Net Neutrality Fans Rejoice: The FCC Will Reclassify Broadband

for anyone unfamiliar with the classification part, it determines how much power the fcc has in regulation. they went into appeals because comcast claims the fcc is overstepping their authority (comcast won, and they're going to go back to throttling like they were before). according to the Telecommunications Act of 1996, a "telecommunications service" is:<p><i>offering of telecommunications for a fee directly to the public, or to such classes of users as to be effectively available directly to the public, regardless of the facilities used.</i><p>and an "information service" is:<p><i>the offering of a capability for generating, acquiring, storing, transforming, processing, retrieving, utilizing, or making available information via telecommunications, and includes electronic publishing, but does not include any use of any such capability for the management, control, or operation of a telecommunications system or the management of a telecommunications service.</i><p>a telecommunication service sells the ability to use the coaxial cables. an information service is responsible for everything beyond that. the loophole is when an ISP is considered both, in which case they can't be regulated the way they were meant to be. so comcast, for example, is really a telecomm service, but enjoys the advantages of an information service (a small ISP called Brand X started this whole thing by saying ISPs should be considered both, and that's when the network neutrality debate heated up in 2003).<p>when ISPs are classified as both "information services" and "telecommunications services," they cannot be regulated the same way and the fcc can't do much when they do stuff like deep packet inspection/injection, port blocking, price discrimination, double dipping, etc.<p>my personal opinion on the topic has always been this: comcast and other telecomms own the cables in the ground. they are simply moving bits from point A to point B, but they can never manipulate any of those bits. they should never charge you more money to access your bits from youtube, for example. and they should never slow those bits down, for example, if you're using a non-comcast application (whether it's youtube, itunes, google search, bittorrent, or whatever).

I am in favor of net neutrality but not sure handing more control to the inept FCC is the answer.<p>Look how the effect of the previous attempt at government control/regulation (1996 Telecommunications Act) led to rapid consolidation of the ISP industry such that most users have only the choice for highspeed between DSL from the incumbent phone company or cable modem from the cable company.<p>Further, in spite of Comcast's costs for bandwidth, etc. dropping in the last 5 years, my price for their service has stayed the same or gone up (most would consider that evidence of there not being any competition).

Let's face it, flipping the script to make net neutrality happen is just sneaky. I know this Congress is fairly vitriolic right now, but this is like the bureaucratic equivalent of Apple vs. Flash, with some judge somewhere ready to pull out a "thoughts on net neutrality" card on these jokers.<p>If you're gonna do it, FCC, do it the right way.

Not smart, IMO. The supreme court will slap them down again. They should just take net neutrality to congress. I know the telecoms have many congressmen in their pockets, but it is an election year and nobody likes their cable company, so it will at least make many congressmen mighty uncomfortable.

Court tells FCC: you don't have this authority under the laws passed by elected officials.<p>FCC says: we'll grant ourselves the authority by bureaucratic fiat!<p>No committee of 5 partisan appointees -- guaranteed by formula to be 3 members of the president's party, and 2 from the opposition party -- should have this much power over something as fundamental as "communication".<p>Would we let the FCC reclassify printing presses as a "transport service", and thus subject to their regulations about ownership, subsidized access, suitable proportion of "public interest" content, and naughty words?<p>Do we want the internet to be as diverse as unregulated books and magazines, or as pandering to the-powers-that-be as FCC-regulated broadcast TV?

Trying to think what would do more for democracy on the Internet than this?<p>Imagine Facebook as an ISP.<p>Shiver.

Before they rejoice perhaps they should consider that the main function of the FCC since its inception has been to censor the airwaves.

The FCC should be renamed the NSP (nipple slip police).

This whole matter should be left to the marketplace and to contracts. If you don't like the way a service is run, get a different one.<p>Regulations try to get a more optimum combination of costs and features given current conditions, but often what they do is prevent alternatives from developing.