The FCC hasn't been given any new/more powers. It has always had the ability to classify broadband as a common carrier. Indeed, the FCC is even opting out of two of the more oppressive powers it is allowed to use - it won't be deciding pricing, and it won't regulate control traffic on the networks. And the guidelines that it discussed, which will prevent states from passing anti-competitive laws against city-owned internet services, will in fact give people who live in such cities *more* options. Not fewer.

We do still need to see the document, of course. But your rhetoric isn't justified; this is a government body intervening in a market to keep it more open. Remember that one of the very few requirements for a free market is "low barriers to entry." Those barriers were being raised steadily by unregulated corporations, specifically (though not exclusively) Verizon and Comcast. And note that if the republican recommendation had been given serious effort back when this problem began to be really obvious (instead of it being turned into sound bytes like "it's Obamacare for the Internet"), then we would have had an actual alternative to consider, instead of a draft that was tossed by its creators because it was too little, to late.

There are good and bad to net neutrality. More good I think. Basically, Uncle Sam is now responsible for the internet governing, and it's not quite a free market any longer. This means that ISPs can't discriminate. BUT The US can now censor websites and IPs they don't want the public accessing. Can you avoid it? Sure. Will most people know how? No. It also means possible stricter monitoring by the NSA and easier enforcement by the "MAFIAA" enforcing bullshit copyright rules they may or may not actually be entitled to. So there's good and bad.

But for law abiding citizens, mostly good.

That...really, honestly, is not what's happening here. Why do you think this is the case? As far as internet censorship, that was always possible; this vote has no effect on that. Net Neutrality law speaks to traffic, not to content. Content is managed entirely differently. That's why, for example, DMCA takedowns were a thing before the NN debate took off. Because blocking content is unrelated to network traffic management.

Free markets aren't "free" because of no regulation - that's not a definition that I've seen, anyway. Not like I've seen them all. But markets are free when there are low barriers to entry; when there are choices and competition; when profit is increased through efficiency instead of fiat. But these things don't happen *without* regulation. The freest markets are regulated - the most unregulated market we've had in post-industrial buildout US history was the late 1800s with the robber barons. It's a shoving game, of sorts - companies need to keep pushing the government out of their playpen, but the government needs to keep making sure that everyone's playing fair in that pen.

And none of what the FCC has discussed would make them, as you say, "responsible for the internet governing". I wonder what it is that is being said that makes people think this?

EDIT: typo

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Net Neutrality is about traffic. Content is traffic. The ISPs could and would throttle or stop connection to websites at peak hours to extort more money from their user base (upgrading to higher bandwidth accounts) and the content providers (I.E. We'll give your traffic precedence), This power has effectively been removed from the ISPs (from a legal standpoint) and now forces them to play nice. Now however the regulators may decide what content gets throttled or blocked based on their preferences. My only worry is suppression of freedom of expression. I understand how regulation doesn't always negatively affect a market, but it does always affect the market. New providers can move in now which is FANTASTIC. I have Verizon, and I love the service because they're better than Comcast here (the service- I think the company overall is full of shit). I'd love to see a resurgence of independent ISPs popping out of the woodwork like it was 1998 all over again. I hope this happens because those days ISP prices were low and service was good. Then broadband came about and only a few companies had the capital to make that work. So I HOPE this will make the game great again. I'm tired of having a bundled TV, Phone and Net package because the net package alone costs $7 less than all three together. I just don't want to see things take a turn for the worse.

OK, I'm going to "correct" you but keep in mind that I am a network nerd. I do core routing and switching for a living, so the details that I care about are details that you *absolutely* should not give one damn about. But, still, they make a difference.

Content is not traffic. That's a really important idea to understand, in this whole thing. That's probably a big part of any misunderstanding you have. Content creates traffic, yes. Traffic carries content, yes. But you can't, from the perspective of the network, equate the two. Comcast and Verizon blocked or throttled traffic and [url=http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/3AF8B4D938CDEEA685257C6000532062/$file/11-1355-1474943.pdf]Verizon rulings if you care about *all the details*). In brief, you were right about the blocking and throttling that you mentioned above. But classifying broadband as a common carrier doesn't mean that suddenly the FCC will be able to control what information (content) gets passed. See, as a user, you still have all your First Amendment protections. This doesn't change that. This vote, assuming it does in fact stand, only changes a few things; and most notably, it changes the freedom of the ISPs to decide what you're allowed to see. It makes them give you what you ask for (assuming you're allowed to have it) without considering source or destination.

Of course it does a whole lot of other things, which all fall into a couple of broad families - I'm only speaking to your comment, though, not trying to talk about the whole mess.

I'm a network nerd myself, but from the other end. I design, implement, and manage networks for companies. Fellow IT Nerd unite!! :P But the differences are not important to the work I do, so sue me. I have to manage firewalls to keep people from playing on youtube all day and defeat TOR clients and VPN traffic. FUN FUN FUN. But essentially, there has never been a need to differentiate traffic from content My boss is FCC certified for radios, but that never appealed to me, and again, was never necessary for my work. Thanks, then for the clarification.

Since you're more plugged in than I... while it shouldn't futz with our First Amendment rights, does re-branding ISPs as utilities have any ramifications vis a vis our Fourth Amendment rights? As in, no warrants for wiretaps, no subpoenas for our usage records, etc.

<weeps>

Seriously, that is a barrel of angry, coked-out, laser-wielding ninja monkeys you're asking me to open up and look in.

I'll tell you this much: a couple years ago, a company sued to prevent warrantless government wiretaps on cellular phones, which have been classified as common carrier for....like 25 years now? A good while, anyway, whatever the right number is (I should look it up but SO LAZY). They lost.

It is unlikely that being a common carrier will have any noticeable effect on the ability of the government to eavesdrop on your communication. And if it does, I will bet you ten bucks for every dollar you want to bet against me that government lawyers will just draft a secret bill that allows an ex parte grand jury to get around any protections. You're communicating across public places and private, crossing state lines, international jurisdictions. I don't even know if anyone knows the answer to that; I know I don't.

EDIT: words missing

SECOND EDIT: Because it wasn't *at all* obvious, I'm saying that if you care at all about your privacy, you need to use encryption. It's not tough to learn how to use it; for everyday stuff, your AES or TLS will be fine; but if you really think that the couple thousand overworked government workers whose job it is to monitor traffic actually care deeply about you in particular, you need to go deep down the rabbit hole. It's actually more fun than it might sound :)

Yeah, I'm not the type of internet user who particularly cares about throttling specific content. So far as I know, it's only really manifested in luxury / optional video streaming and if I ever start using those services it won't kill me to wait an extra 20 seconds for the content to start.

But those important legal rights... that's a real concern of mine - haha, not because I'm doing anything I need to be worried about. Some of the ISPs used to (maybe still do) resist handing over user's usage data - goes back to the big music sharing cases and probably some other cases before that. If that goes away as a result of the power of this utility regulation, then that's a very bad thing that greatly trumps these throttling matters. If we're willing to toss that protection aside in the name of faster streaming of TV shows and movies... then we've really lost our way.

I hope I'm wrong on this one and that this is not a possibility from the new changes, but regulation is not always looking out for the little guy.

I think that's apples and oranges. You might have both of them at the same time but they've got substantially different provenance.

I'm not a lawyer so what follows is just idle speculation (but layman-educated idle speculation, I'm not just making things up to have an excuse to type more):
This proposal won't make the ISPs government entities; it should just subject them to some rules that prevent them from engaging in what economists like to call rent-seeking. Of special note (and of course subject to actually seeing what's in the document) is that the FCC isn't just flatly applying Title II classification; this is, as I've seen it called, an "a la carte" implementation of Title II. It really sounds like it's going to be less regulatory than previous common carrier decisions. Because the ISPs should stay non-government entities, they shouldn't have the streamlined, evidence-free system of requesting information. I think in this area it'll functionally change nothing w/r/t how police go about collecting personal information.

Most of the heavy-handed bullying that has gone on (that we know about, I don't have some secret source to know what goes on in the real dark) has been under the auspices of things that have no effect on, and are not affected by, common carrier classification. For example, SOPA and PATRIOT give exactly no f*cks about how you got whatever information they want; they just muscle in and take it. So there, again, I don't think this decision changes anything. The real problems are nothing to do with whether ISPs are allowed to charge more for your movies and pr0ns; they're in the overarching surveillance laws that are completely unrelated - and, sadly, untouchable, it seems.

Actually, that is almost the opposite of the definition of a free market.

"DEFINITION OF 'FREE MARKET'
A market economy based on supply and demand with little or no government control. A completely free market is an idealized form of a market economy where buyers and sellers are allowed to transact freely (i.e. buy/sell/trade) based on a mutual agreement on price without state intervention in the form of taxes, subsidies or regulation."

The late 1800s was in no way a free market, it's true that there was little intervention by the government in terms of regulation, but the amount of subsidies was ridiculous. For example, the government wanted to help build the railroad, so they offered incentives and subsidies for railroad companies to lay down new track. The result was hundreds of miles of useless, poorly built rail lines laid out in the most inefficient paths possible. The railroad company heads got rich off tax payers money while providing almost no value to the paying consumer. In some cases they actually cause more harm to the communities, such as crews trespassing on private land to cut down fruit bearing trees so they could sell the wood to the railroads. Many people know of the Golden Spike that was used to symbolically join the East and West, however what most people don't know is that section of track was torn up shortly after the ceremony because it was garbage.


Actually I'm more concerned with the ramifications for Article 1. The FCC basically just appointed itself regulatory powers, which will have the force of law when enacted, without authorization from the voters or their elected officials.

You're agreeing with me ^_^ I said "the most unregulated market we had" in reference to the late 1800s. It was terrible. We had companies building their own towns, paying their workers in privately-printed money that could only be spent at the company-owned stores. We had vertical and horizontal monopolies *at the same time* in single businesses. I would never call the late 1800s a free market. My point was that government intervention is *necessary* for a free market, because left to their own devices, companies will try to exclude others from competing with them; hence, barriers to entry.

You have to keep one important rule in mind when reconciling the bullshit economists say with the ugly mess of real life: people are assholes. There is no real free market without regulation, because without regulation the stronger people (larger companies) dominate the weaker.

here's how I feel on the matter it frees up the market for the actual sites themselves and the content providers; it does little for the consumer. I remember hearing back when all this started happenig in thethe news there was talk of a possible end user data usage plan, simmular to how smartphone data plans work. these things are allowed under Title 2 because this is pretty much how regular telephone use which is also covered under telephone title 2 to was handled for decades.

I don't know about you guys but going back to a more less pay per minute plan that does not sound consumer friendly to me

Such gentlemen agreements are considered cartels here and are illegal. If proven, it can lead to significant fines here.
We've had several municipals here which initiated broadband internet when the local providers were too slow bringing it too them. That's now harder due to EU legislation, but it's still possible.

Comcast and WC sound horrible. I don't see how a merger changes that. Monopolies are usually a bad thing for consumers.

Net neutrality is an issue in many countries. It's an issue here in the EU too. The arguments used are the same everywhere.
There's a proposal on the table for it in the EU, which several countries have been actively opposing due to pressure from major (mostly mobile) providers. That bill isn't just about net neutrality, it also covers other issues like canceling roaming costs for mobile providers.
The proposed unchanged bill would mean net neutrality being forced upon the EU countries. The changes make it into a fake net neutrality. It basically says we can get net neutrality but providers are allowed to offer limited subscriptions with only partial internet access. Quite obviously regular access would see its price increased.
Worst part of this for my country is it will most likely overrule our current net neutrality laws which will worsen the situation for us.We've already had providers limiting or even completely blocking whatsapp due to them losing revenues over it. The Dutch parliament has ordered our responsible minister to actively defend our net neutrality and get it activated in the EU.
I'm not entirely sure, but I think our net neutrality laws also banned deep packed inspection. Not sure about that, but I am sure that that's illegal here too. Also a result of providers using it to block certain services.
Interesting fact here in The Netherlands is that net neutrality seems to be a bigger issue with the mobile providers than the ADSL, cable and fiber providers. Some of the latter ones have clearly stated to be in favor of net neutrality.

When a mutual agreement is struck between a provider and consumer without outside influence it is called free trade. When all transactions are conducted this same way it is called a free market.The "Free" in free market means there is no intervention by parties (ie the government) outside of the transaction at hand. The moment influence is exerted, either by regulation, subsidy or tax, it ceases to be a free trade transaction.

Your assertion that "There is no real free market without regulation, because without regulation the stronger people (larger companies) dominate the weaker." is a completely contradictory statement. In a free trade transaction there is no stronger party, both sides need to be in mutual agreement. It doesn't matter how greedy or corrupt a business is, they cannot simply take my money. I need to be persuaded to voluntarily give up my money for goods or services they offer. If two companies are offering the exact same good/service then I am free to choose whichever is offering me the best value. To get ahead, the greedy company could decide to come to my house and forcibly take my money, or go to the competitor and destroyed their inventory. The solution there is to have a laws which strongly protects property rights. In this scenario the only way for one company to dominate the other is by being vastly superior to all competitors.

Introducing government regulations into the equation is when you start to see barriers to entry and market dominance by companies based on size and strength rather than quality. The government does have the power to come and take my money, they have the force of law. If a law is passed saying that I need to engage a provider for a specific good or service then it is no longer a free market transaction. I am no longer making a trade based on mutual agreement with a provider, I am spending money on unwanted goods to avoid jail. If a regulation is passed dictating how a good must be processed or how a service must be administered then this gives an advantage to some companies over another. A company that cannot compete in a free market may instead implore the government for new rules and regulations that are beneficial to themselves. Take for example incandescent light bulbs. Buying light bulbs was once a choice between cheap and disposable or longer lasting but more expensive, then in 2012 the federal government instituted a ban on these light bulbs starting with any bulbs greater than 100 watts, and continuing until a complete phase-out in the year 2020. If you want to buy light bulbs now your only choice is the more expensive CFL, LED and "energy efficient" incandescent bulbs. Obviously there are lots of people who would prefer the cheap bulbs if given the choice, after all you don't pass a federal ban on something nobody wants. So who asked for this ban in the first place? It was the light bulb manufacturers. The expensive bulbs are harder to make, which cuts down on competition, and have a bigger profit margin.

Government intervention into business cannot create a free market, they can only create directed markets which are the exact opposite.