News FCC Holds ISPs' Feet to the Fire With Broadband 'Nutrition Labels'

[Admin]

The FCC has instituted new broadband "nutrition labels," forcing ISPs to be more transparent about services offered.

FCC Holds ISPs' Feet to the Fire With Broadband 'Nutrition Labels' : Read more

 

[Elusive Ruse]

Any regulation that holds ISPs to some form of transparency has my vote!

 

[Giroro]

I don't think this is perfect but, meh, it's better than nothing. It would be more helpful if it was more of a Zillow-style map/database to show you exactly which legally-enforced ISP monopoly controls your property and what service technology you can expect. The kind of thing that can easily warn an average person exactly how overpriced/obsolete their internet will be if they accidently move into the wrong state, city, or neighborhood.

"ISPs usually love to tout their download speeds in their advertising and then place their upload speeds in small print "

Unless you're comcast, where the upload speeds are often not published on any plan description, company website, or advertising, - until you read the fine print of the contract itself, only accessible at time of signing/payment.
So, this weird ugly "nutrition label" would at least help solve that one specific problem.

 

[rluker5]

I wouldn't mind if the FTC were doing this, but it seems like the FCC is just trying to claim ownership and management authority over all ISPs again just like they tried with Net Neutrality. They are just telling the ISPs to do something that may be popular to establish that they have rightful control over them. They don't have the authority.

The mother of all US gov censorship, the FCC is far too political to be trusted with management authority over all internet service providers in the US.

A handful (5 to be exact) of political appointees should not have the power to tell any and all internet distributors "Do exactly as I say or I will shut your business down"

Perhaps if we didn't just finally get the news that politically motivated departments of the gov was directing censorship on social media to affect the outcome of an election I might not be so wary.

Normal people cannot trust the FCC. This is just an underhanded power grab.
The goal is to control the flow of information. That goal should not be reached by any administration. It should remain in the hands of the people.

 

[dmetech]

Is there a date by which they must display this?

 

[Alvar "Miles" Udell]

It's a step in the right direction, though if it were me making the rules under "typical" download and upload, it'd list "minimum" download and upload speeds, which is what really matters, especially for cable and satellite connections, with a penalty attached if speeds drop below their minimums.

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

Any regulation that holds ISPs to some form of transparency has my vote!

It hasn't gone far enough.

STRIP all Major ISP's of the "Last Mile" in every part of the US.

Confiscate the ownership of the communication lines that the "BIG ISP" monopoly has used those lucrative tax breaks from the late 1990's to buy each other up instead of wiring every house with Fiber Optics.

Have the "Last Mile" within every major area of the US be local municipal Telecom utility that gives you EVERY form of Broadband.

Follow the Ammon Idaho model "Virtual ISP" model.

The local municipal Telecom utility will handle all billing, no ISP will be allowed to touch your credit card or personal info.

Screw the big ISP's.

Let them handle connection between the main trunks of the internet and each major region ONLY.

Force competition at Gun Point if you have to.

Have a USPS equivalent of ISP in each region to MAKE SURE that there is cheap Broadband.

 

[hotaru251]

A handful (5 to be exact) of political appointees should not have the power to tell any and all internet distributors "Do exactly as I say or I will shut your business down"

if they don't the ISP do shady crap.

Normal people cannot trust the FCC. This is just an underhanded power grab.

they can't trust ISP either.

Its a "pick your poison" and imho (based on prior experience with isps over few decades) i'll risk gov keeping em in line.

The goal is to control the flow of information. That goal should not be reached by any administration. It should remain in the hands of the people.

all it is doing is making the ISP have to be upfront about details of plan they usually keep buried in legalese most ppl wont read.

and FCC isnt ajit pai (aka sheet pai) anymore so its a LOT less corrupt than prior.

 

[rluker5]

I like the Internet as it is and don't want it made worse by politicians promising the moon if just given control over it, then delivering what suits them best after they have the power over it. ISPs monitor and control your internet traffic, mine as well. Our freedom of speech should not be for sale to the corp with the deepest lobbyist pockets, or whatever gov wants heard or not.

Politicians make many promises. They don't keep too many. Right now the internet is better than it ever has been. Don't fix what isn't broke.

 

[rluker5]

A few years back 3 of the 5 FCC commissioners (including Pai) voted to stop the push to establish internet service providers as under their regulatory jurisdiction under some 1920s title 2 phone company law. And the FCC has had no regulatory jurisdiction over ISPs ever since.

This "nutrition label" is the politicized FCC just assuming power over the ISPs with nothing to back it up other than the threat of endless legal bills and gov harassment. Basically claiming "your ISP belongs to us now". They will do it until a court stops them, or if they are ignored and they see it isn't working. And if they get this they will come back for more.

Regardless of whether the clarity of bills is an issue that needs to be addressed, the way it has been done here is not a good thing.

 

[umeng2002_2]

It's beyond time to regulate all ISPs like utilities.

 

[rluker5]

How's that regulation working for land line telephones and broadcast media?

 

[umeng2002_2]

Perfectly well. I call someone a bad name over a phone call and my bank won't cancel my account. Every place I've lived in has enough electricity for all my needs without breaking the bank.

 

[bit_user]

I wouldn't mind if the FTC were doing this, but it seems like the FCC is just trying to claim ownership and management authority over all ISPs again just like they tried with Net Neutrality. They are just telling the ISPs to do something that may be popular to establish that they have rightful control over them. They don't have the authority.

If you're right, don't you think the ISPs would be suing the pants off the FCC? The fact that they haven't suggests the FCC indeed has the legal authority and ISPs know it.

And where do you get off asserting otherwise?

The mother of all US gov censorship,

It's only for terrestrial broadcast that they have censorship authority, and that's because the spectrum is public property and anyone can tune in and watch/listen.

the FCC is far too political to be trusted with management authority over all internet service providers in the US.

How is the FTC any less political?

A handful (5 to be exact) of political appointees should not have the power to tell any and all internet distributors "Do exactly as I say or I will shut your business down"

I'm not sure they have the authority to "shut a business down". For censorship violations, they levy fines. And the political appointees are confirmed by the Senate, just like federal judges. Maybe you'd rather they get selected by industry? Seriously, how should they be selected?

Furthermore, if Congress doesn't like something the FCC does, they can pass laws to restrict it. That's how they killed Net Neutrality.

Perhaps if we didn't just finally get the news that politically motivated departments of the gov was directing censorship on social media to affect the outcome of an election I might not be so wary.

Source?

Normal people cannot trust the FCC. This is just an underhanded power grab. The goal is to control the flow of information. That goal should not be reached by any administration. It should remain in the hands of the people.

Huh? Lack of regulation just means ISPs and perhaps wealthy individuals will control it. That's not an improvement. At least having the commissioners appointed and confirmed by elected representatives of The People gives us some ability to influence the FCC and the jurisdiction it regulates.

 

[bit_user]

ISPs monitor and control your internet traffic, mine as well.

They also spy on you and sell data about your browsing habits. Not only that, but they want to charge content providers for access to you. And if Netflix has to pay Verizon to stream movies to you, then Netfix is going to raise your subscription fees.

Like it or not, ISPs need to be regulated.

Our freedom of speech should not be for sale to the corp with the deepest lobbyist pockets, or whatever gov wants heard or not.

Your freedom of speech is one of the things the FCC is charged with protecting.

BTW, when is the last time you torrented something? Within the past couple years, I've torrented Linux distros and Comcast is still blocking my ability to seed. If that's not a freedom of speech violation, what is?

Right now the internet is better than it ever has been. Don't fix what isn't broke.

Just because it's better than before doesn't mean it's as good as it could be. Just look at Verizon and Comcast's financials to see how much they're milking us. It could be cheaper, faster, and more private. In other countries, we see examples of all 3.

 

[Deleted member 14196]

More big government. Down with this. Government STAY OUT of private business

do you know what would be better? The government in forcing General Motors to build cars that don’t suck 🤣🤣🤣

 

[bit_user]

More big government. Down with this. Government STAY OUT of private business

They build infrastructure on public land and use eminent domain to gain access to private land. In many markets, there's no competition. Because of these factors, among others, ISPs should absolutely be regulated as utilities.

 

[DSzymborski]

Save the politics fighting for a politics forum.