Washington – Internet service providers like Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, Sprint and T-Mobile now must act in the “public interest” when providing a mobile connection to your home or phone, under rules approved Thursday by a divided Federal Communications Commission.
Subscribe to our Daily Roundup Email
The plan, which puts the Internet in the same regulatory camp as the telephone and bans business practices that are “unjust or unreasonable,” represents the biggest regulatory shakeup to the industry in almost two decades. The goal is to prevent providers from slowing or blocking web traffic, or creating paid fast lanes on the Internet, said FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler.
The 3-2 vote was expected to trigger industry lawsuits that could take several years to resolve. Still, consumer advocates cheered the regulations as a victory for smaller Internet-based companies which feared they would have to pay “tolls” to move their content.
Net neutrality is the idea that websites or videos load at about the same speed. That means you won’t be more inclined to watch a particular show on Amazon Prime instead of on Netflix because Amazon has struck a deal with your service provider to load its data faster.
Opponents, including many congressional Republicans, said the FCC plan constitutes dangerous government overreach that would eventually drive up consumer costs and discourage industry investment.
Republican FCC Commissioners Mike O’Rielly and Ajit Pai, who voted against the plan, alleged that President Barack Obama unfairly used his influence to push through the regulations, calling the plan a “half-baked, illogical, internally inconsistent and indefensible document.”
Michael Powell, a former Republican FCC chairman who now runs the National Cable and Telecommunications Association, warned that consumers would almost immediately “bear the burden of new taxes and increased costs, and they will likely wait longer for faster and more innovative networks since investment will slow in the face of bureaucratic oversight.”
Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, said he would pursue industry-friendly legislation, although it was unlikely that Obama would sign such a bill. The FCC’s five commissioners are expected to testify before a Senate panel March 18.
“One way or another, I am committed to moving a legislative solution, preferably bipartisan, to stop monopoly-era phone regulations that harm Internet consumers and innovation,” Thune said in a statement this week.
It’s not true that consumers would see new taxes right away. The Internet Tax Freedom Act bans taxes on Internet access, although that bill expires in October. While Congress is expected to renew that legislation, it’s conceivable that states could eventually push Congress for the ability to tax Internet service now that it has been deemed a vital public utility.
“Read my lips. More Internet taxes are coming. It’s just a matter of when,” Commissioner Pai said.
For years, providers mostly agreed not to pick winners and losers among Web traffic because they didn’t want to encourage regulators to step in and because they said consumers demanded it. But that started to change around 2005, when YouTube came online and Netflix became increasingly popular. On-demand video became known as data hogs, and evidence began to surface that some providers were manipulating traffic without telling consumers.
By 2010, the FCC enacted open Internet rules, but the agency’s legal approach was eventually struck down. FCC officials are hoping to erase the legal ambiguity by no longer classifying the Internet as an “information service” but a “telecommunications service” subject to Title II of the 1934 Communications Act.
That would dramatically expand regulators’ power over the industry by requiring providers to act in the public’s interest and enabling the FCC to fine companies found to be employing “unreasonable” business practices.
The FCC says it won’t apply some sections of Title II, including price controls. That means rates charged to customers for Internet access won’t be subject to preapproval. But the law allows the government to investigate if consumers complain that costs are unfair.
Also at stake Thursday was Obama’s goal of helping local governments build their own fast, cheap broadband. Chattanooga, Tennessee, and Wilson, North Carolina, have filed petitions with the agency to help override state laws that restrict them from expanding their broadband service to neighboring towns.
The FCC approved these petitions, setting a precedent for other communities that might want to do the same.
Nineteen states place restrictions on municipal broadband networks, many with laws encouraged by cable and telephone companies. Advocates of those laws say they are designed to protect taxpayers from municipal projects that are expensive, can fail or may be unnecessary.
This is a huge victory for freedom of expression. It means that sites such as VIN . Algemeiner, and others will still be available for readers, instead of being slowed in favor of the large and wealthy companies. The Internet is a benefit to all of society, not just to the most powerful.
All conservatives should be happy. (Seriously)
The biggest internet provider in the U.S. (and the world) is Comcast. Comcast is buying up the competition like Time-Warner. And they also own NBC and MSNBC.
This would limit Comcast’s ability to speed up their content (like MSNBC) and throttle-down other news outlets (like Drudge, The Blaze and Fox).
Kudos to the FCC.
do not be fooled, It’s just a way to tax and regulate your internet usage
The FCC, under direction of President Obama and his specific demands, has taken control of the Internet through “Net Neutrality” despite having no authority to do so. The left will defend this action by saying it’s for equality and consumer rights; useless catchphrases that destroy the liberties of the people they claim to represent. This isn’t an issue of national security, but about a growing police state extending its control. Obama is doing more damage to the United States than all of our foreign enemies combined.
Allow me to quote a bit because they will say it better than I can.
On its surface, the plan is aimed at barring service providers from creating paid “fast lanes” on the Internet, which consumer advocates and Internet companies worry would edge out cash-strapped startups and smaller Internet-based businesses. Chairman Tom Wheeler said it would ensure an “open, unfettered network.”
But the rules, more broadly, would put the Internet in the same regulatory camp as the telephone by classifying it like a public utility, meaning providers like Comcast or Verizon would have to act in the “public interest” when providing a mobile connection to your home or phone.
Republican Commissioner Ajit Pai, who delivered some of the most scathing criticism of the plan Thursday, warned the policy represents a “monumental shift” to “government control of the Internet.”
Further, he accused the FCC of bending to the will of Obama, who last fall came out in favor of such a sweeping regulatory plan.
Pai said the FCC was reversing course from past positions for one reason: “President Obama told us to do so.”
He warned of a litany of negative consequences, intended or not, from the net neutrality plan. He said it allows rate regulation — and, ultimately, rates will go up and broadband service will slow.
Pai said that while the plan defers a decision on applying a service fee to Internet bills — much like is applied to phone bills — that surely will change.
“The order explicitly opens the door to billions of dollars in new taxes,” he said. “Read my lips: More new taxes are coming. It’s just a matter of when.”
Further, he pointed to slower Internet speeds in Europe, which largely treats the Internet as a public utility, in warning that the additional regulation will lead to less investment and slower speeds in the U.S. as well.
“The Internet is not broken. There is no problem for the government to solve,” Pai said.
What’s going to happen is that websites will need licenses to operate and they will have to show every year or so exactly why they are needed. There will be nothing to stop these regulators from deciding that sites are not necessary for the public good. Simply put, THIS WILL LIMIT FREE SPEECH! Open your eyes, Obomba ymsh has an enemies list, which happens to be everything right. This is just another way to silence them.
This is a problem across the board, no matter what party you belong to. I wouldnt want a conservative administration silencing people either! If there is regulation, it means there is a kill switch too. Would you want the internet shut during crisis like it is in real communist countries!??
This is VERY VERY VERY VERY bad.