FCC Chairman states outright: they plan to classify internet access as a utility

Seriously, I have no idea what's caused this 180 from him, but I like it.

His boss.

i don't buy that just because Obama said it, that he changed his mind. Obama has said since his first campaign that he wanted net neutrality, it's not like Wheeler wouldn't have known that.

Naive

Actually you're ignorant. The FCC is an independent agency and thus outside of the control of the executive.

What branch of government does the FCC fall under? Legislative, Judicial, or Executive? Once you answer that, then ask yourself who is the head of that branch? You're welcome.

Did you skip over where you were told that the FCC is an independent agency? The president has no authority over them. He can only ask them to do something, he can't force them.

Do you always believe what you're told? Who appointed Wheeler?

Do you always disbelieve everything that doesn't fit with your opinion? Your question is a logical fallacy. Just because the president appointed him means nothing. He opposed the president's viewpoint for most of the time he has been in his position and only just publicly changed it despite the president having a long-standing policy of wanting net neutrality.

The FCC is under the Executive Branch of government. Civics 101

Independent Agencies of the United States government
"Independent agencies of the United States federal government are those agencies that exist outside of the federal executive departments (those headed by a Cabinet secretary). More specifically, the term may be used to describe agencies that, while constitutionally part of the executive branch, are independent of presidential control, usually because the president's power to dismiss the agency head or a member is limited." I'll just leave this here. Anything else?

So we agree that the President can dismiss an agency head. Great! Can Congress? The Supreme Court? Thanks for playing.

Uh, no, we don't agree, and putting words in my mouth doesn't make me want to continue this discussion with you. Also "Presidential attempts to remove independent agency officials have generated most of the important Supreme Court legal opinions in this area.[3] Presidents normally do have the authority to remove heads of independent agencies, but they must meet the statutory requirements for removal, such as demonstrating that the individual has committed malfeasance. In contrast, the President can remove regular executive agency heads at will."
So...no, the president can't just remove the head of the FCC just because Wheeler doesn't do what he says and removal is often subject to Supreme Court interpretation. What else you got?

So we agree that Obama appointed Wheeler and Obama is the only person on earth who can fire him. Sounds like a boss to me. Malfeasance isn't the only statutory requirement.

No, but "He didn't agree with me" is definitely not one of them. Anyway, I've proven my point to my satisfaction and i have nothing else to add, so I'm done discussing this with you.

You're definitely an honorable man, a man who knows when to quit when he's been defeated.

Haha, believe what you like, I really don't care, but everyone else knows that from that dumb ass comment you just made that you're just a dickhead (as if they couldn't tell from the other sarcastic comments you made to me). I attempted to kept things civil. You're the one who decided to be a jerk. I don't need to justify anything to you. Ciao.

Thought you were done.

Done discussing this issue with you, yes. Doesn't mean I won't call you out for trying to imply that I'm finished with that discussion for any other reason than what I stated. But, then, you want to get the last word because people like you always do. So, you may have it. From this point, I will not be replying to you on this topic. I am not conceding your points. By me deciding to end this discussion with you, I am not saying you "won", but you may have the last word.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/how-white-house-thwarted-fcc-chief-on-intern...

... and then you taunted him, weird how that works. Posted via the Android Central App

You obviously didn't read the source article. He has real world experience with a failed start-up under his belt that illustrates why this is better for innovation.

The entire country is naive, Obama getting elected twice is undeniable proof of how immensely naive the population of this country is. Posted via the Android Central App

Comcast's check bounced.

Whoa. If he's serious about this and it comes to pass, I will leap for joy. It's time to put the monopolizing ISPs in their place.

And if corporations win out this issue, the American People are going to have to stand up and ban together to not let this happen as well

Explain to me how Comcast and Time Warner don't compete. Also, if the internet has flourished without this action, then why do it?

One word: monopolies.

Comcast and Time Warner rarely overlap in the regions that they cover. For the most part, they have monopolies over the areas they cover. And in the rare places that neither of them cover, there is usually just one smaller ISP that has a monopoly as well. That's the case in the small town I live in. Because of this, the prices are outrageous, and you have to pay more for faster speeds. What the FCC Chairman is proposing here would turn ISPs into utility companies. Electric companies can't charge more for "better" electricity, so why should ISPs be able to charge more for better internet connectivity. That's what he's getting at. The internet has flourished under the assumption of net neutrality. Companies like Comcast are wanting to prioritize or throttle certain websites and services (like Netflix), which is anti-net neutrality. The FCC is wanting to prevent them from doing that.

Rarely overlapping regions they cover does not mean they aren't competitors. There is a such thing in business called mergers and aquisitions. How exactly will these rules change which markets these companies cover? It won't. State and municipal regulations are the reason this happens. Now, the internet will be a utility, like the power companies. For example, I live in Louisiana where there are only two choices for power, Entergy and Demco, with Entergy having like 85% market share. They are classified as utilities and there is little to no competition. This is all a bunch of bullshit.

"Rarely overlapping regions they cover does not mean they aren't competitors." Semantics. My point is that the vast majority of people in the US only have one ISP to choose from. While they may be nationwide competitors, they rarely have to compete with each other on pricing because no one is going to pack up and move to a different region just so they can get a different ISP. This results in higher prices. That's the case where I live, where the one ISP here (Home Telecom) charges $50/mo for the lowest tier of internet access. When I lived in St. Paul, MN, there were multiple ISPs, resulting in me being able to get internet for $25/mo because they kept undercutting each other with various pricing promotions. "They are classified as utilities and there is little to no competition." Well, as I mentioned above, there already is little to no competition, so I don't really get your point. This will at least give so oversight so that everyone can get decent internet connectivity.

Then we agree! The reason why you have higher prices where you live right now vs. St Paul has nothing to do with the federal government. It has everything to do with the state and local governments. Now the Feds will regulate this and your situation where you live won't change. All of a sudden now someone will wave a magic wand sprinkling unicorn fairy dust and BAM, you'll have more ISPs to choose from where you live now? I don't think so. Very convenient to say, "semantics." Words matter. My point was that this will not encourage competition.

If you regulate cable companies as utilities, then it's a lot easier for new competitors (Google fiber) to come in and create a competing internet service while not having to deal with all the red tape that currently exists. Posted on my OnePlus One

Really? How so?

By creating a landscape whereby companies must compete on quality and cost instead of by leveraging size. Posted via the Android Central App

So Google is small?

That does not follow from what I said. Posted via the Android Central App

Oh Google Fiber gods....come save me here in San Diego.... Posted via the Android Central App

This! Government granted protections play a huge role in the lack of choice for ISPs! More regulation is never the answer! Abolition of protections, regulations and lowering the costs of barriers to entry would go a long way in encouraging competition. Posted via the Android Central App

That has worked so well let's keep doing that... Posted via the Android Central App

Regulation is sometimes the answer. People who say "always" and "never" are usually ideologues who's opinions should be taken lightly. Posted via the Android Central App

To bad more people don't see it this way... more regulations have rarely ever helped in this country. Why with an internet that's functioned so well for long do we now need the Government getting involved? Also so netflix hogging up 80% of the internet bandwidth at night from everything else is ok? People need to think this through a little more. Don't get distracted by the name net neutrality... up till now it's been pretty neutral without the FCC getting involved.

Exactly right. Posted via the Android Central App

You keep saying agree. I don't think that means what you think it means. Posted via the Android Central App powered by Droid Turbo

Thing is: utilities are natural monopolies. This is not the case with ISP's. Posted via the Android Central App

Then why classify ISPs as utilities. Get it now?

Because they are monopolies that provide a utility. Posted via the Android Central App

There is no such thing as monopolies. Mono means 1.

Way to define a word so narrowly that communicating a simple idea becomes difficult when you understood the point from the beginning. It is, of course, completely disingenuous to do so, and you sacrifice discussing actual ideas for the sake of a meaningless rhetorical point... But if that's your game... Posted via the Android Central App

In this article Comcast is talking with the senate and he admits there is no competition between Comcast and Time Warner. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/04/11/1291124/-Comcast-admits-what-ev...

@Razieltov Bingo. That's exactly what I was trying to say. Comcast and Time Warner may offer the same service, but they aren't offering that service to the same people. In that sense, they are therefore NOT competitors.

Hey even Comcast and TW agrees that they are not competitors and who are u say that they are not competitors?? Read their merger letter

Why would they want to merge if they don't compete?

Economies of scale.

So if McDonald's bought out Best Buy, that would be an example of economies of scale?

That's a ridiculous example. They don't sell the same product. More like if Jack in the Box merged w/ Steak and Shake. Posted via the Android Central App

Of course it is a ridiculous example. So, your argument is that companies who do sell the same product don't compete?

What are you talking about? Your comments aren't making any sense. Two companies that deal with different products or services are not in competition with each other. In no way is Best Buy in competition with McDonalds, except in the general sense that every company wants you to spend your money with them. That's it. But by that argument those companies are also in competition with your electric company and your bank and your son's Boy Scout troop and your daughter's ballet classes. Economies of scale doesn't really apply there either. In a situation where two companies offer similar products or services, economies of scale would absolutely come in to play during any merger or acquisition. That does not necessarily mean that they are competitors however. Air Canada and Southwest Airlines probably share 0 common routes. If those two companies merged, or one acquire the other, then there would certainly be benefits based on economies of scale. It doesn't do much to negate competition because those two airlines never competed for travelers on the same routes. When American Airlines acquired US Airways that was a completely different story. They had many of the same routes and so economies of scale comes into play as well as a decrease in competition because identical routes were consolidated. Posted via the Android Central App

If they're selling the same product to different people what could they possibly be competing for? They're not competing for customers. They're only competing for money in the same sense that best buy and burger King are. Posted via the Android Central App

That rhetorical statement makes zero sense. We are talking about two companies in the same industry. Even if Com and TWC don't compete, one legal department is cheaper than two. THAT is a reason to merge. Instant expansion of your business without (or minimal) CAPEX.

Do me a favor. Open www.google.com and type in definition of competitors in business. Tell me exactly what is says in the box.

Brandon Worley
"Do me a favor. Open www.google.com and type in definition of competitors in business. Tell me exactly what is says in the box." You originally asked why companies that don't compete would want to merge. Whether or not TWC and Comcast actually compete is not what is at questions here, correct? By the way, I'm having a blast discussing all this :)

The first comment I posted in this comments section was "Explain to me how Comcast and Time Warner don't compete. Also, if the internet has flourished without this action, then why do it?" Me too!

Sorry, this format does not properly indent. I was responding to a comment you made further down. Even so, I think it would be hard to compete for customers if you are not marketing to the same customers (in a given market I mean). Part of my job is to analyze the competition for customers seeking commercial financing. We use the term "true competitor" a lot as a qualifier. Meaning, unless another company's business has a significant impact on the top line of our borrower by directly drawing away sales, they are not a true competitor.

But a competitor nonetheless.

If you would like to come up with a different phrase for companies selling the same product who have agreed not to compete feel free. If it's all just a word game to you. Posted via the Android Central App

Nah, they don't compete. Take a business class. http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/4892435

There are plenty of reasons that non-competing companies merge. One might be to gain access to larger market share eg an airline merges with another to gain access to routes it doen't not currently offer. Another may be a vertical merger where a company would gain access to products or services that complement the ones it already owns while offering it the opportunity to move into these spaces.

Those are very good and valid points. It still doesn't change the fact that those airlines are in competition with each other. Airline A buys airline B to gain access to those routes. But airline B could have bought airline A to accomplish the same thing, thus competition. Your argument is also like saying Verizon doesn't compete with T-Mobile because T-Mobile doesn't have coverage in all the same places as Verizon.

"Airline A buys airline B to gain access to those routes. But airline B could have bought airline A to accomplish the same thing, thus competition." You're confusing market competition (making the most money) with being market competitors (two different companies with the same product). Here's a slightly different example:  If I start my own fast food restaurant where I live, and you start one where you live, but we live 1000 miles apart, are we competing?  There's practically no chance that anyone who spends money at my restaurant will spend any money at yours, and vice versa.  So, while we may be market competitors, we are not competing against each other directly, because neither can "take away" money the other is making.  For the sake of this example, lets say that our two fast food restaurants are the only two in the world.  Just you and me, mano-e-mano. Now, suppose we have both expanded our chains to cover the entire world between the two of us, but very, very seldom have we opened a store in the same town, so we're still not really competing for a share of each other's market (aka: a share of all the money spent on fast food in that area).  We don't compete with other types of businesses, because no one is going to be convinced to come spend the money they were going to use to buy a new computer on tacos. I decide I want to make more money, which means I have to expand even more, but the two of us already cover our respective halves of the world which leaves me with two options: 1)  I could open more restaurants in places where you already have a restaurant, at which point we *would* be directly competing for market share.  I *might* be able to undersell you, or up the quality, or come up with some kind of draw to steal enough of your customers to make it profitable, or the market could like you better and I lose my shirt. or... 2)  I offer to merge, when we both work together and sell the food to everybody in the world, and can charge anything we want because there's no one to stop us, and we end up taking over the world using our laser sharks! ..or something like that.

They aren't competitors. At the risk of sounding a little melodramatic, it's best to think of them as crime families that have divided the nation into turfs. Occasionally there are scuffles and grabs for power, but they only benefit the organization and never the people living in said turf.

That actually wasn't melodramatic at all. We ARE talking ISPs here. ;)

I like using hyperbole to illustrate my points. Some people balk at the tactic. ;-)

Excellent points made with an ironic parallel. One of the best things I've read on the interwebz. Posted via the Android Central App

+1 Posted via the Android Central App

Here is a great map of the areas the average ISP's we have in the US cover. Its clear that in the large picture they do compete, but locally they do not technically compete. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/04/cable-company-map_n_4892435.html

double posted, sorry.

Good find. The map is a little misleading, though. I know the article says top internet companies by state, but some will think they are the only ones. For example, in Louisiana where I live there are at least 4 ISPs. Cox is the most widely used but I don't because they're garbage, but getting better, and less expensive.

He proposed this "Action" to save any possibility of what has worked for 20+ yrs to not change. I don't like the utility idea anymore than the next person but if it can Save Net Neutrality I'm all for it.

Comcast and TW are rival for sure but they are not competing.You will not find Comcast service on a TW location and vice versa. This would make service like Google fibre build out fibre freely in these areas and would increase competition

Local governments determine this.

No they don't.

http://www.wired.com/2013/07/we-need-to-stop-focusing-on-just-cable-comp...

True, but there are certain things the TelCo's would be required to do under Federal Law (which supersedes local law) that could potentially promote competition.

Like what?

Can you find Time Warner and Comcast both providing service in the same area? Previously they did not. Now they are merging from what i read, as of February 2014; I'm not sure how long that will take to complete. They're still not competing, just monopolizing a bigger area under one company versus two smaller areas under two companies.

Part of my area is served my Time Warner. The other part by Suddenlink. Still, this would benefit me by no longer having to pay more for "faster speeds" that I don't really get anyway. The only reason I pay for the "faster speeds" is so I can increase my Cable data cap from, Suddenlink, that didn't exist 3 weeks ago. Posted via AC App from my S4 mini WITH an LED CrackLight ;-)

Have you even heard of net nutrality or had cable service? I have never lived in a place where I could choose between cable companies, charter or comcast, they have their own territory. You get stuck with whoever services your address, or you get something else like dish. Cable companies basically hold monopolies and have limited competition with each other. The internet has been going down hill. AT&T and Verizon are guilty of throttling data speeds, I've been throttled by comcast so bad xbox live doesn't even connect. There is talk of being charged extra to stream movies, they can charge you to access netflix if they want or block you from using it. So Im all for the FCC getting involved and doing this. Posted via Android Central App

Because it's in danger of changing from what it's always been, into something no one in their right mind wants. This will ensure that doesn't happen.

To protect the future of where things are going. EVERYTHING is connected these days. HOW do you think it all connects? Fiber and wireless networks. Every day, the world becomes further entrenched in this reality. You honestly trust the private corporations (all two or three of them) who control the pipes NOT to bend us ALL (consumers, businesses, local governments...) over to make shareholders happy?

Yes, I do. Who built and paid for those fiber and wireless networks? The government? No, those greedy businesses. All two or three of them? Do you even know how many ISPs are out there? Shareholders aren't happy when customers of those companies aren't happy.

Shareholders don't give a shit if you're happy or not. If profits are low or losses are high, they care. If a quarterly dividend is below expectations, they care. The markets don't seem to care very much at all what public sentiment is. I notice that the price of oil closed up much higher yesterday. I don't like that. I'm sure most of the gasoline buying public doesn't like that. Yet the stock market closed over 300 points higher. Posted via the Android Central App

"If profits are low or losses are high, they care." Explain to me how companies with happy consumers have low profits and/or high losses beyond an occasional quarterly miss.

See: T-Mobile.

http://ratings.jdpower.com/telecom/index.htm

Yup, Comcast is at the bottom for wireline "happiness" ratings. And that is the ONLY provider in my area. Happy customers indeed.

I was probably a little vague in my response. What I was really trying to say was that whether a customer is happy or not is irrelevant to a company's bottom line and stock performance. You do realize that most national banks, cable companies and oil companies are generally despised in customer satisfaction surveys? They also tend to make billions and billions of dollars n profit every quarter. http://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/the-high-price-of-customer-satisfaction/ Posted via the Android Central App

They must be doing something right to make that kind of money right? I bank with Chase, I love them. I use DirectTv for cable, I love them. I get gas wherever it is the cheapest. I love it! They all sell each other's gas. I do have problems with Chase and DirecTV from time to time. When I do, I tell them to fix the problem or I'll take my business elsewhere. They fix it. If someone is too passive to stand up for themselves, how is that a business problem. Too many people are pussies and let people take advantage of them. Don't.

This is because of class warfare which has been spewed out by the far left over the last forty years. The uninformed have been conditioned to think all corporations and the so called rich are evil.

Yes, profits suck. I know one thing, I have never been hired by a poor person.

I never said profits suck. Don't be that guy who turns every conversation into an inictment of the liberal agenda or an indictment of the conservative agenda. Corporations are neither. They are driven by their ability to make a profit for their shareholders, be they public or private. My point was strictly speaking to the fact that they are not concerned w/ your happiness. If you're happy with their product or service and you purchase it, that's great. If you hate them or their products or services but still purchase said products or services, they think that's great, too. Posted via the Android Central App

Isn't it a little crazy to spend money on products and services that you hate?

If you hate Comcast, but they're the only ISP in your area, do you have much of a choice? If they're the only cable provider in town, do you have much choice? I can't stand Bank of America, but I didn't have a choice when they purchased my mortgage and now I make my payments to them every month. Posted via the Android Central App

If someone from, say, Sweden moved to where I lived and had to pay what I pay for the speeds I get rest assured they would hate it. They would hate it, but they would do it. Because it's the internet. Posted via the Android Central App

They don't care if you're happy. They only care that you're complacent and ignorant to just how hard you're getting shafted.

So it's their fault you're ignorant?

You tell me? ;-)

By being monopolies. Posted via the Android Central App

Good point Posted via the Android Central App

My 401k loves it. Wise up. There is a fine line of how low oil can go before there are problems. Posted via the Android Central App

No shit. That wasn't my point, though for some reason that's what you took out of it. My point was that the bottom lines of these publicly traded behemoths is so lightly influenced by customer satisfaction or consumer opinion that Wall Street doesn't give two shits what you think about Time-Warner or Exxon-Mobil. And despite the fact that most people, though not ALL PEOPLE, aren't fans of oil prices climbing up again Wall Street responded favorably to the news. In direct opposition to what the average consumer thinks about it. Posted via the Android Central App

Guess what? Oil is down more today than it was up yesterday. Dow Jones still up. Thanks, again!!

You're somehow under the impression that this disproves my point. On the contrary, it goes along exactly with what I said. Yesterday the price of oil shoots up. Consumers don't want to see that because they know that eventually it hits their pocket book at the gas pump. Today the price of oil goes down. Consumers like to see that because they expect gasoline prices to drop. The stock market goes up both days, regardless of what consumers like to hear. Posted via the Android Central App

That's because the average consumer does not know shit about the economy or what influences it. All they see is what is impacting their pocket book on that particular day. They do not see long term

Who's fault is that?

Define Wall St.

The idea being that you can make more in investments than you lose in expenses? the math on that will axiomatically not work for most people. Posted via the Android Central App

300 Dow points is a 1.1% move, which is nothing for that index. One day snapshot does not a trend make.

Its closer to 2% than 1%. 1.76% to be exact, and I wasn't calling it a trend. Posted via the Android Central App

Oh yes because all those other ISPs have so much pull on a nationwide scale. And as for the money on the INITIAL CAPEX, yes I have an iota of sympathy for the big companies that are responsible for those outlays but they have LONG ago recouped their investments (hence the insane quarterly profits - let alone EBITDA - they post). The customer AREN'T happy, they just have no choices. Read the latest JD Power customer satisfaction ratings on Comcast and Co. to see just how happy people are. If Google Fiber or even Cox were available in my market, I'd have dropped Comcasshole like a bad habit. Sorry, I'm just one of those people you are not going to convince.

Cox is I'm my area and they are tuuurrrible.

Then you're an idiot. Plenty of ISP's have instituted data caps and data throttling, which approximately 0.000% of customers are happy about. However, those caps are still there, and the throttling, when the FCC found out about it, has been reversed. Because of the FCC telling them to f'ing stop it, not because of the ISP's caring about what their customers wanted. Shareholders couldn't care less about how happy the customer base is, as long as the customer base is still there and paying for their dividends.

Ah yes, I'm an idiot. Thanks! If you don't like your service, change it. Or complain to the company. If you only have 1 choice, contact your local Congress person. Google is an ISP, and they don't pay dividends.

I can understand your sentiment to not wanting more government regulation in everything (I share it, for the most part) but this has potential to be a good thing.  Right now, TelCo's are using "cost cutting measures" like throttling and data caps as a way to either avoid having to upgrade infrastructure, or just plain being greedy. I have Comcast at home.  A few months back, Netflix just up and stopped working.  Every device I tried to access it on, while on my WiFi, said "Unable to reach Netflix Servers".  Would work fine if I disconnect my cell phone from my WiFi, so I knew it wasn't Netflix.  Rebooted everything, and confirmed that all other internet traffic was getting through, and it was *only* Netflix that was affected. (I'm a software developer for a living, and was a PC tech for several years while I was in school, so pretty computer literate) Decided to "worry about it later".  After about 4 days of this going on, I got fed up, so I posted something on Twitter with a photo of the "unable to connect" message on my TV.  Got contacted (on Twitter) by someone from Comcast a few minutes later, who asked to discuss the issue in private.  Gave them my name and address and viola!  Netflix started working within minutes.  Comcast claimed it must have just been a routing issue with my equipment, except that I had already rebooting all the networking hardware.  The denied doing anything on their end, but I find that very doubtful.  I don't subscribe to cable so, when I'm home, I'm either streaming Netflix or playing games online.  I think I hit some kind of cap, so they killed my Netflix. And, if they hadn't unlocked it, there's *nothing* I could have done except b$#ch about it on Twitter.

But you did do something about it. Good for you!!! That's awesome. Do you think these companies will just stop cost cutting measures? No, and guess how they'll do it? Firing people.

+1 on this: "to either avoid having to upgrade infrastructure" I have two choices here: Verizon DSL, capped at 2.5mbps by the wires on my street, or Comcast who can basically charge whatever they want and serve me as badly as they want (I know what my neighbors say about them and I know their prices). This is no choice at all. I asked Verizon when they were going to improve the wires so I could get better speeds and their answer was, "It's not cost-effective for us." If anyone else came into this territory who had a good reputation, Verizon and Comcast would both lose customers in droves, but no one else can get in.

Did you ask them why it wasn't cost effective to them?

Hey now, no need to name call. Brandon is just debating/discussing. I disagree with him but not because he's saying anything unintelligent.

Except everything he was saying was unintelligent.

Actually, we've, the taxpayers, paid quite a bit of money to cable Co's in the form of tax and other incentives for fiber upgrades that have not happened. So actually, we've paid for them. Posted via the Android Central App

Source?

Not your secretary. look it up. Posted via the Android Central App

That's what I thought.

*sigh* it's one thing to be unaware, that can happen to anyone. It's another thing entirely to be willfully ignorant of a fact because it does not support your position. It took me approximately 30 seconds to find this. If you don't like it there are more. It's really well documented. If you choose not to pursue it because it threatens your opinion or ideology that's up to you. http://www.muniwireless.com/2006/01/31/the-200-billion-broadband-scandal... Posted via the Android Central App

Well documented and that's the best one you can find? From almost a decade ago? Ah, what it must be like to be young again, with no job, living with your parents, and no real world experience. Although this is false, if it were true, it's not like you paid any of those taxes. Keep dreaming. Verizon, yesterday, just sold about 25% of their wireline broadband to Frontier, and sold towers to American tower. They sold it because they owned it. They owned it because they paid for it. But of course, they "didn't build that," right!!!!!!!

So when confronted with evidence contrary to you opinion instead of investigating it you attack the source. Then you trot out the oldest and most tired of all the old and tired Internet cliché put downs, followed by some kind of barely intelligible Fox news talking point. Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you the sound of cognitive dissonance on the internet. Disappointing, but totally not surprising. Posted via the Android Central App

Also, thank you for acquiescing. My secretary is way too busy for that shit.

Show me a market that you can get both services. The availability of both services in nearly all markets is virtually non-existent. Edit: Side Note: Kansas City based, Comcast internet without competition was $79 for my current service. Exact same internet with Google Fiber knocking at the door $25. I don't see that happening anywhere else... yet.

They don't compete for the same customers. The reason to take this action is because, in the last few years, the ISP (as well as the mobile providers as more and more internet access it done via mobile networks) have taken action which threatens to undermine the principal of net neutrality thus making this action necessary to preserve the atmosphere under which the internet has flourished. That is, previously there was no reason to legislate net neutrality as internet traffic was not distinguished and it was all treated the same but that is no longer the case thus the need for intervention. Also, this move is not designed to address competition or the lack thereof, the article just notes that stifling competition will be one of the arguments the Cable companies, etc. will use in their fight against this proposal. The point is that it is a false argument as, for all practical purposes and from their own admissions, there is no competition between the Cable companies.

Comcast and Time Warner do not compete as they are both not available in the same area. Posted via the Android Central App

3 in 4 Americans only have 1 option when it comes to internet access. How is that competition? Posted via the Android Central App

Where did you get that statistic, and explain how net neutrality would improve your untrue stat?

If you like your Internet you can keep your internet.. Posted via the Android Central App

Here's hoping this isn't that.

I thought this would be a bad news article, but instead its great news. Don't think internet should be classified as a utility, but I do agree in the protection it would get Posted via Android Central App

+1

Sounds too good to be true. Wait - the Hill hasn't seen it yet. $$$

They don't need congressional approval. Congress can do a lot to reverse it, but the fcc can just do it to start with. Posted by my soon to be retired Note 3

Not laws: REGULATIONS. And they don't apply to you and me, but corporations.

No. They AFFECT you and me, but they don't apply to you and me. Totally different scenario. Posted with the sexy GN4.

I don't see how this would force an end to Netflix interconnect deals. Posted via the Android Central App

It wouldn't, really. Posted via the Android Central App

So if it applies to cellular as well, does that mean we can tether without having to pay for tethering services? Either way you can still only use what ever bandwidth you currently have available. So I dont see how you'd be using any more data. I jist want to be able to turn my phone into a mobile hotspot for my kid's wifi tablet while traveling. Posted via the Android Central App

You can't already do this? I can tether anytime I want. What's stopping you from tethering? Posted via the Android Central App

Some plans don't allow it. Especially "unlimited" data from tmobile and Sprint.
I can do it on mobile share with att but the older plans didn't allow it Posted via Android Central App on 1+1

Some plans don't allow it... unless you have a phone that didn't come from that carrier.

You can always root your phone. That's what I do.

I am happy that this is happening. I am really glad that i don't like in a TW and Comcast area.
I use centurylink and they have reasonably good customer service. They don't throttle and dont have a download limit.

YES!! Posted via the T-Mobile HTC One Mini

Just what we need. more government intervention....Can say more taxes in the future?

Perhaps it will result in higher taxes and FCC fees for internet usage. I doubt that these would be as high as the fees that ISPs would charge for "premium content" or ISP surcharges for "preferred streaming". ISPs and wiresless providers have proven to be masters of nickle and diming us to death and if left unchecked it would only get worse. Yes, in an ideal world we would leave it up to competition to determine the outcome but when the biggest of the bigs (comcast and time warner) are trying to become one then what competition is there?

If you think for a second that the government controlling the internet is a good thing your a fool. The telephone industry was covered under this same guidelines and for 30 years the only inovation was touch tone instead of rotary. This is just how they get their foot in the door. It always looks like it will be fair and helpful untill it isnt. Something will happen that will make them have to regulate what you are aloud to view for your own protection. The greatest way to take someone's freedoms, is to have them ask you to take them. If you don't remember the past you will be forced to relive it. Posted via the Android Central App

^^^ Comcast employee. Posted via Android Central App

No, just someone who understands that more government regulation isn't the answer to every problem. Posted via the Android Central App

Yeah, but leaving the ISP's to their own devices is most DEFINITELY not the answer to this problem. If we did, bandwidth throttling would be the norm, not something the FCC has repeatedly shut down for multiple ISP's/carriers.

In the case of large corporations, government regulation is the only answer. Do we really let them go about their business on an honor system? There's no way consumers could organize in a way to resist them without the government to come in and tell them to stop being a dick.

Ever heard of trial lawyers?

Only useful when someone is breaking the law. Unethical is not always illegal.

No, but it is the answer to THIS problem.

Then what is the answer?

...did you just string a bunch of lofty nonsensical doomsday phrases together in the hopes that no one would realize you make no sense? How was the telephone industry regulated, exactly? Who did they block calls to and from without my permission? I'm pretty sure using a telephone line to stream data packages is the very definition of innovation of the technology

+1 Posted on my OnePlus One

+1

But but... you make sense! Amurica! Posted via the Android Central App

Ahem, but it's 'Murica! Get it right. Preferably "'Murica, fuck yeah!"

From the Chairman's statement: "The internet wouldn’t have emerged as it did, for instance, if the FCC hadn’t mandated open access for network equipment in the late 1960s. Before then, AT&T prohibited anyone from attaching non-AT&T equipment to the network. The modems that enabled the internet were usable only because the FCC required the network to be open."

There are almost 0 third party providers using the phone companies lines. There is some rebranding of services, ala dishNET, but that's mostly it. The ad Bell phone service areas already have this magic fix the internet regulation on it, and very few 3rd parties have taken advantage of it. Posted via the Android Central App

I live in a suburb of Indianapolis and I have at least 3 ISPs to chose from. Comcast, AT&T, and a regional one, Metronet. If I don't like the service I'm getting from one I have a choice! Yes, this is for Internet and not so much for TV packages but nevertheless I HAVE CHOICE. Guess what? Since Metronet came to my area with their faster speeds and lower prices the other two have had to follow suit. Competition works if it is allowed. If One ISP starts charging more for "premium content" then the others will follow suit.

That's a wonderful scenario that rarely plays out. A lot of times the larger entities just bury the little guys. Allowing businesses to fail and succeed on their own merit is wonderful, but the concept assumes that all businesses are all playing by the same rules with similar sets of resources and abilities. It's naïve. There's a reason the boxing is divided by weight class.

But if the FCC hadn't stepped in back in the day, you'd be all att, and AOL wouldn't have introduced the Internet to the masses. Posted via the Android Central App

No. Cable nternet came soon enough. Posted via the Android Central App

Arguably, the fact that "getting on the net" was as simple as plugging a phone line into your PC is what made the Internet (especially WWW) what it is today.  Without that massive proliferation among the average consumer, it's likely that we would have never seen the TelCo's build out the high-speed consumer ISP's that we have today. Imagine a world where Bell and AT&T refused to allow connections between each other, so using a dial-up modem to access the Internet would be impossible.  We would likely live in a world where the "Internet" would be something they have at big companies and schools, and the term World Wide Web wouldn't exist.  There would likely have been no push to make a "smart phone" and we'd all still be using Nokia 920's.  We wouldn't be getting "connected" stuff for our homes.  We wouldn't be building cars that can talk to each other to better avoid accidents and save lives (and my commute). As much as I don't like "big government" I can't say that all government regulation is bad.

Why wouldn't they?

Um...you realize this is not the government "controlling the internet", right? It simply forces ISPs to treat all data as equal, as we have with phone and power lines and whatnot already.

And if you really think it isn't, then you're a paranoid conspiracy theorist. See, I can throw around baseless insults, too.

Yet you offer no other solution.

Yes Yes YES!!!! Give em hell Tom! Don't throttle me bro.

Incoming meme of Thom Wheeler. *don't throttle me bro* Posted via the Android Central App

More government control= more misery. Be careful what you wish for.

Amurica! Posted via the Android Central App

PLEASE do this for mobile! The carriers can stop their bitching. It also makes me sad that all frequencies and towers aren't still under government control. Then all phones could use all towers everywhere, just like a utility is supposed to be!

So you are saying that the towers the companies built with their own money, they should give that to other companies to use? How will they get their money back? Who will build new towers?

I suppose I'm saying that it should never have been auctioned off to begin with, and that new frequencies that come available shouldn't be auctioned, rather used by all carriers. The airwaves are, after all, a publicly-owned asset according to the government. How we can auction that off to the highest bidder and still expect a fair market is beyond me.

The market is pretty fair as it is. I'm asking if we were to allow new frequencies that come available to be used by every carrier then who will build new towers?

Having two giant companies that can use vast hordes of cash to buy the best/most frequency that they then use to get more rich while other carriers can't is probably not the most fair. If the towers weren't owned by the carriers, then the government (federal, state, local) or a sort of holding company would have to do it.

Two giant companies? So you are not including Sprint and T-Mobile in that? Yet they have parent companies that have tons of money. So, if the government builds the cell tower where does the money come from? Who maintains the cell tower. Who changes the software for the radios?

Sprint and T-Mobile are cash starved and can't spend $20bil on new frequencies like AT&T and Verizon just did on the AWS-3 spectrum auction. This is well known. Where does the money come from? The carriers that pay to use the towers
Who maintains the cell tower? The government or a holding company
Who changes the software for the radios? The government or a holding company

Deutsche Telekom owns T-mobile and has tons of money but they don't want T-mobile. Softbank owns Sprint and has plenty of money but they chose not to use. Its not Verizon and AT&T's fault that the other two don't want to buy more spectrum. And what about technical advancements. Why would Verizon pay to develop Voice over LTE if would have to be shared with AT&T, Sprint, and T-mobile, since they use the same cell towers and equipment. So there wouldn't be an more technical advancements. No VoLTE no LTE-A.

Instead of replying to the first part, I ask that you do a little research on the net worth, profitability and buying power of Verizon/AT&T vs the other two. Technical advancements are the real winner here. You are missing the point. Verizon would have to do nothing at all to develop things such as VoLTE, as Verizon isn't providing any of the technology in the first place. The chipset manufacturers for the phones and the companies that provide the technology for the towers would do that. Instead of waiting for a company to 'release' VoLTE (like we are with AT&T), it would already be available if your phone supported it. It's actually usually the carriers that cause delays because they wait until something is profitable until the last minute to release technology. Modern carriers, like most other large monopolies or oligopolies, sit on current technology rather than innovate. That's why we still have things like SMS messaging which, honestly, should have been done away with a long time ago. If Verizon / AT&T did have to provide anything, they'd be incentivized to do so because they would have to differentiate their brand in ways other than 'the biggest network.'

http://www.wsj.com/articles/verizon-to-sell-certain-wireline-assets-for-...

They should just make it to where if your throttled you pay a million dollar fine per customer I bet they would stop it dead in their tracks

Wouldn't hold in court. Posted on my OnePlus One

Your comment doesn't make any sense... "If your throttled you pay" sounds like you're saying that the person who's throttled should pay. "If you throttle data, you pay a million dollar fine per customer." There, I fixed it for you.

On the face of it, this is excellent news. I don't claim to know all that this implies, but a utility sounds pretty neutral to me! Most of the time, anything the USA does, my country, Canada, will likely follow closely. A free and relatively neutral net is certainly what I want!

The CRTC in Canada is the equivalent of the FCC (mostly) and they have laid out rules for ITMP (Internet Traffic Management Practices). They allow traffic shaping/throttling, however it must be applied equally without discrimination. There was a recent issue where Bell Mobility (wireless) was offering up to ten hours 'free' for their own TV streaming service. This data did not count towards the plan cap. However if you used a competitors service (ie Netflix), all data would count towards the cap. The CRTC found Bell was offering preferential treatment for their own service and declared it in violation of ITMP rules. Bell was forced to drop the 10 hour free allottment. http://mobilesyrup.com/2015/01/29/crtc-supports-net-neutrality-bans-bell... For once, the consumer won.

Because after bell mobility drives out competition by offering content for "free" the price of the content goes up, and the quality and variety go down. In the meantime it's never really "free" but the costs are made up elsewhere. Posted via the Android Central App

It wasn't that the customer was getting something. Its that they were still being capped using Netflix. What T-Mobile is doing is supporting some companies over another. Why let Spotify not count towards data , but let rdio count towards data. It stifles competition. What if I want o start my own streaming company? Well now nobody will use it, because T-mobile is essentially blocking it, by not treating it the same way as they do Spotify. Isn't the whole point of a capitalist society to be able to build something?

More government control and regulation always stifles economic growth and suppresses new opportunities and new technology. Be careful what you wish for. The Case Against Net Neutrality
http://kauffj.liberty.me/2015/02/04/the-case-against-net-neutrality/ Posted via the Android Central App

His arguments against net neutrality are poor. He speaks as though economic forces are the only ones at play when a lot of the current situation is because big players have lobbied to make sure politicians don't let more competition challenge the incumbents so that they can raise prices and not worry about competition. Net neutrality takes away politicians' ability to create special regulations for cable companies to keep their market share while not worrying about competition. Posted on my OnePlus One

I agree that competition is the *best* solution to fix this problem but, since current laws making is nearly impossible to compete, this is (hopefully) a good backup plan.  There's definitely a lot of potential for getting this wrong, but what I'm hearing out of the FCC these past few months has me hopeful that they have a clue what they're doing, here.  I guess time will tell...

Quite the opposite, a market requires proper regulation to ensure competition. Posted via the Android Central App

I think most of what the guy said is wrong but his solution is the right. Competition is what we need for a fair internet. People seem to forget that the government is the reason why Comcast and Time Warner and Verizon have such monopolies right now.

No. Money in politics is the reason. Corporations being able to buy and lobby politicians is the problem. That's what has created the monopolies. Posted via the Android Central App

So in fact its the government who allows themselves to be purchased.

What's the catch? Posted via Android Central App on 1+1

Death vans and rampant socialism. Thanks, Obama.

Hmmmm. Sarcasm is strong with this one, hmmm.

All you AC guys are liberals. That's cool, I keep coming back. Keep up the good work.

Also, this is Obama doing this, but I'm sure you agree with the decision.

Not a fan of rampant socialism, but I could probably get behind the death van if it's done right. Posted via the Android Central App

Socialism is good. Socialism works. Posted via the Android Central App

The catch is: amurica! Posted via the Android Central App

"I propose to fully apply—for the first time ever—those bright-line rules to mobile broadband." If this makes VZW even a little bit worried then I'm all for it.

What is this, 1920? Power and money hungry governments will never embrace growth in the tech sector. They still burden telecomms with restrictions that are decades and decades old for technologies that no longer exist. If you support please post a list of the pros and cons of government sticking their nose into yet another area it doesn't belong. Posted via Android Central App

Isp proposed they charge you extra for access to certain sites. that means they can charge you a fee to access a site like Netflix. then they can tell you that fee is for 720p for full hd you need to pay for the premium access. sound like something you'd like?

They never proposed this. This is a hypothetical to get people wound up. Posted via the Android Central App

They haven't yet, but they have throttled and blocked people's access to Netflix.  They're just doing it quietly for now.

I get what you're saying, but let's look at it another way.  To use your grocery store metaphor, which if one specific type of bread became so popular, that the grocery store had to devote more shelf/storage space to keep themselves in stock between deliveries.  Should the bread company have to pay for that? I know it's kind of a bad example, because there are very different cost/profit mechanisms at work between two very different business models (physical goods vs service). My problem isn't so much that Comcast made Netflix pay for the interconnect deal.  My problem is that Comcast took actions against their customers, rather than going after Netflix directly, and actually blocked my access to Netflix *after* that interconnect deal, presumably because I'm a heavy-bandwidth user. Back to the grocery store metaphor, it's like the grocery store said "this bread is really popular, but we don't have to have more of it delivered, but we still need to keep it in stock all week, so we're only going to put out a few loaves at a time and let the customers fight over them."

But what if the government does that instead. Either way we are screwed. Nice try though.

If you read the original Wired article, Tom illustrates EXACTLY how the regulation of the telephone lines was a good thing for the internet. Just stay away from the comments section, cos they dumb.

For the love of all things unholy. If you want the government to control every aspect of your life, please move to China or some other Communist or Socialist country. We don't want that type of control in the USA. You have the right to take your money anywhere you want if you don't like a service provided by a company. Posted via Android Central App

SO SICK OF THIS Bull SHIT BEING SPEWED. THERE IS NO WHERE ELSE TO GO GENIUS. IT'S A FUCKING MONOPOLY IN MOST OF THE US. Posted on my OnePlus One

It's a monopoly on cable services, yes, but not on Internet. Most of the US has access to at least 2 wired broadband providers, 3 pay tv providers, and 2 ladle phone providers. If we include cell providers, then the numbers go up. A lot of people could exist fine on a cell phone internet plan only. Posted via the Android Central App

That may be the case in metropolitan areas. In suburban and definitely in rural areas, this is not the case. It is usually just one provider. For instance, the small town I live in only has one ISP. And because of that, prices are through the roof.

Actually, these stats are themselves misleading, which is why the FCC just reclassified broadband as being 25mbps or higher (this is the minimum recommended for streaming HD video).  It was classified as 4mbps, which most people would consider pretty damn slow in this day and age. Once you re-do those numbers under this new definition, less than 1 in 4 Americans has access to more than one provider of high-speed internet. TV or wired phone services are irrelevant in this discussion.

The minimum for 1440 I believe or is it higher, I can't remember. I know it's not 1080 Posted via the Android Central App

Netflix's website recommends at least 5mbps for "HD" and 25mbps for "Ultra HD". https://help.netflix.com/en/node/306

3 in 4 Americans have only 1 option for Internet access. Do some research. Posted via the Android Central App

This isn't really about the government controlling anything. It's about the government classifying your internet access in a specific way in order to keep the multi-billion dollar public and private corporations from sticking it up our asses every second of the day. Now, it's very easy to see cases in which the government can really screw this up. That's when the onus is on us, the citizens, to make sure that doesn't happen. I think we're all painfully aware of the government's ability to pave the road to hell with good intentions. But the Netflix argument, while the most often cited, is the simplest example of why we need something like this. Derek Kessler's article, linked in the story, breaks it down perfectly. There is nothing wrong with a company, including Netflix or your ISP, charging you money for a service that you want them to provide for you. It's the way that the ISPs are going about it. If this were any other situation with a private citizen then we would have federal court cases against these ISPs and they would be prosecuted like the Mafia. It comes down to plain and simple extortion and racketeering. The problem is, like many other government interferences in our daily lives, who is going to make sure that any irregularities or unintended consequences are corrected immediately. Its like the health care act - it isn't perfect by any stretch of the imagination but it's a place to start. Instead of correcting the many problems in the program, the bureaucrats and politicians want everybody to be all in or all out. As if there is no middle ground and there is no room for improvement and compromise. The good thing about net neutrality is that the FCC has less Congressional oversight to worry about and they have more autonomy over what is happening here regardless of what Congress thinks. Posted via the Android Central App

Stop spewing your facts and well thought-out ideas!

Yah, he should know better. FUD makes for better comments.

You do realize these evil companies sticking it up customers' asses or whatever is the reason you have a job, right Jerry?

Don't know if Jerry works for an "evil" Co, but I like to think he'd have a job either way. Posted via the Android Central App

Having less congressional oversight is a bad thing. EPA ring a bell? You answered your own question, yes there will be unintended consequences as in every government action. To use your Obama Care example which you seem to favor, classifying 30 hrs as full time. Guess what happened if you worked over 30 you were cut to 29 and you still had to pay for insurance. Posted via the Android Central App

Guess what? Companies did that before the affordable care act to screw you out of full time benefits. What ever isn't nailed down they will take. Posted via the Android Central App

The only thing an employer owes you is a paycheck.

Tell that to people that work in physically debilitating industries for long stretches of time only to be cast aside as soon as their bodies are too broke down to do the work anymore, or said employer can go hire a younger cog that is fresher and cheaper. If you seriously think that's ethical in any way shape or form, then your immigrant ancestors are ashamed of you.

i will stick by my statement. Competition is what forced companies to offer benefits. It is not the governments job to mandate which benefits employers should give. The sole purpose of a company is to make money, not provide health care, hire people, give vacation time, provide a forty-hour work week. Now, if it takes this to compete with the guy down the street so be it. life is not fair and never will be, to many progressives are trying to equal the playing field with government policy. This will not work and never will.

I don't disagree that it's not the government's job to mandate which benefits a company should give, but it is their job to somehow facilitate easier, more reasonable access to benefits for hard working, tax paying citizens. Keep in mind they wouldn't even have to bother with that if the health industry wasn't a massive cash grab to begin with.

Really? No one is forced to work a "physically delibating job", the company owes the employee their pay. Pay for which the employee negotiates and agrees to before ever setting foot on the job. This attitude of "you owe me" is really killing this country. posted from an undisclosed device

Yet, they must be worked for society to continue. Doesn't mean the people that do the jobs shouldn't be taken care of. Don't want to give them insurance? Fine. But pay them enough so that they can afford it themselves. You're incredibly naïve if you think there is any kind of bargaining power on the side of the individual worker. If there was Unions would never have become a thing.

So, who should take care of them and what do you consider being taken care of includes? Who decides what the standards are? The government or the free market? I think I know your answer.

Not the government or the free market but human compassion. Do unto others and all that. You don't have to be of the religious sort to understand it's a pretty solid rule to operate your society on. But that's naïve and idealistic. Hard truth: mega corporations have turned the free market into a Thunder Dome that is always out to screw us, so we have to use our government to take some leverage back from it.

This is a government of the people, for the people, and by the people. We, the people will decide. That's what government is in a free society, it's a place where we can come together to do things. A market is not a substitution for a society. A market is a narrow, amoral thing, as it should be. It is a tool, nothing more. A powerful tool but not one for all occasions. A society that relies on a market for it's ethics is ass backwards and lost. Posted via the Android Central App

+1 Posted with the sexy GN4.

Epa is a good thing. Don't know what that is about. And the only thing wrong with Obama Care is it wasn't Single Payer. Posted via the Android Central App

There is no sense to be talked! *foams at mouth and slams fist* Seriously keep your correctness to yourself. Plus don't vaccinate your children. Kthnxbai. Posted via the Android Central App

Um, actually no I don't. There are NO other "broadband" (greater than 25 Mbps) connections available for 40 miles in any direction. My choice is Comcast or nothing which means if Comcast raises prices arbitrarily to boost EPS, I'm shafted. Unitil can't do that to me even though I can use no other grid but theirs. Wanna know why? Regulated industry. And you know what that encouraged? Rebates. Yup, since Unitil can't simply raise prices, they encourage customers to use less energy and offer rebates and products that help with that. Win/win for everyone. So sick of all this government paranoia.

"Taking your business elsewhere" does little good in the 21st century as illustrated by this handy infographic. http://www.fastcodesign.com/1665600/infographic-of-the-day-the-mega-comp...

"You have the right to take your money anywhere you want if you don't like a service provided by a company." I may have the right, but I don't have the choice. Home Telecom is the only ISP where I live. And that's the point. A large portion of the population only has one ISP servicing their area.

Contact your local Congressperson

Sadly, our congresspersons are often owned by the ISPs. I am sure people are complaining to their congresspersons, but Verizon and Comcast and AT&T have more money than we do to counteract the complaining. According to what was cited above, I don't even have broadband anymore because I can only get 2.5mbps. If I want broadband, for me it's Comcast or give up, and I do not want to submit to their customer service if I can avoid it.

This is a government of, for, and by the people - us. This is how we TAKE control. Get it together. Posted via the Android Central App

You are a complete idiot. First socialism works. It works in the health care industry the UK and other nations have proved that but Americans are too stupid to realise it. You have to have socialism to have a functioning society. You are an idiot. Posted via the Android Central App

I am all for net neutrality, but am not sure this is the way to achieve it. However, I do not have any other solutions. But I am extremely thankful to have Google Fiber at my house. Not only is it super fast, but it is administired by a company that believes in net neutrality without any government mandates.

And Google Fiber has publicly stated that they are in favor of the FCC enforcing Net Neutrality. While Comcast, Time Warner, and other ISPs are whining about how they are losing money Google has come in and SHOWN how it can be done.

Are they actually making money yet? No, in 5-10 years, maybe. Plus the places they are putting fiber in are making it easy on them, but still give the incumbents a hard time when ever they want to change. Posted via the Android Central App

Lol, you are using the solution right now. Competition is the key to keeping the internet neutral.

3 in 4 Americans have access to only one ISP. We don't have competition. Posted via the Android Central App

That's the point. We need to make it so that there is competition. But the way the rules are set up, it doesn't allow for new companies to start up and be an internet ISP.

Can we make him chairman for life? It worked for Mao.

At first glance you might say hey this is a good thing. Couple years later the regulations start. And guess who's going to throw money around to the politicians to have regulations favor them. And in the long run if you think this will make Internet cheaper and more competition you're living in Fantasyland. Posted via the Android Central App

Lesser of two evils.

I don't like that the government is getting involved and taking over something else. However, I also think this is probably the only way that ISP's don't start charging more for different services or to be able to connect to different things.
One worry I have though, is that I wonder if most companies will now stop with their speed at where they are at instead of pushing the envelope. For instance where I live my cable company just upgraded the speeds and I went from 15Mps to 50Mps without an increase in price. I wonder if they will stop this? Also, they offer 3 other speeds above mine, I wonder if they will go away and everyone will be at the 50Mps.

That's a good point.  In an ideal world, with real market competition, another ISP would come along offering 100mbps for say $20 extra per month.  They could then run promotions where, for the first 3 months, you got $20 off, making them the same price as the 50mbps TelCo, which would cause a surge of people to switch, which would then pressure the original TelCo to up their speeds, which would pressure the new TelCo to respond, etc and so on and so forth. People used to talk about how people would "jump" back and forth between wired phone companies back in the day in order to get the best deal, but that's exactly what true competition should look like.

15mbps? 50mbps? Where do you live, Seoul? I'm envious. If I want any more than 2.5 I have to use Comcast. Someone please bring me better speed for less than $100/month!

No actually I live in West Virginia. That is what the cable company here offers, of course there is one thing and that is they say they will charge extra for going over 250GB per month. I haven't come close to that yet and doubt that I will.
If the speed bothers you that much, I also only pay $50/month for service. The phone company offers only 8Mps here I think.

It has its pros and con's.. Posted via Android Central App

AW SNAP! Let the whining....er....legal battles commence. Sure the Internet and wireless networks are not public utilities. I mean it is not crippling in any way at all if you lose access to both (especially if you are a business). /S Seriously, small business will LOVE this.

Thank goodness.

The ISPs fear Google Fiber.... Just sayin.... As you were...

Google fiber for all! Posted via Android Central App

Which is the actual market fixing itself. Fiber is all the talk, I would not be suprised most major metros to have a fiber network from someone soon. Posted via the Android Central App

Century Link has fiber here, in the Twin Cities MN I can't get it yet but they are close

Dam all this caring. Honestly why care if you can't control it? No need to be upset about stuff you have 0 real opinion about. Non of you make these decisions get over it. Posted via the Android Central App

Yah. You're right. Let's all hop on over to the ARM story instead.

You're kidding right? As individuals, no, we have no control... But as collective consumers, voters and taxpayers we are in control of everything. Even you are a part of that collective strength of the masses... The vote you cast and the dollar in your pocket control everything. You best open your eyes, my friend.

I don't vote because I choose not to. And I don't make enough money to have a say as a tax payer since its basically nill. I don't want to open my eyes to more stress and idiotic things. I did for a long time and felt it unneccesarry but to each their own friend. Posted via the Android Central App

I respect your position. But I just warn you, respectfully, that ignoring the realities of the world make you no less a part of it.

Must be a college student.

This attitude right here is why democratic government is ineffective. You have to participate, dude, and understand that a democracy waxes and wanes. Sometimes you get your way. Sometimes the other guy does. We all want what's best for the nation as a whole, we just disagree on how to get there.

The GOP Congress will try to side with the providers, no doubt. This will be an epic fight and could eventually head to the Supreme Court where justice is bought and sold. Posted via Android Central App

I'd side with the providers if it wasn't a monopoly, that's the problem here Posted via Android Central App

*Both* sides of Congress are going to side with whichever side stands to give them the most power and money in the end.

Wrong, but thanks for playing.

Keep drinking that koolaid, dude.

Oh, sure... that's always the line for those of us with eyes open and paying attention from those who get their memorized talking points from cable news wearing flag-colored blindfolds. There is one side that ALWAYS sides with big business and has been against net neutrality all along because those big businesses tell them to be against it. I think you know what that side is. Don't claim it's both parties, when it absolutely is not.

I am sure this will be in courts for years and if it does pass we will have to pay a new tax for it but hopefully it will preserve net neutrality and the carriers will not find loopholes.

It'll end up being good for consumers, I think. Even if it did result in a new tax, there's no way it would even approach the amount of extra cash you'd end up having to fork over to all of the services you're already paying for that will have to increase their rates to make up for the cost of having to pay ISPs for higher-tier access.

The one thing that's successful and doesn't have government in it and you want to put government in it. It will be ruined in a short amount of time. Posted via the Android Central App

Successful where and for whom? The only people who think this successful are those who live in places with provider choice. That is not most of us.

The internet wouldn't exist without government involvement moron Posted via the Android Central App

This is the right thing to do. I am actually shocked they are doing it. With out boring everyone to tears, the way the telecom act of 1934 (amended in 1996) is written, making them a "utility" is the only way to make sure everyone is playing fair. Due to the technical complexity of the "public network" and nuances of "private networks' there really is no other option but to do this. Peace.

Thumbs up. Posted via the Android Central App

Some of you guys need to stop cross posting on here and free republic. This is a good thing. Posted by my soon to be retired Note 3

But aren't utilities a monopoly also? I don't get it. Posted via Android Central App

I'm no legal scholar, but this seems to guarantee net neutrality. Isn't this what we've all wanted all along? If not, someone correct me.

In concept, yes, but in practice any number of things could happen. Time will ultimately tell the tale. Also, not everyone wants net neutrality because... ... Well, I honestly don't know why.

Hallelujah. It is about time. Maybe this is the first step on the road to some infrastructure improvements,because right now we have internet deserts where the ISPs see no reason to improve anything. If I don't want to use Comcast (which I DON'T), I have to accept a maximum speed of 2.5mbps because nobody else wants to bring me anything better (I see no signs of competition where I live so I am not sure what competition anyone can say this will threaten - the current way this is all handled removes the need for competition). Internet is indeed now a utility and should be treated as such so everyone can get it.

I may be kind of forgetting the past, but regulated utilities are not allowed (as far as I know) to have gold-plated lines in rich suburbs and falling-down, lying-on-the-ground lines in poor neighborhoods, which is sort of the situation now with internet. Electricity, water, phone are supposed to be available for everyone. My neighborhood is far from poor, but because Comcast has the monopoly Verizon's lines are maybe not lying on the ground but not capable of delivering more than 2.5mpbs. I cannot get anything better. I cannot get it. All competitors to Verizon use their same damn lines so they're not really competitors. Maybe if broadband is a utility, and broadband is now defined as above, what, 14mbps? maybe someone will come offer me broadband.

His business. Posted via the Android Central App

No! Just no

Yes! Just yes! Posted via the Android Central App

All of you kids that think this is a great move for more government control are naive and just plain dumb. You love to bitch about Comcast, Verizon, etc. but this move will cement their role as an ISP with continual price hikes and lousy customer service. You will get exactly the opposite of what you want. The barrier to entry for potential competitors has been raised for last-mile access. New potential entrants will not be able to afford to enter the market because of all of the added costs the regulations will force. I've lived with Title II regulation and it stifles innovation and competition. Look at the energy industry. It is highly regulated at the local, federal, and state level. What innovations have you seen from them? When was the last time you received a rate decrease? The reason that we don't have last-mile competition except for the densest areas, is because it is not typically economical for more than two carriers to build networks. There are ways around it that are emerging but once Title II is enacted, it may end up breaking the model for new entrants. If you don't currently have a carrier in your area the FCC may end up mandating that you be served, but the ISP will be allowed to recoup their investment plus a nice profit. I have worked hard for the last decade for access competition and this move is a step backwards. By not allowing content prioritization, the OTT providers will suffer because they won't be able to offer the same quality of service as the incumbents that deliver voice and video outside the Internet connection. If people complain about bad service then the ISP will add more capacity and jack up the rates to cover the added cost plus their government guaranteed profit. The eight words that scare me are, "I'm here to help. I'm from the government." More government always makes things more expensive, poorer quality, and less choice. Look at Obamacare. Costs and deductibles have gone up and coverage and quality has gone down. The only saving grace is that there will be lawsuits and Congress will get involved as well, but the outcome will likely be a mess. We had a good thing going and now special interests (Google, Facebook, and the MSM) want to take over.

You realize we want to keep it the same as it is now, right? Business as usual. That's what we want, and this will hopefully provide that. And it will actually mean we get to use broadband we pay for instead of an ephemeral number we never see. I PAY for 100mbs, but average 27. This is the common problem. What you describe as a superior model is really an internet oligarchy. We have a hard enough time with class disparagy in the real world. No reason to bring it to the internet. Posted with the sexy GN4.

Give me a break on the class warfare crap, but it does provide me perspective from where you are coming. You would be very happy with a government Internet service over a choice of 3 or more providers operating in a free market. Later comrade.

TLDR. But you are a stupid twat Posted via the Android Central App

This sounds like a good law. Posted via the Android Central App

Thank you Obama got pushing more open consumer friendly electronic laws (cell phone unlocking) & got pushing wheeler for this! Not sure what he said but thank you! Posted via the Android Central App

About damn time. Hopefully, it will hold up because like the article states, the ISPs will do everything in their power to overturn the decision once it's made.

Jeezus f'n cry, Android Central! Get a clue! Why Net Neutrality is not what the big players want you to think it is... http://rare.us/story/dont-be-fooled-net-neutrality-is-all-about-cronyism/ http://www.christophercantwell.com/2014/02/19/dont-fall-for-net-neutrality/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/joshsteimle/2014/05/14/am-i-the-only-techie-... http://www.internetfreedomcoalition.com/?p=4342 http://www.forbes.com/sites/haroldfurchtgottroth/2014/10/12/fcc-plans-st... http://fee.org/the_freeman/detail/net-neutrality-or-government-brutality http://www.againstcronycapitalism.org/2014/11/judge-napolitano-orwellian... http://reason.com/blog/2014/11/13/obamas-scheme-to-regulate-us-into-broadb  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Z_nBhfpmk4 Posted via the Android Central App

That first link using the word "cronysim" invalidates anything you have to say. Posted with the sexy GN4.

You are dumber than Sarah Palin Ted Cruz and George Bush combined Posted via the Android Central App

Good, great, awesome ! via AC App on VZW Moto X DE/N7