Obama released a video Monday morning endorsing net neutrality, the principle that online content should be treated equally by Internet providers carrying it to consumers. The Federal Communications Commission is currently considering whether to change net neutrality regulations in light of recent court rulings against it in cases brought by Internet providers, and advocates like Franken worry the commission will weaken net neutrality protections. (Here’s MinnPost’s explainer on net neutrality from May.)
Obama suggested regulators could continue to enforce traditional net neutrality by reclassifying the Internet as a public utility, like telephone service, which would open it up to much more stringent regulation than it currently receives. Such a plan has been controversial — the Internet isn’t currently considered a utility, and Internet providers have opposed more regulation — but lawmakers like Franken, one of Congress’ most outspoken net neutrality supporters, have long backed it.
Sen. Al Franken
“What the president is asking the FCC to do — to reclassify Internet service as a utility — is simply common sense, and it would ensure that rich corporations couldn’t pay for an Internet fast lane,” Franken said in a statement. “Net neutrality is a simple concept: all content on the Internet must travel at the same speed. It’s been the architecture of the Internet since it was created. It’s made the Internet a platform for enormous innovation and economic growth. And it should stay that way. I hope the FCC agrees.”
Obama said the FCC should pass several other net neutrality protections, including banning a “fast lane” to deliver content more quickly for companies that pay for it. He also called for similar regulations for cellular carriers.
Obama’s comments don’t act as a formal policy shift for the government since only the FCC can set the regulations (unless Congress directs the FCC to regulate in a certain way, something that is highly unlikely). More than 3.9 million people submitted comments to the FCC on net neutrality over the summer, and regulators could soon rule on how they plan to address it going forward.
Devin Henry can be reached at dhenry@minnpost.com. Follow him on Twitter: @dhenry
Not even close. The court ruled that the FCC did not have the authority to regulate the internet as it planned, because it was currently classified as information service, which was not subject to the same level of regulation as telecommunications.
In fact, in the case you cite, the court explicitly laid out a path for the FCC to gain those regulatory powers over the internet: Properly reclassify the ISPs as telecommunications providers, which can be regulated as common carriers.
Cable and internet monopolies exist in municipalities because those municiplalities wanted it that way. The franchise went to the highest backroom bidder to the exclusion of all others. Like all other real monopolies in this society (electricity, water) it was established and supported by government.
And the reason private enterprise tries to prevent government from entering their marketplace, where they exist, is because it’s not the role of the governrment to compete in private markets with the unfair advantage of unlimited taxpayer money. It’s the reason why you don’t have the Mpls city government selling 5-cent hot dogs on the Nicollet mall and why governments shouldn’t be talking about building broadband networks with taxpayer money. That’s not their job and it’s unfair to the citizens who are trying to make a living.
yeah, uhm no. Monticello MN does not have unlimited taxpayer money to run an ISP and certainly far, far less than Comcast or Charter. But, what they did have was residents and businesses with a need for high speed internet access, and a private ISP industry unwilling to offer it to them (at least, not until the city started the process to do it themselves).
How exactly do you plan to obtain the right of way for hundreds of electric, gas, water, phone, cable, and fiber lines to set up this supposed competition you desire. Utilities are regulated as such due to the fact they are natural monopolies, due to the constraints of their delivery systems, no government influence needed. Perhaps this might change with technological advance, but as it stands the pipe has to come from somewhere and given the great cost of installation we’re going to be stuck where we are. I’d also LOVE to see your business model for the company thats going to lay the line for sparsely populated rural customers, basically ensuring bankruptcy for themselves and zero returns to their investors. I wonder if your newfound rural constituency read that part of the party platform, particulary the businesspersons.
Darn Aqueducts & Rural Electrification!
What business does any government have in doing anything!
Unfair competition for water & sewage. And what’s with all that pavement?
Because so many private companies were clamoring for to fill the roles & services.
The Right to Plunder, is closer to what you are talking about.
Edward Teach would have bought into that!
I receive multiple attempts to defraud and steal from me through internet inquiries and emails everyday. A typical example:
“I have called your office number but cannot connect
to you and i have sent you several email but no reply
from you. my emails to you are bounced back. Now i
use new email to forward you the second revised invoice
you sent. could you please look into attached
revised invoice of yours and confirm if this invoice was
altered by you. your company information doesn’t seem right.
who is WEN YU LIMITED? I have highlighted the changes in red on the attached invoice. please check and confirm back. we are confused as we don’t know the invoice to use.”
In this case the “invoice” was a script to hack my computer. ISP’s have failed miserably at controlling this. Somebody, something needs to step up.
“If you like your internet provider
you can keep your internet provider!”
It seems to me that the federal courts have already ruled that the FCC lacks the authority to regulate the internet as a utility. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alexander-howard/federal-court-rules-fcc-l_b_526942.html
Thank God. These are the same people who want to control your health care.
Welcome back, Dennis!
Not even close. The court ruled that the FCC did not have the authority to regulate the internet as it planned, because it was currently classified as information service, which was not subject to the same level of regulation as telecommunications.
In fact, in the case you cite, the court explicitly laid out a path for the FCC to gain those regulatory powers over the internet: Properly reclassify the ISPs as telecommunications providers, which can be regulated as common carriers.
Marginal Utility of Regulation
Tax it? Tax it again? Tax is some more?
“Net Neutrality” is a lame term
This is about who owns the web.
IF anyone can simply monopolize it & smother one segment based upon how well the skids are greased toward another.
ARPANet was a government project, as so many development projects are, or were. It eventually yielded the internet we have today.
This is closer to cable.
If you want a sports channel – then you will have to buy the deluxe package.
“you can keep your internet provider”
should be replaced with – can you actually CHANGE providers in many markets & communities?
And, “why do some big internet companies try to block municipalities from setting up their own internet & wifi?”
Government-established monopolies
Cable and internet monopolies exist in municipalities because those municiplalities wanted it that way. The franchise went to the highest backroom bidder to the exclusion of all others. Like all other real monopolies in this society (electricity, water) it was established and supported by government.
And the reason private enterprise tries to prevent government from entering their marketplace, where they exist, is because it’s not the role of the governrment to compete in private markets with the unfair advantage of unlimited taxpayer money. It’s the reason why you don’t have the Mpls city government selling 5-cent hot dogs on the Nicollet mall and why governments shouldn’t be talking about building broadband networks with taxpayer money. That’s not their job and it’s unfair to the citizens who are trying to make a living.
yeah, uhm no. Monticello MN does not have unlimited taxpayer money to run an ISP and certainly far, far less than Comcast or Charter. But, what they did have was residents and businesses with a need for high speed internet access, and a private ISP industry unwilling to offer it to them (at least, not until the city started the process to do it themselves).
So then
How exactly do you plan to obtain the right of way for hundreds of electric, gas, water, phone, cable, and fiber lines to set up this supposed competition you desire. Utilities are regulated as such due to the fact they are natural monopolies, due to the constraints of their delivery systems, no government influence needed. Perhaps this might change with technological advance, but as it stands the pipe has to come from somewhere and given the great cost of installation we’re going to be stuck where we are. I’d also LOVE to see your business model for the company thats going to lay the line for sparsely populated rural customers, basically ensuring bankruptcy for themselves and zero returns to their investors. I wonder if your newfound rural constituency read that part of the party platform, particulary the businesspersons.
Blame the Romans: Darn Aqueducts!
Darn Aqueducts & Rural Electrification!
What business does any government have in doing anything!
Unfair competition for water & sewage. And what’s with all that pavement?
Because so many private companies were clamoring for to fill the roles & services.
The Right to Plunder, is closer to what you are talking about.
Edward Teach would have bought into that!
Everyday
I receive multiple attempts to defraud and steal from me through internet inquiries and emails everyday. A typical example:
“I have called your office number but cannot connect
to you and i have sent you several email but no reply
from you. my emails to you are bounced back. Now i
use new email to forward you the second revised invoice
you sent. could you please look into attached
revised invoice of yours and confirm if this invoice was
altered by you. your company information doesn’t seem right.
who is WEN YU LIMITED? I have highlighted the changes in red on the attached invoice. please check and confirm back. we are confused as we don’t know the invoice to use.”
In this case the “invoice” was a script to hack my computer. ISP’s have failed miserably at controlling this. Somebody, something needs to step up.