FCC Vote Coming February 26; Here's Your Primer On The Issues

[d_kuhn]

Looks like it's passed... now for the court challenges. A good day though... a good day.

 

[larkspur]

This is all about the money. By assigning ISPs to Title II it becomes possible to tax Internet access immediately. The timing of these actions is a strong indicator. In September 2015 the Internet Tax Freedom Act will expire. It is a temporary law that must be renewed in order to remain law. On July 15, 2014 the House (with limited democrat support) passed the Permanent Internet Tax Freedom Act in an effort to make the law permanent. But it died in the Senate without a vote. The bill has been reintroduced this year but like its predecessor, is considered unlikely to be passed.

Without the Internet Tax Freedom Act, Federal, State, and Municipal governments can tax individuals for all kinds of internet access: access tax, per bit tax, bandwidth tax, franchise tax, even email tax. The pending death of the Internet Tax Freedom Act has been intentionally kept very quiet while the focus and rhetoric revolves around the FCC's "net neutrality" policy proposition. The Internet Tax Freedom Act is obviously very popular with the people. But the key is that unfortunately, the Internet Tax Freedom Act, as it is currently written, cannot prohibit certain very specific transmission and telecommunications taxes if the FCC designates ISPs as utilities under Title II.

Once the FCC starts classifying ISPs as utilities, it will be possible for Federal, State and Municipal governments to slap on the same already-in-place utility and telecommunications taxes that are already charged on telephone lines, power transmission lines, etc. regardless of the status of the Internet Tax Freedom Act. This is the true reason for the reclassification of ISPs to Title II. In other words, governments that charge a tax on telephone and power transmission won't have to pass any additional (unpopular) laws to tax internet in the same way they tax utility access. Once ISPs are classified as utilities, many of the tax laws that are already on the books will be applicable to internet access.

It's actually pretty simple: The government wants more revenue and sees the ISPs growing and making money. They see less and less revenue from taxing telephone landlines, but see an explosion of internet access and activity. Just like the old telephone and power companies - they want more than just the income taxes - they want a much bigger slice of the pie, and the authority to control it. This reclassification will cost the consumer more and does nothing to promote market competition. Moreover, if Congress doesn't make the Internet Tax Freedom law permanent, then its just a matter of time before we see massive taxes on internet access in multiple forms from multiple government entities. Classifying ISPs as utilities is just the tip of the iceburg.

 

[ethanolson]

News is in. They voted and approved the rules.

 

[TNT27]

Now its going to be deemed unconstitutional, goes to court, and court once again says its legal as it is classified as a tax.

 

[I wish i knew]

Some people are confused its not government control over what you see on the internet. Its regulation stating nobody can control what you see on the internet. If this did not pass Comcast can block media site from operating through their network.

 

[RedJaron]

Some people are confused its not government control over what you see on the internet. Its regulation stating nobody can control what you see on the internet. If this did not pass Comcast can block media site from operating through their network.

And now that the gov't has decided they can create whatever regulations they deem necessary, what's to stop them from passing restrictions and bans to whatever content they deem "bad"? Yes, Comcast could decide to block certain stuf, and competititors could use that against them to woo customers.

It boils down to this. A bunch of unelected bureaucrats just decided to take control of something they didn't make by holding a vote on a panel we can't vote for on a bill we can't see on an issue we have no input on.

I'm not saying regulation can't be accomplished well, but this is NOT the way to do it.

 

[alidan]

Michael; with regard to the current situation where only a handful of ISPs exist in the U.S. and don't have to compete, I think you need to replace you advocate's hat with your journo hat and explain why this remains the case. OK, so this handful of ISPs are reluctant to compete with each other, but what is stopping new private businesses from competing in those segments where prices are high and performance is low? It seems like a golden opportunity.

it costs money to lay the infrastructure for one.
for 2, laws past against it because of the cable companies. there are a few places in america where the local governments stepped up because they cable companies were screwing the people hard, they stepped it up and provided the 5th fastest internet in the world for 27 million dollars. cable companies had a fit, and got laws passed so you cant do that, and so you cant price yourself competitively. i love americas bribe based political system, dont you?

 

[TNT27]

Some people are confused its not government control over what you see on the internet. Its regulation stating nobody can control what you see on the internet. If this did not pass Comcast can block media site from operating through their network.

Michael; with regard to the current situation where only a handful of ISPs exist in the U.S. and don't have to compete, I think you need to replace you advocate's hat with your journo hat and explain why this remains the case. OK, so this handful of ISPs are reluctant to compete with each other, but what is stopping new private businesses from competing in those segments where prices are high and performance is low? It seems like a golden opportunity.

it costs money to lay the infrastructure for one.
for 2, laws past against it because of the cable companies. there are a few places in america where the local governments stepped up because they cable companies were screwing the people hard, they stepped it up and provided the 5th fastest internet in the world for 27 million dollars. cable companies had a fit, and got laws passed so you cant do that, and so you cant price yourself competitively. i love americas bribe based political system, dont you?

Only reason we have this bribery system is because of the government's growth in power, and the election of idiots by idiots.

And yet despite all this, we still remain the most powerful country in the world, and have the biggest influence on other countries.

 

[alextheblue]

"ISPs threatened to drastically limit bandwidth for services like Netflix unless those service providers agreed to pay a fee for fast-lane service."

Proof? Netflix's main issues were with Netflix's own provider, Cogent, and Netflix tried to get ISPs to set up direct links for free. Netflix eventually agreed to pay for interconnects that bypassed Cogent, but not without pitching a fit and blaming cable companies and Verizon for their problems.

 

[Fierce Guppy]

Right now, companies that own the telephone poles are required, by FCC common carrier rules, to allow competing phone companies access to the poles at reasonable rates for the purpose of stringing wires for telephone service. Since ISPs are not common carriers, they don't have to be given access to the telephone poles, and the companies that own the poles can dis-allow their use for internet service. This barrier will go away when Internet is regulated like a utility.

As far as digging in the ground, well, there's a ton of of infrastructure already in the ground, making things difficult, and cable companies frequently have deals with local municipalities to set up barriers against other companies from digging in the ground and placing wires, usually in exchange for providing access to more remote parts of town, or other similar benefits.

That stinks. How utterly corrupt that private ISPs and municipalities can do deals like that. I don't get it . Why is the practice legal in your country? It's highly unethical and blatantly anti-competitive and yet where are the anti-trust lawsuits?
Why haven't net neutrality advocates made it loud and clear that they want the practice outlawed?

I'm not sure why power poles would be of interest to ISPs in the U.S. Sure, maybe in some Third World country still using dialup and where outages are more common than meals, but not in the U.S. Underground and undersea is where it's at.

 

[genz]

Speaking from the UK where we get 70mbps up/30mbps down for $30 a month nationwide because ISPs try hard to beat the gov't, this is a good thing