This net neutrality debate is getting ugly, political and only going to get worse. Cutting through all the garbage arguments and posturing by companies and politicians makes it clear that they want what’s best for their bottom line and politicians just want to stay popular. The President says, “the FCC should create a new set of rules protecting net neutrality” but then says “the FCC should reclassify consumer broadband service under Title II of the Telecommunications Act“. You can’t have both.
The FCC was created to be an independent regulatory agency with no involvement from politics, yet the White House now throws their hat into the ring, which is pointless since they have no authority. Politicians and policy lawyers want to use net neutrality for their own agenda, without any transparency.
Content owners like Netflix and the ISPs are also guilty as they have released very limited data to the public, that can’t really be reviewed without a lot of supporting documentation, which we don’t have, and is needed so we can see the bigger picture. Any company can slice off a portion of their overall data and make it look positive for their agenda, which is what’s been done.
I also find it funny that the President said that net neutrality has “been built into the fabric of the Internet since its creation“, except that we didn’t even have that term until around seven years ago.
There has never been any rule or understanding that certain networks must carry traffic for free. A lot of networks engage in settlement free peering, but that is purely at their option, as a business decision. If some want to argue that needs to change and be regulated, then lets review their proposals. Problem is, the companies arguing for change haven’t put forth any proposals on how they want to see it work in today’s economy. Where are their proposals?
Washington Post:
FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler signals split with Obama on net neutrality: “I am an independent agency” — The FCC weighs breaking with Obama over the future of the Internet —
Hours after President Obama called for the Federal Communications Commission to pass tougher regulations on high-speed Internet providers, the agency’s Democratic chairman told a group of business executives that he was moving in a different direction.
Huddled in an FCC conference room Monday with officials from major Web companies, including Google, Yahoo and Etsy, agency Chairman Tom Wheeler said he preferred a more nuanced solution. His approach would deliver some of what Obama wants but also would address the concerns of the companies that provide Internet access to millions of Americans, such as Comcast, Time Warner Cable and AT&T.
“What you want is what everyone wants: an open Internet that doesn’t affect your business,” a visibly frustrated Wheeler said at the meeting, according to four people who attended. “What I’ve got to figure out is how to split the baby.”
Comcast: Being for net neutrality and against Title II is completely consistent — Surprise! We Agree with the President’s Principles on Net Neutrality: Reiterating Our Strong Support for the Open Internet
Yesterday, the President outlined his plan for a free and open Internet. There has been no shortage of discussion and debate on the topic of net neutrality. A clear consensus has emerged for the FCC to adopt new rules that will strengthen the open Internet and ensure that the Internet remains a vital engine for innovation, economic growth, and free expression.
What is remarkable is that if you compare the President’s articulation of his vision for net neutrality as set forth in the White House talking points released yesterday afternoon, we are on the record as agreeing with every point:
Free and open Internet. We agree – and that is our practice.
No blocking. We agree – and that is our practice.
No throttling. We agree – and that is our practice.
Increased transparency. We agree – and that is our practice.
No paid prioritization. We agree – and that is our practice.
We have publicly supported the FCC adopting new, strong Open Internet rules
This net neutrality debate is getting ugly, political and only going to get worse. Cutting through all the garbage arguments and posturing by companies and politicians makes it clear that they want what’s best for their bottom line and politicians just want to stay popular.
What is novel: Obama saying we should return to regulating ISPs as a connection instead of an online destination. It’s a legal distinction that makes all the difference in the world.
1. Your ISP is technically an “information service.”
2. Big Telecom did not take “yes” for an answer.
3. The FCC can do this.
4. ISPs can live with net neutrality rules, at least the ones they beat in court.
5. There’s no quick fix.
You have to admire the chutzpah: a day after President Obama jolted the telecom industry with a bold announcement on net neutrality, Comcast declared that it agrees with him.
In a winsome blog post titled “Surprise, We Agree with the President’s Principles on Net Neutrality,” Comcast on Tuesday said it agrees with the President on “every point.”
To wit, Comcast says it is totally against “blocking,” “throttling,” “paid prioritization” and the other types of mischief that net neutrality is intended to prevent. In response to Obama’s various policy positions, Comcast stated over and over again “We agree and that is our practice.”
But before you conclude that pigs fly and hell is frozen, there is one important line in Comcast’s post to give everyone pause:
There is one important technical legal difference of opinion between the President and Comcast: we do not support reclassification of broadband as a telecommunications service under Title II.
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it.
We are a professional review site that has advertisement and can receive compensation from the companies whose products we review. We use affiliate links in the post so if you use them to buy products through those links we can get compensation at no additional cost to you.OkDecline
7 Comments
Tomi Engdahl says:
The Net Neutrality Debate Is About Companies & Politicians Own Posturing
http://blog.streamingmedia.com/2014/11/net-neutrality-politicians-posturing.html
This net neutrality debate is getting ugly, political and only going to get worse. Cutting through all the garbage arguments and posturing by companies and politicians makes it clear that they want what’s best for their bottom line and politicians just want to stay popular. The President says, “the FCC should create a new set of rules protecting net neutrality” but then says “the FCC should reclassify consumer broadband service under Title II of the Telecommunications Act“. You can’t have both.
The FCC was created to be an independent regulatory agency with no involvement from politics, yet the White House now throws their hat into the ring, which is pointless since they have no authority. Politicians and policy lawyers want to use net neutrality for their own agenda, without any transparency.
Content owners like Netflix and the ISPs are also guilty as they have released very limited data to the public, that can’t really be reviewed without a lot of supporting documentation, which we don’t have, and is needed so we can see the bigger picture. Any company can slice off a portion of their overall data and make it look positive for their agenda, which is what’s been done.
I also find it funny that the President said that net neutrality has “been built into the fabric of the Internet since its creation“, except that we didn’t even have that term until around seven years ago.
There has never been any rule or understanding that certain networks must carry traffic for free. A lot of networks engage in settlement free peering, but that is purely at their option, as a business decision. If some want to argue that needs to change and be regulated, then lets review their proposals. Problem is, the companies arguing for change haven’t put forth any proposals on how they want to see it work in today’s economy. Where are their proposals?
Tomi Engdahl says:
Washington Post:
FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler signals split with Obama on net neutrality: “I am an independent agency” — The FCC weighs breaking with Obama over the future of the Internet —
The FCC weighs breaking with Obama over the future of the Internet
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/11/11/the-fcc-weighs-breaking-with-obama-over-the-future-of-the-internet/
Hours after President Obama called for the Federal Communications Commission to pass tougher regulations on high-speed Internet providers, the agency’s Democratic chairman told a group of business executives that he was moving in a different direction.
Huddled in an FCC conference room Monday with officials from major Web companies, including Google, Yahoo and Etsy, agency Chairman Tom Wheeler said he preferred a more nuanced solution. His approach would deliver some of what Obama wants but also would address the concerns of the companies that provide Internet access to millions of Americans, such as Comcast, Time Warner Cable and AT&T.
“What you want is what everyone wants: an open Internet that doesn’t affect your business,” a visibly frustrated Wheeler said at the meeting, according to four people who attended. “What I’ve got to figure out is how to split the baby.”
Tomi Engdahl says:
Comcast: Being for net neutrality and against Title II is completely consistent — Surprise! We Agree with the President’s Principles on Net Neutrality: Reiterating Our Strong Support for the Open Internet
Nov 11, 2014
Surprise! We Agree with the President’s Principles on Net Neutrality: Reiterating Our Strong Support for the Open Internet
http://corporate.comcast.com/comcast-voices/surprise-we-agree-with-the-presidents-principles-on-net-neutrality-reiterating-our-strong-support-for-the-open-internet
Yesterday, the President outlined his plan for a free and open Internet. There has been no shortage of discussion and debate on the topic of net neutrality. A clear consensus has emerged for the FCC to adopt new rules that will strengthen the open Internet and ensure that the Internet remains a vital engine for innovation, economic growth, and free expression.
What is remarkable is that if you compare the President’s articulation of his vision for net neutrality as set forth in the White House talking points released yesterday afternoon, we are on the record as agreeing with every point:
Free and open Internet. We agree – and that is our practice.
No blocking. We agree – and that is our practice.
No throttling. We agree – and that is our practice.
Increased transparency. We agree – and that is our practice.
No paid prioritization. We agree – and that is our practice.
We have publicly supported the FCC adopting new, strong Open Internet rules
Tomi Engdahl says:
The Net Neutrality Debate Is About Companies & Politicians Own Posturing
http://blog.streamingmedia.com/2014/11/net-neutrality-politicians-posturing.html
This net neutrality debate is getting ugly, political and only going to get worse. Cutting through all the garbage arguments and posturing by companies and politicians makes it clear that they want what’s best for their bottom line and politicians just want to stay popular.
Tomi Engdahl says:
5 Things to Know About Obama’s Net-Neutrality Pus
https://www.yahoo.com/tech/5-things-to-know-about-obamas-net-neutrality-push-102308200979.html
What is novel: Obama saying we should return to regulating ISPs as a connection instead of an online destination. It’s a legal distinction that makes all the difference in the world.
1. Your ISP is technically an “information service.”
2. Big Telecom did not take “yes” for an answer.
3. The FCC can do this.
4. ISPs can live with net neutrality rules, at least the ones they beat in court.
5. There’s no quick fix.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Comcast agrees with Obama on net neutrality, except for the legal bit
https://gigaom.com/2014/11/11/comcast-agrees-with-obama-on-net-neutrality-except-for-the-legal-bit/
You have to admire the chutzpah: a day after President Obama jolted the telecom industry with a bold announcement on net neutrality, Comcast declared that it agrees with him.
In a winsome blog post titled “Surprise, We Agree with the President’s Principles on Net Neutrality,” Comcast on Tuesday said it agrees with the President on “every point.”
To wit, Comcast says it is totally against “blocking,” “throttling,” “paid prioritization” and the other types of mischief that net neutrality is intended to prevent. In response to Obama’s various policy positions, Comcast stated over and over again “We agree and that is our practice.”
But before you conclude that pigs fly and hell is frozen, there is one important line in Comcast’s post to give everyone pause:
There is one important technical legal difference of opinion between the President and Comcast: we do not support reclassification of broadband as a telecommunications service under Title II.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Investors in Cable Deal Fret Over Talk of Broadband Regulation
Share Prices Fall Following Obama’s Call for New Rules
http://online.wsj.com/news/article_email/investors-in-cable-deal-fret-over-talk-of-broadband-regulation-1415662986-lMyQjAxMTI0NzA0OTkwNjk5Wj