FCC internet decision like I'm five

[compassrose]

So the FFC just created strong internet protections, but I'm not really sure what that means.

www.theverge.com/2015/2/4/7977569/its-official-the-fcc-will-seek-to-reclassify-the-internet-as-a-utility 

The article says, "The biggest revelation from the proposal is the decision to lump wireless networks in with wired broadband — something the FCC has avoided doing for years thanks to enormous pressure from Verizon and AT&T."

What at the implications for my internet availability and pricing? And data plans for cell phones?

Someone break it down for me like I'm 5. 

____________________________________________________

Today, in a statement given to Wired, FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler revealed his plan to reclassify ISPs as common carriers under Title II of the Telcommunications Act. It's a striking victory for net neutrality advocates who have been fighting for years to solidify internet protections using Title II authority — and it's the first time the FCC has shown enough backbone to draw a line in the sand against companies like Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon, who are sure to fight viciously in courts to reverse this action.

"I am submitting to my colleagues the strongest open internet protections ever proposed by the FCC," Wheeler wrote. "These enforceable, bright-line rules will ban paid prioritization, and the blocking and throttling of lawful content and services."

"MY PROPOSAL ASSURES THE RIGHTS OF INTERNET USERS TO GO WHERE THEY WANT, WHEN THEY WANT."

The biggest revelation from the proposal is the decision to lump wireless networks in with wired broadband — something the FCC has avoided doing for years thanks to enormous pressure from Verizon and AT&T. "I propose to fully apply — for the first time ever — those bright-line rules to mobile broadband," Wheeler wrote. "My proposal assures the rights of internet users to go where they want, when they want, and the rights of innovators to introduce new products without asking anyone's permission."

The chairman's proposal was expected to be circulated to commissioners tomorrow, but Wheeler got ahead of it today by detailing his plan. "After more than a decade of debate and a record-setting proceeding that attracted nearly 4 million public comments," Wheeler wrote, "the time to settle the net neutrality question has arrived."

The proposal still needs to be voted on by the FCC on February 26th, but with only two Republican opponents on the five member commission it faces no serious threat of failure internally. Congress, on the other hand, may attempt to undermine the FCC's authority with legislation.

So that's it. After more than a decade of using the wrong words to protect net neutrality, the FCC is using the right ones. And with the telecommunications giants already revealing their legal strategy to fight it, former FCC Chairman Michael Powell's warning that reclassification would result in "World War III" is looking prescient. The battle begins.

SOURCEWIRED

[msmerymac]

This is a good thing.

It's a net neutrality issue. Classifying it as a utility means that legally, everyone has equal access. Meaning the internet is neutral.

WithOUT net neutrality, businesses would be able to pay for higher speeds for their own sites. So, like, Amazon would be able to pay to be faster than your local book store website, so even if you were trying to buy from a local or smaller supplier, eventually you might get frustrated because Amazon was a lot faster, so you'd just go with them, given them even more business and compounding the problem.

ETA: I do not think this affects pricing, availability or "tiered" data plans on the consumer end (like paying Verizon for faster internet speed at home or for more high speed data on your phone).

[ttt]

This is a very good thing. It probably won't affect the pricing of your data plans or anything like that, at least not now and not directly. It essentially means that your internet provider, on your phone or otherwise, can't slow your data speed to a crawl when you visit sites that haven't paid a fee to the provider.

Like if you watch Netflix on your phone, Verizon wants to be able to go to Netflix and say "hey Netflix, pay us $$$ or we're going to make Netflix super slow when our customers try to visit it." And if Netflix says "no way" then when you go to watch Netflix, it will be so slow that it will be unwatchable.

This FCC proposal is saying "nope, you can't do that." It's a good thing for consumers.

Also related good news for consumers: www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2015/02/02/the-fcc-is-moving-to-preempt-state-broadband-limits/

[compassrose]

Feb 4, 2015 12:07:01 GMT -5 msmerymac said:

This is a good thing.

It's a net neutrality issue. Classifying it as a utility means that legally, everyone has equal access. Meaning the internet is neutral.

WithOUT net neutrality, businesses would be able to pay for higher speeds for their own sites. So, like, Amazon would be able to pay to be faster than your local book store website, so even if you were trying to buy from a local or smaller supplier, eventually you might get frustrated because Amazon was a lot faster, so you'd just go with them, given them even more business and compounding the problem.

ETA: I do not think this affects pricing, availability or "tiered" data plans on the consumer end (like paying Verizon for faster internet speed at home or for more high speed data on your phone).

Ah.  Yeah, it's that last part about internet for individuals that I wasn't sure of. This sentence made me think it might have implications for data plans: "MY PROPOSAL ASSURES THE RIGHTS OF INTERNET USERS TO GO WHERE THEY WANT, WHEN THEY WANT."