ISPs Pushing Lawmakers For 'Title X' Net Neutrality Rules Monday Dec 22 2014 12:24 EDT As we've been covering, the nation's biggest carriers have been fighting Title-II based net neutrality rules tooth and nail. While they've acknowledged recently that Title II really won't hurt investment as previously claimed, most are worried that such rules would restrict their ability to engage in "creative" monetization schemes. To that end, the big ISPs have been paying encouraging loyal lawmakers to rewrite the Communications Act, and in the process forge non-Title II based net neutrality rules they'd be happy with (read: have lots of loopholes). The Washington Post notes that this rewrite could include efforts to codify net neutrality under something anonymous sources call "Title X": quote: One important piece of the proposed legislation would establish a new way for the FCC to regulate broadband providers by creating a separate provision of the Communications Act known as "Title X," the people said. Title X would enshrine elements of the tough net neutrality principles called for by President Obama last month. For example, it would give FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler the authority to prevent broadband companies from blocking or slowing traffic to Web sites, or charging content companies such as Netflix for faster access to their subscribers — a tactic known as "paid prioritization."
The hope appears to be that the industry can rush a legislative "fix" into play before Wheeler finalizes a Title II or hybrid approach. The problem is that any proposal by the industry will be certain to have the kind of loopholes that brought the debate to this precipice in the first place. As the Post notes, getting support for any expansion of FCC authority in a bickering Congress (even if it's actually doing the opposite) would be a tricky tight rope for ISPs and their friends in Congress to walk. |
quisp65 join:2003-05-03 San Diego, CA 1 edit |
They won't get Net Neutrality right eitherLike the President, Congress won't get Net Neutrality right either. It should be all content and not just legal content. China has Net Neutrality if it's only legal content. They only ban illegal content in China.
TOR, I2P, Freenet has child porn. Al Jazeera might aide and abet the enemy. Torrent sites & upload sites where a user upload something illegal will certainly be blocked. Someone might write about something protected under HIPPA or say something slanderous.
Don't set this legal precedent. ISPs should not be allowed to be pressured into blocking what might be illegal. Let only the courts be the judges to take things down and then the feds can take down the servers themselves.
Having net neutrality of only legal content is no net neutrality at all. | |
| | |
shmerl
Member
2014-Dec-22 1:36 pm
Re: They won't get Net Neutrality right eitherquote: Having net neutrality of only legal content is no net neutrality at all.
Exactly. It's like saying that wheels on cars are legal, but wheels on cars used by criminals are illegal, so whoever makes wheels should have tools to control how they are used. | |
|
|
Flyonthewall
Anon
2014-Dec-22 1:15 pm
If they are willing to do it...I think someone should check the fine print. If the end result is a piece of paper with all the weight of a piece of TP, then that's all it's good for. | |
| |
How niceHow magnanimous of the ISPs to buy the own laws which will govern them. | |
| | TechyDad Premium Member join:2001-07-13 USA |
TechyDad
Premium Member
2014-Dec-22 3:05 pm
Re: How niceI'm sure the ISPs will make the laws fair and appropriately strict towards themselves. | |
|
chip89 Premium Member join:2012-07-05 Columbia Station, OH |
chip89
Premium Member
2014-Dec-22 2:09 pm
Title 2This is not what we need. We need Title 2 now! | |
| | AVonGauss Premium Member join:2007-11-01 Boynton Beach, FL |
Re: Title 2... and just what do you think "Title II" will do for you, as a consumer? | |
| | | |
Re: Title 2much more than title I is doing now. | |
| | | | AVonGauss Premium Member join:2007-11-01 Boynton Beach, FL
1 recommendation |
Re: Title 2... in other words, you have no idea what "Title II" does or does not mean - and that's okay. What I would suggest stating is what you actually want rather than attempting to advocate a particular policy that you are unfamiliar with. | |
|
| | chip89 Premium Member join:2012-07-05 Columbia Station, OH |
to AVonGauss
It will set rules companies that have to follow. Like It will stop companies from doing the below the line garbage they do. It would finally make the net a utility which today it needs to be the internet is needed for everything in our lives now. It would me becuse it would keep the net open and make rules ISPS have to follow. | |
| | | | AVonGauss Premium Member join:2007-11-01 Boynton Beach, FL |
Re: Title 2Partially, but remember when Title II was enacted there was no concept of the Internet and even through updates including the Communications Act of 1994, there are very few things that would relate to "The Internet".
What it really boils down to is the level of authority an agency like the FCC has to actually make policy that would govern the Internet. Unfortunately, it also carries a tremendous amount of baggage - this was even acknowledged by the President during his recent speech.
I'm not trying to pick on you, I'm just trying to point out the majority have no idea (positive or negative) about what "Title II" means. Right now they (imho) would be better off stating what they want from legislation and let the legislators figure out how to do it. | |
| | | | |
to chip89
Title II is a simple, easy, and wrong solution, if it's applied without forbearance. This is one of those situations where unintended consequences come into play. It may give the FCC the necessary authority to enforce net neutrality, but it will also burden ISPs with tariffs and other arcane rules meant for telcos. The big boys may be able to handle this, but alternate access carriers, mom-and-pop ISPs, and WISPs will get clobbered. I'm all for net neutrality, but blindly applying Title II is going to be more detrimental in the long run. We need new legislation. | |
|
| |
|
|