FA+
Shop
The FCC and you
11 years ago
General
So, need to get my thoughts out on this.
As many of you know I'm three things besides a furry with a truckload of weird fetishes:
- An avid online gamer.
- One who lives their life online.
- An IT student.
So naturally my initial reactions to the FCC's recent vote on net neutrality was as insanity-wolf as you may expect it to have been.
HOWEVER, since then I've had time to calm down and de-stress, then look at it from a more critical view.
Here's what I've gained from my research in the form of some bullet points. Please keep an open mind when reading these.
- Nothing has changed yet.
Tom Wheeler (Chairman of the FCC) has proposed a framework for rulemaking and opened it for public comment. To contact the FCC you can go to the FCC website: http://www.fcc.gov/ or call this number ( 1-888-225-5322 ). If you don't like the new rules or want to suggest something else, CALL them!
All they've done is the very start of the legislative process. They create the framework, open it for public comment, define the final structure, and then submit it to congress. Congress either votes in approval or they vote it down to get revised. Once they approve of it then it's sent to President Obama (or whoever comes after him, this can take a long time) to sign into law.
Seriously guys, we know this, or at least we know the song: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFroMQlKiag
- This is the THIRD time that the FCC has tried to set concrete rules for Net Neutrality
The FCC has tried twice in the past to set rules to protect the Open Internet, once in 2010 and again earlier this year. Both times the DC Circuit court has struck them back down. Wheeler and the rest of the FCC just want this finally settled so they can get some solid rules in place and go about enforcing them.
- They could require ISPs to be reclassified as Type II Common Carriers... except they'd get sued straight to hell.
One of the popular ideas for protecting net neutrality is the same way the US government broke up the Ma Bell monopoly back in 1934, would reclassify them as common carriers the same as any telephone company... but Comcast, Verizon, and so on would scream foul at the top of their lungs and send every lawyer they had against the FCC tying them up in litigation for several years at least.
On top of that, broadband providers have argued that this would create a heavy regulatory scheme that would require entrepreneurs to seek government permission to innovate and discourage investment in broadband infrastructure, or in layman's terms anyone who wanted to do business online would be forced to seek government approval first.
- Tom Wheeler is Pro-Net Neutrality.
Here's the fun bit that's probably going to have a lot of people yelling "WHAT?!" at their monitors. Yes Tom Wheeler used to be a Cable lobbyist, yes he's now the chairman of the FCC, but that doesn't always mean what people think it means.
Just because he had a job where he worked for guys like Comcast doesn't mean he's still necessarily on their side anymore.
The following is Chairman Wheeler's own words:
"I want to get to rules that work like this:
If the network operator slowed the speed below that which the consumer bought (for reasons other than reasonable network management), it would be a commercially unreasonable practice and therefore prohibited,
If the network operator blocked access to lawful content, it would violate our no blocking rule and be commercially unreasonable and therefore doubly prohibited,
When content provided by a firm such as Netflix reaches the consumer’s network provider it would be commercially unreasonable to charge the content provider to use the bandwidth for which the consumer had already paid and therefore prohibited,
When a consumer buys specified capacity from a network provider he or she is buying open capacity, not capacity the network can prioritize for its own profit purposes. Prioritization that deprives the consumer of what the consumer has paid for would be commercially unreasonable and therefore prohibited."
This is what the guy who half the internet is currently wanting to crucify has been going for. Ensuring that providers give the speeds their customers have paid for (i.e. if the contract says 20mbps then it will be 20mbps or else), no blocking access to lawful content of any sort (Comcast can't block access to sites critical of Comcast or else they're breaking a law), they can't charge content providers for additional speed or other benefits (because those who are accessing said content have already paid the ISP), and absolutely no prioritization (i.e. the infamous 'internet fast lane').
See, here's my take on Tom Wheeler. Personally, I don't know the man but I can see three scenarios about his current occupation (FCC Chairman) and his previous one (Cable lobbyist).
1. Everyone's paranoid fantasy is correct and he's doing it to purposely help out his old bosses in the cable industry.
2. He's neutral to them and the public and wants the best situation for both where the public still gets good internet connectivity and speed while the ISPs can still make a decent profit and run their business within legal boundaries.
3. He became Chairman specifically to stick it to his old bosses who keep trying to alter Net Neutrality to suit their own needs and is doing the best he can to do so with the power he has as Chairman.
I used to work for Walmart, but I sure as hell won't be singing their praises anytime soon. Could be the same for him.
- Even if our fears come to pass (the fast lane), Wheeler and the FCC have a backup plan.
The following is a quote from a user on Reddit named Phirazo who did a good job of explaining it.
"Chairman Tom Wheeler is giving it a third go, and on Thursday started the process with a "Notice of Proposed Rulemaking". There are undoubtedly good parts, such as improved transparency rules and a no blocking rule.
What started the ruckus is that the rules would require broadband operators to provide content providers a "minimum level of access to their end-user subscribers" (the notice looks for input on how to define a "minimum level") but allow content providers to cut individual deals with broadband operators for better service to end users, which is often called a "fast lane".
People are afraid that only big players could afford to cut these individual deals, and that this would freeze out innovation. The FCC would be able to review these deals for "commercial reasonableness", which would forbid deals that threaten an Open Internet."
Even if the fast lane does become a reality, the FCC will still be able to review the deals that the ISPs will want to make before they are made on the grounds that they provide an essential service for both businesses and consumers. If those deals are found to be commercially unreasonable (i.e. charging a new startup the same as they would charge a major corporation) then the FCC could put the kibosh on that plan and make the ISP charge them a greatly reduced rate or provide it for free.
Hopefully this clears up some of the panic that my more technologically inclined furry friends have been having over this. I know that personally, after looking closer at matters, I'm feeling much better about what's happening.
Remember guys, if you want to voice your own opinion on the matter you can do so! Just go to the FCC website or call that aforementioned number (again, 1-888-225-5322 ) and tell them how you feel about what's happening and what you'd like to suggest.
Just keep it civil though. Saying "I disapprove of the idea of an internet fast lane and ISPs charging businesses for preferential treatment" is good. Saying "TOM WHEELER SHOULD HAVE HIS DICK CUT OFF!" would probably get the FBI at your door to ask you some awkward questions.
As many of you know I'm three things besides a furry with a truckload of weird fetishes:
- An avid online gamer.
- One who lives their life online.
- An IT student.
So naturally my initial reactions to the FCC's recent vote on net neutrality was as insanity-wolf as you may expect it to have been.
HOWEVER, since then I've had time to calm down and de-stress, then look at it from a more critical view.
Here's what I've gained from my research in the form of some bullet points. Please keep an open mind when reading these.
- Nothing has changed yet.
Tom Wheeler (Chairman of the FCC) has proposed a framework for rulemaking and opened it for public comment. To contact the FCC you can go to the FCC website: http://www.fcc.gov/ or call this number ( 1-888-225-5322 ). If you don't like the new rules or want to suggest something else, CALL them!
All they've done is the very start of the legislative process. They create the framework, open it for public comment, define the final structure, and then submit it to congress. Congress either votes in approval or they vote it down to get revised. Once they approve of it then it's sent to President Obama (or whoever comes after him, this can take a long time) to sign into law.
Seriously guys, we know this, or at least we know the song: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFroMQlKiag
- This is the THIRD time that the FCC has tried to set concrete rules for Net Neutrality
The FCC has tried twice in the past to set rules to protect the Open Internet, once in 2010 and again earlier this year. Both times the DC Circuit court has struck them back down. Wheeler and the rest of the FCC just want this finally settled so they can get some solid rules in place and go about enforcing them.
- They could require ISPs to be reclassified as Type II Common Carriers... except they'd get sued straight to hell.
One of the popular ideas for protecting net neutrality is the same way the US government broke up the Ma Bell monopoly back in 1934, would reclassify them as common carriers the same as any telephone company... but Comcast, Verizon, and so on would scream foul at the top of their lungs and send every lawyer they had against the FCC tying them up in litigation for several years at least.
On top of that, broadband providers have argued that this would create a heavy regulatory scheme that would require entrepreneurs to seek government permission to innovate and discourage investment in broadband infrastructure, or in layman's terms anyone who wanted to do business online would be forced to seek government approval first.
- Tom Wheeler is Pro-Net Neutrality.
Here's the fun bit that's probably going to have a lot of people yelling "WHAT?!" at their monitors. Yes Tom Wheeler used to be a Cable lobbyist, yes he's now the chairman of the FCC, but that doesn't always mean what people think it means.
Just because he had a job where he worked for guys like Comcast doesn't mean he's still necessarily on their side anymore.
The following is Chairman Wheeler's own words:
"I want to get to rules that work like this:
If the network operator slowed the speed below that which the consumer bought (for reasons other than reasonable network management), it would be a commercially unreasonable practice and therefore prohibited,
If the network operator blocked access to lawful content, it would violate our no blocking rule and be commercially unreasonable and therefore doubly prohibited,
When content provided by a firm such as Netflix reaches the consumer’s network provider it would be commercially unreasonable to charge the content provider to use the bandwidth for which the consumer had already paid and therefore prohibited,
When a consumer buys specified capacity from a network provider he or she is buying open capacity, not capacity the network can prioritize for its own profit purposes. Prioritization that deprives the consumer of what the consumer has paid for would be commercially unreasonable and therefore prohibited."
This is what the guy who half the internet is currently wanting to crucify has been going for. Ensuring that providers give the speeds their customers have paid for (i.e. if the contract says 20mbps then it will be 20mbps or else), no blocking access to lawful content of any sort (Comcast can't block access to sites critical of Comcast or else they're breaking a law), they can't charge content providers for additional speed or other benefits (because those who are accessing said content have already paid the ISP), and absolutely no prioritization (i.e. the infamous 'internet fast lane').
See, here's my take on Tom Wheeler. Personally, I don't know the man but I can see three scenarios about his current occupation (FCC Chairman) and his previous one (Cable lobbyist).
1. Everyone's paranoid fantasy is correct and he's doing it to purposely help out his old bosses in the cable industry.
2. He's neutral to them and the public and wants the best situation for both where the public still gets good internet connectivity and speed while the ISPs can still make a decent profit and run their business within legal boundaries.
3. He became Chairman specifically to stick it to his old bosses who keep trying to alter Net Neutrality to suit their own needs and is doing the best he can to do so with the power he has as Chairman.
I used to work for Walmart, but I sure as hell won't be singing their praises anytime soon. Could be the same for him.
- Even if our fears come to pass (the fast lane), Wheeler and the FCC have a backup plan.
The following is a quote from a user on Reddit named Phirazo who did a good job of explaining it.
"Chairman Tom Wheeler is giving it a third go, and on Thursday started the process with a "Notice of Proposed Rulemaking". There are undoubtedly good parts, such as improved transparency rules and a no blocking rule.
What started the ruckus is that the rules would require broadband operators to provide content providers a "minimum level of access to their end-user subscribers" (the notice looks for input on how to define a "minimum level") but allow content providers to cut individual deals with broadband operators for better service to end users, which is often called a "fast lane".
People are afraid that only big players could afford to cut these individual deals, and that this would freeze out innovation. The FCC would be able to review these deals for "commercial reasonableness", which would forbid deals that threaten an Open Internet."
Even if the fast lane does become a reality, the FCC will still be able to review the deals that the ISPs will want to make before they are made on the grounds that they provide an essential service for both businesses and consumers. If those deals are found to be commercially unreasonable (i.e. charging a new startup the same as they would charge a major corporation) then the FCC could put the kibosh on that plan and make the ISP charge them a greatly reduced rate or provide it for free.
Hopefully this clears up some of the panic that my more technologically inclined furry friends have been having over this. I know that personally, after looking closer at matters, I'm feeling much better about what's happening.
Remember guys, if you want to voice your own opinion on the matter you can do so! Just go to the FCC website or call that aforementioned number (again, 1-888-225-5322 ) and tell them how you feel about what's happening and what you'd like to suggest.
Just keep it civil though. Saying "I disapprove of the idea of an internet fast lane and ISPs charging businesses for preferential treatment" is good. Saying "TOM WHEELER SHOULD HAVE HIS DICK CUT OFF!" would probably get the FBI at your door to ask you some awkward questions.
