprob237
    Just love the weasel words Pai uses.
    "buy the service plan that's best for them"
    Ah, so my choice of one internet service provider means I can either deal with what they have or have no internet. Gotcha.
    Reply
  • Colin_10
    Has anyone else noticed that a few years ago Commercials on TV got way louder? You could be watching your show at a normal volume and then as it swaps to a commercial suddenly its so loud you scramble for your remote to mute it... Yeah this kind of reminds me of that. I understand why TV companies do this, because people walk away from the TV while it's on commercial, but holy shit is it annoying. This will be the same, things people don't want, aka the commercials and adds will be downloading at max speed, while your desired content will be at a reduced speed. Then when you call ATT and tell them your speed is slower than advertised they direct you to a site they own to test the speed, and low and behold, wow it's just up to their specs!!!! Amazing!
    Reply
  • 10tacle
    Obama's Net Neutrality was never meant to be what it was intended for: supporting free market competition and increasing consumer choice as well as pulling in the reigns of how much an ISP/cable company controls a certain market. Instead, it was a Trojan Horse for controlling content on the internet. We were close to becoming China with it where the federal government controls what people are allowed to see. If Net Neutrality was done as intended, then we'd never have had ISP and cable mergers under the second term of the Obama administration. Its mission had little to do with preventing Amazon Prime members seeing their streaming service go to a crawl because they had Comcast Xfinity. Classic big government meddling is nothing new of course no matter who is president, but I am glad Net Neutrality (a misnomer if I ever heard of one) is dead.

    And I'll bring up another point: would Net Neutrality have done anything about Google and Facebook targeting their news feeds and search engines based on political stance which they do and are so brash as to deny they do it? Google, Facebook, and Twitter are monopolies by the very definition used by the FTC. They control more than 50% of social media and search engine markets. They can and do impose on their customers restrictions based on their views as to what is and is not "appropriate" to be posted on the internet (and more often than not as we've increasingly witnessed, it's been politically motivated). And the kicker to that is that it is these same institutions who are advocating federal government oversight on internet use and supported NN! I took the red pill, thank you.
    Reply
  • 10tacle
    20402321 said:
    Has anyone else noticed that a few years ago Commercials on TV got way louder? You could be watching your show at a normal volume and then as it swaps to a commercial suddenly its so loud you scramble for your remote to mute it...

    LOL. It's nothing new. Cable companies have been doing that for decades. I first started noticing it as a kid when we first got cable back in the 1970s. I remember even reading an article where some "independent" company did a study about all the complaints from people about commercial volumes, and they concluded it was in our minds. Yeah right. And how much money did those advertisers and cable companies pay you to come to that conclusion again?

    But regarding internet speed, it's not always on the ISP. Bandwidth usage can change that depending on time of day or night. It's also the infrastructure of your neighborhood and even the wiring to your home that can affect it. To this day, ISP/cable companies are spending money replacing decades old network cabling and upgrading it. I have AT&T Uverse and we are probably within 85% of the performance we are paying for. I contacted them and they got a technician out to trouble shoot. He essentially said it was due to living in a home and neighborhood that was built in the 1970s and there was only so much they could do. A friend in a new neighborhood a few miles away gets almost exactly his rated speed performance with Comcast Xfinity. Same thing with 1GB fiber: it's not available everywhere because the infrastructure (both home and neighborhood) is not there or compatible.

    With that said, if it becomes known that consumers are not getting at least most of what they pay for in an ISP's performance in a certain market, then that is a case for a class action lawsuit where each customer gets reimbursed. So far, I have yet to see that happen. In our litigation happy America, lawyers would be fighting each other to take that class action claim on.
    Reply
  • why_wolf
    Congratulations on not understanding what Net Neutrality was actually about 10TACLE.
    Reply
  • 10tacle
    20402449 said:
    Congratulations on not understanding what Net Neutrality was actually about 10TACLE.

    Well, like I said - I took the red pill and am awake. I've been on this planet for half a century now and am older and wiser. I've witnessed a lot in that time, and some time ago I got fed up with being lied to by our government. Not once, not twice, not randomly, but nearly ALL the time. And it doesn't matter what political party controls Washington. I trust those who implemented NN about as far as I can throw an engine block from a car.

    When politicians say a program of theirs is for a certain reason or cause, you can bet that's not really why they implemented it. The fact that the supporters or foes of it are essentially divided down political lines is all I need to know (like the so-called man-made climate change science being settled). Now if you want to refute any of my points, I'm all ears.

    And another point: I never hear any gamers out there complain about pay to play games (you pay more for more content, no advertisements, etc.). You want faster ISP service, pay for it. We have become a society where everyone expects to be entitled to everything they want for free. Having equal access and speed to the internet is not a right. And again, I duly note your ignoring my mentioning of ISP/cable mergers under the Obama administration while this NN idea was concocted. And the silence from NN and so-called "Digital Democracy" advocates about the tactics of Google, Facebook, and Twitter is duly noted as well.
    Reply
  • TJ Hooker
    20402323 said:
    Obama's Net Neutrality was never meant to be what it was intended for: supporting free market competition and increasing consumer choice as well as pulling in the reigns of how much an ISP/cable company controls a certain market. Instead, it was a Trojan Horse for controlling content on the internet. We were close to becoming China with it where the federal government controls what people are allowed to see. If Net Neutrality was done as intended, then we'd never have had ISP and cable mergers under the second term of the Obama administration. Its mission had little to do with preventing Amazon Prime members seeing their streaming service go to a crawl because they had Comcast Xfinity. Classic big government meddling is nothing new of course no matter who is president, but I am glad Net Neutrality (a misnomer if I ever heard of one) is dead.
    Lack of ISP competition/local monopolies are issues, but not not issues related to net neutrality, nor were the Obama-era net neutrality laws ever supposed to (or described as) fixing them AFAIK. So yes, it really does seem like you missed the point of net neutrality.
    Regarding your claims about the previous NN laws being a trojan horse for the government controlling the web, how so? I routinely see that sort of reactionary rhetoric from people who seem to think that any government regulation is the first step to tyranny, but I don't think I've ever seen anyone describe how those laws would have paved the way for the government seizing control the web.
    Reply
  • TJ Hooker
    20402461 said:
    And another point: I never hear any gamers out there complain about pay to play games (you pay more for more content, no advertisements, etc.)
    Seriously? I see gamers complain about all the time. Did you miss EA getting crucified a week or two ago for all the pay-to-unlock content in Battlefront 2?
    Reply
  • 10tacle
    20402513 said:
    Lack of ISP competition/local monopolies are issues, but not not issues related to net neutrality, nor were the Obama-era net neutrality laws ever supposed to (or described as) fixing them AFAIK. So yes, it really does seem like you missed the point of net neutrality.

    The core of Net Neutrality was about control over ISPs and servicing (or non-servicing) their customers and their markets. It's the classic slippery slope situation. But beside that, the FCC imposes more regulations on ISPs and cable companies than in mobile telecom companies. Have you ever thought why is that? You can't control someone's phone call and personal communication across said FCC controlled airwaves.
    .
    20402513 said:
    Regarding your claims about the previous NN laws being a trojan horse for the government controlling the web, how so? I routinely see that sort of reactionary rhetoric from people who seem to think that any government regulation is the first step to tyranny, but I don't think I've ever seen anyone describe how those laws would have paved the way for the government seizing control the web.

    Well fortunately we will never find out. But again, I don't trust anything politicians do when it comes to interfering in our private enterprise industry. We are a free market society for a reason. The very idea that nobody complains about the censorship of the Facebook, Googletube, and Twitter monopolies are all I need to know about the authenticity of what NN would have been for America.
    Reply
  • 10tacle
    20402530 said:

    I wasn't clear. I was talking about the free P2P games that have ads and whatnot have you have to buy more content, not complete games you buy that have DLC and whatnot. But yes, EA got their backsides slapped so hard in outrage that they reversed their stance on the lockbox or whatever you call it for Battlefront II. I feel sorry for the suckers who paid $80 for the "Deluxe" edition over the standard edition and didn't really get anything more out of it. But, nobody forces anyone to buy a game. EA/DICE gets away with it time after time because people keep buying their games.

    But back to NN, I live in a suburban area of a major US city and have no less than four ISP/cable company choices on top of satellite choices. If I'm not happy with how my ISP services me, I go to another. And I have. If my Amazon Prime membership starts letting me down in streaming through my PS4 because they know I have AT&T Uverse, I'll drop them too. I don't need the government to hold my consumer hand. This is all what NN was originally about. I don't know how I can make it any more clear.
    Reply