As Republicans Concede, F.C.C. Is Expected to Enforce Net Neutrality

Yes, because nobody in the triple-digit billions revenue web tech industry lobbied for net neutrality.

Whether you think neutrality is a good idea or not, you can't ignore the conflict at play here. There's a lot of money distributing bits over wires to consumers. The net neutrality and copyright debates boil down to a fight between companies that make the bits, the ones that aggregate and distribute the bits, and the ones that build the wires about who gets how much of that money.

What else is in there? Even if the current administration doesn't use the power they will now be given, whose to say it won't happen in the future? Doesn't this bother anybody?

We need more transparency, especially in something as important as this.

"Title II regulation was designed for the plain-old-telephone-system monopolies, where there was even less choice (one provider!) than the very worst of current local broadband markets."

My mom has one ISP to choose from (and dismal service.) More than half the population of the US have access to a single broadband provider.

"The internet, without any FCC rules, thrived and completely eclipsed that slow-moving regulated market."

When behemoth broadband providers began openly plotting to predatorily damage some of the things that had helped provide for the internet's success, it was clear to most that some kind of regulations were needed.

"new federal rules will limit what ISPs can offer and charge, regardless of what paying customers prefer."

I have yet to hear from a single paying customer that actually wanted what the ISPs were plotting.

"Upstart services offering novel cross-subsidized speed/latency improvements will require federal pre-approval or risk outright prohibition."

Yeah, they would need approval if they wanted to offer that particular service, though I am not sure how to find that disappointing.

"This is not a victory for either the internet or the "little guy"."

Perhaps, why not see what actually happens before making broad speculative declarations, though?

I have exactly one choice of wired "broadband" provider: TWC. I'm not sure you know what you're talking about.

Various FCC rules applied to the internet during the time it began to thrive as a public service (including much of what passed for "broadband" in the early days being subject to Title II regulations.)

> But after this 'reclassification', new federal rules will limit what ISPs can offer and charge, regardless of what paying customers prefer, under the 1930s telephone/utility model.

Except to the extent that they won't, due to the application of forbearance. From the outlines that have been released, most of the "1930s telephone/utility model" won't apply, but of course the details won't be certain until after an actual order is adopted by the FCC, and the details could change from what was covered b the released outlines.

> ISPs will have to keep a DC commission staffed by loyalists of the two national parties happy, or else discretionary interpretations will go against them.

Insofar as the FCC has legal authority to regulate, that's already true whether or not the FCC adopts the particular regulations under discussion now. And, of course, in the same way, its equally true that ISPs also have to keep the Congress -- likewise made up of loyalists of the two national parties -- happy, or else legislation will go against them. (And, guess what, the courts, too -- after all, its hardly as if federal judges aren't also generally appointed from the pool of party loyalists.) All of this independently of whatever regulations the FCC chooses to adopt this week.

So? Congress mandated these fines. One of the FCC's jobs is to enforce them. That has no relevance to the net neutrality regulation discussion

> It requires the 'v-chip' censorship technology in televisions.

So? Congress specifically said that the FCC had to require that TV's be equipped with a feature to allow viewers to block programs by rating. Completely irrelevant to the net neutrality regulation discussion.

Yeah. It's in there so that courts can order sites blocked... not the FCC.

> What words will I be disallowed from using to keep a website online? What speech will I need to silence?

This boogieman comes from part of the DMCA '96 that was struck down by the courts.

> Will this be similar to free speech zones? Will I be allowed to run a webserver as long as I put up certain warnings/guarantees? Or carry a specific type of rating in a revamped website rating system?

Er.. truly doubt it. Do you have to put up certain warnings/guarantees when you make phone calls, or carry a rating on your personal phone number?

> Will my ISP be required to perform packet reconstruction to analyze my content to decide whether it should be given a pass or not?

In fact, the courts have decided that this is illegal (in the context of the telephone) without a warrant. Phone company thought a customer was doing something shady because of their usage patterns and cut them off. Turns out he wasn't doing anything shady, and the courts ordered his phone service restored.

> My fellow tax payers and I will all foot the bill.

Hmm.. FCC's budget for FY 2011 was $336.8 million ... FY2011 expenditures for the federal government was $3.603 trillion ... so, you're up in arms about 0.009% of your taxes?

this is the same nonsense the haters did when the ACA was passed, a bunch of irrational hate because those who complained were "EVIL REPUBLICANS". Sheesh. Love being a libertarian but damned if both sides aren't dumb as rocks.

Members and staff at the FCC have copies of whatever current drafts are circulating (which, by reports that there may be active discussions on at least one key point, there may be more than one), no one else does except as an unofficial leak (and any version that exists now may or may not be the version that gets voted on.)

Otherwise, no. FCC orders are not released in preliminary form before they are approved. This is consistent with regulatory agency decisions in general, there is a formal process for release of orders, that involves approval. Certain orders are released as proposals for comment before being finalized -- this is called a "Notice of Proposed Rulemaking" (NPRM). The FCC did, in fact, issue an NPRM on its open internet rules, which (along with the public comment on the NPRM) got plenty of notice here, in the mainstream media, etc.

After comment on an NPRM, the agency reviews the comments, conducts further policy discussions, and can either abandon the effort, revise the policy and issue it as an order or issue a new, revised NPRM. All of these -- except abandoning the effort entirely -- require the agency to conduct a vote.

Regulatory agencies don't release draft orders prior to vote of the agency (as distinct from NPRMs, which, while they aren't final orders, are final products of the agency, not pre-vote drafts) much the same way that courts don't release draft opinions before the judges have voted on them.

In national communications policy?

> Also, can anyone honestly see rates being reduced because of this?

Prices are pretty much an orthogonal issue to net neutrality. If you don't have a source/destination neutral network, it's possible you won't be able to buy the services such a network supports at any price.

> The FCC is made up of unelected officials

I think it's reasonably clear that doesn't mean they're unaccountable. Congress or the President can heavily influence policy if they screw it up.

But strangely, at the moment, they seem to be doing policy better than most elected officials. :/

Uh, because they can't be trusted farther than they can be thrown?

Seriously, between the gerrymandering, the closed primaries, and the unlimited private election finance they've done as astonishing amount to insulate themselves from the wrath of voters they screw on behalf of super-rich special interests. And in cases where they do get their comeuppance, the revolving door means they can count on well-paid sinecures after leaving "public" service.

None of this suggests that leaving broad policy choices to the F.C.C. is optimal. Indeed, having a less-corrupt Congress that could be relied on to represent the people would be vastly preferable. But that's not what we've got. Indeed, under normal circumstances, the only time popular will is taken into consideration is when it happens to coincide with the wishes of the wealthiest.

(Depressing details on that phenomena here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2014/04/0...)

This development with the F.C.C. represents a remarkable and welcome exception to that norm. Not coincidentally, it's because the Internet represents a means for marshaling and focusing democratic will in a way that hasn't been as undermined as severely as the ballot box.