Save Net Neutrality

[Ben 2,378 / 31,882]

He have also told me what Net Neutrality is for and such stuff. 

 

 

Dear Mr. Roy,

 

          Thank you for contacting me with your thoughts on net neutrality. As your U.S. representative, I appreciate hearing from you.

 

          There has been uproar and much misconception following the Federal Communications Commission’s  (FCC) vote on May 18, 2017 to formally begin the process to peel back President Obama’s net neutrality regulations. The term coined in 2003, net neutrality, is the basic principle of a free and open internet. The debate surrounding net neutrality today can be traced back two years ago, to 2015 under the Obama administration, when the FCC acted to greatly expand its own power. The FCC abated the effectiveness of the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) privacy approach by voting on net neutrality rules to reclassify internet service providers (ISPs) as common carriers, thereby making them subject to Title II of the Communications Act of 1934.

 

          Title II regulations weigh down investment in broadband and have had negative unintended consequences. Essentially, these regulations treat ISPs like “presumptive monopolists”, and according to the current FCC Chairman Ajit Pai the market failure the regulations were enacted to protect was simply non-existent. Market-oriented policies have delivered far more value to both the market as well as the consumer, fostering economic growth. Market-oriented policies, not pre-emptive regulations, are the reason our internet economy is the envy of the world. During the Clinton and Bush Administrations and prior to the last two years of the Obama Administration when the FCC imposed net neutrality rules, the internet flourished under a “light-touch” regulatory approach. In 2015, the FCC under the Obama Administration unnecessarily inserted the government into the Internet economy, thereby stifling growth.

 

          Late last year, just ten days before the 2016 presidential election, the FCC adopted, on a party-line 3-2 vote, overly prescriptive online privacy regulations. I voted in favor of the joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval of the Federal Communication Commission’s (FCC) 2016 broadband privacy rule (H.J. Res 86/S.J. Res 34). Congress was right to rescind the Title II broadband privacy order passed by the FCC in October. The FCC’s overreach is a dangerous deviation from successful regulations and common sense practices implemented by the FTC to protect consumer privacy while still maintaining the capability of the internet to flourish and foster innovation. The internet has thrived under the technology-neutral privacy regulations developed by the FTC, the entity best equipped in implementing internet privacy regulations. I support the goal of ensuring the online privacy of consumers, and am optimistic that with the guidance of Chairman Pai, this goal will be accomplished well still maintaining a competitive internet market place.

 

          Once again, thank you for contacting my office. I welcome input from you and all my constituents as your Representative in Congress. Should you need any further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact my office directly.

Edited July 16, 2017 by Benroyjam

[CNe7532294 171 / 4,777]

Quote from Benroyjam's letter.

 

"The debate surrounding net neutrality today can be traced back two years ago, to 2015 under the Obama administration, when the FCC acted to greatly expand its own power."

 

I should have stopped reading there but continued. Continuing just confirms what I thought. We the people are not part of the equation in this "struggle" at all and are still viewed as "cannon fodder" to gain support for either side. Its all basically FCC vs ISPs.... FCC the commission that allowed sex, drugs, and violence on airwaves for decades while condemning things like fuck, shit, etc to be said. (insert free speech argument here). I find myself aligned just slightly with ISPs but barely cause what real difference does it make....

 

Its a shame really. The internet might have been a gov't invention but like going to the moon they abandoned it decades ago. All this time though we the people have shaped and molded the internet to what it is today without gov't and now they want it back.... fucking rich. The other side of the coin ofc we know ISPs may have the ability to throttle our internet in anyway they please which is also fucking rich but kinda deserved since they helped create and continue to innovate the internet of today. Either way I just view this as more partisan hype. I'd like to see more letters from other representatives and places to gain more insight. Thanks for ask your rep and informing all of us @Benroyjam.

Edited July 16, 2017 by CNe7532294

[denros 776 / 0]

@CNe7532294 ISPs don't give a shit about innovation they charge what they can and only 'innovate' when there is competition. Not speaking for other regions but especially in the UK; if the government didn't set broadband speed standards that ISPs have to meet then we would still be on ADSL internet.

 

SO gov or ISP it's all fucked.

[TSARGA 57 / 3,122]

 

On 15.07.2017 at 0:32 AM, TSARGA said:

What about the Federal Trade Commission? If they have the right to intervene, then Net Neutrality is totally unnecessary.

 

On 16.07.2017 at 1:38 AM, Benroyjam said:

The FCC’s overreach is a dangerous deviation from successful regulations and common sense practices implemented by the FTC to protect consumer privacy while still maintaining the capability of the internet to flourish and foster innovation. The internet has thrived under the technology-neutral privacy regulations developed by the FTC, the entity best equipped in implementing internet privacy regulations.

 

So net neutrality is unnecessary...

 

P.S: Why would the FCC even get involved in consumer/supplier problems? I'm asking because that's what the FTC is for.

Edited July 17, 2017 by TSARGA

[CNe7532294 171 / 4,777]

@denros

 

I gotta ask. How many wires do you have? How many wifi spots do you have? What is 5G? If they don't give a shit why bother investing in all this equipment then. http://www.keysight.com/main/application.jspx?id=2407200&cc=US&lc=eng&cmpid=zzfind5g and this is just one vendor over many other EE companies. It can also be argued "why set limits?" when we have the ability to expand further.

 

I can definitely agree with your last sentence though. We have no power over this and it feels like a waste of time. I too can't really speak for other countries since I don't know their history and I don't know their current events.

 

@TSARGA

 

FCC is the authority in communications in the US. They set the standards of things like what to say to the general public. They also hand out licenses for a fee to broadcast anything and they set what frequencies we are supposed to broadcast on (spectrum allocation). Basically they set the rules on how to use the "airwaves" over the US (airwaves being key here). The FTC in the meantime could set the rules for "physical items" like phones, computers, and their "accessories" (can include modem, landline servers) as well as services. The internet has created a huge grey area in general though. Law makers can't really define it yet. This is nothing new though and actually goes back to the use of radio equipment and telephone equipment but because radio equipment has only one use (to broadcast info over airwaves) where as telephone equipment and "accessories" has multiple "uses" (you can communicate both over the air and using a line) it was thought that the FCC should have majority over said equipment because they've been given authority over any RF comms. Its also in the name Federal Communications Commission. Also history gives the FCC priority over anything comms related. The one reason why he would mention the FTC into the services and consumer equipment for communications is so that smaller gov't can be had. Its like anti-trust laws against corporations. Make many to compete with each other. The idea is that us the little guys will win out.

[Chormee 2,973 / 29,227]

[TSARGA 57 / 3,122]

 

14 hours ago, CNe7532294 said:

@TSARGA

 

FCC is the authority in communications in the US. They set the standards of things like what to say to the general public. They also hand out licenses for a fee to broadcast anything and they set what frequencies we are supposed to broadcast on (spectrum allocation). Basically they set the rules on how to use the "airwaves" over the US (airwaves being key here). The FTC in the meantime could set the rules for "physical items" like phones, computers, and their "accessories" (can include modem, landline servers) as well as services. The internet has created a huge grey area in general though. Law makers can't really define it yet. This is nothing new though and actually goes back to the use of radio equipment and telephone equipment but because radio equipment has only one use (to broadcast info over airwaves) where as telephone equipment and "accessories" has multiple "uses" (you can communicate both over the air and using a line) it was thought that the FCC should have majority over said equipment because they've been given authority over any RF comms. Its also in the name Federal Communications Commission. Also history gives the FCC priority over anything comms related. The one reason why he would mention the FTC into the services and consumer equipment for communications is so that smaller gov't can be had. Its like anti-trust laws against corporations. Make many to compete with each other. The idea is that us the little guys will win out.

 

Okay, but what about this:

 

15 U.S. Code § 45 - Unfair methods of competition unlawful; prevention by Commission

 

Quote

(a) Declaration of unlawfulness; power to prohibit unfair practices; inapplicability to foreign trade
(1) Unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, are hereby declared unlawful.

 

Quote

(n) Standard of proof; public policy considerations
The Commission shall have no authority under this section or section 57a of this title to declare unlawful an act or practice on the grounds that such act or practice is unfair unless the act or practice causes or is likely to cause substantial injury to consumers which is not reasonably avoidable by consumers themselves and not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or to competition.

 

From what I understand, the practices mentioned by user @Benroyjam do cause substantial injury that consumers can't avoid...

Edited July 18, 2017 by TSARGA

[rapperdan 2,323 / 0]

Ok legit question here, I could of sworn this was some activist movement of net neutrality. Did something actually happen with net neutrality? Because I just had to pay 900 USD fucking cash to my ISP for them to turn it back on.

Edited July 18, 2017 by rapperdan

[CNe7532294 171 / 4,777]

On 7/18/2017 at 9:34 AM, TSARGA said:

 

 

Okay, but what about this:

 

15 U.S. Code § 45 - Unfair methods of competition unlawful; prevention by Commission

 

 

 

From what I understand, the practices mentioned by user @Benroyjam do cause substantial injury that consumers can't avoid...

 

FCC vs. FTC This might represent an interesting supreme court case. The critical thing here is, is the internet a service/product or a form of communication? If the former FTC wins if the latter FCC wins. I talk over the net as I am now but I can also order things and I have to pay for my service to talk and order things.

 

On 7/18/2017 at 1:24 PM, rapperdan said:

Ok legit question here, I could of sworn this was some activist movement of net neutrality. Did something actually happen with net neutrality? Because I just had to pay 900 USD fucking cash to my ISP for them to turn it back on.

 

[TSARGA 57 / 3,122]

On 19.07.2017 at 10:45 PM, CNe7532294 said:

FCC vs. FTC This might represent an interesting supreme court case. The critical thing here is, is the internet a service/product or a form of communication? If the former FTC wins if the latter FCC wins. I talk over the net as I am now but I can also order things and I have to pay for my service to talk and order things.

 

The FCC should regulate the allowed physical properties of stuff (similarly to the FDA).

The FTC should make sure economic exchanges are fair.

 

For example, who should take care of the this case:

https://www.propublica.org/article/doctors-who-take-company-cash-tend-to-prescribe-more-brand-name-drugs

The FDA (regulatory organ) or the FTC (quasi-judicial organ)?