Wendell: failings of the new net neutrality rules?


My dad and I were discussing the new FCC internet rules, and he had several concerns that I didn't think about.

Since the internet will be classified as a public utility, can the gov't tax it?

Since the gov't plans to make a minimum internet speed, (25mbps I believe) will it not put many small ISPs out of business? I know here we have several mom and pop ISPs that are running copper right now but are working on fiber deployment. Won't this destroy them before they can do fiber?

How will the govt enforce the "no fast lanes" rule? Won't they have to see all the traffic?

That's the only ones I can remember discussing, but are there any other "landmines" hidden in the proposed rules?

Not trying to pin anyone in a corner for supporting this, I'm just curious 

For the Tax, a bill was passed recently and signed into law (I believe it's called the Internet Tax Freedom Act) that prevents state and local taxation on internet.

The minimum 25:3 is just the minimum for it to be classified as high speed broadband Internet. You can have slower speeds on internet packages but you can't market them the same way.

One of the sections went over new transparency rules including network management, and it gives the FCC power to investigate consumer claims to combat fast lanes and other shenanigans.

The big potential "landmine" i see here is that prices will not be regulated. Normally this isn't an issue, if it were a free market. But for much of the country it isn't. It does nothing to combat ISPs raking in massive profits while spending next to nothing on maintenance and upgrades. IMO if you have a goverment created monopoly of a utility (the internet is a necessary utility to have a chance to thrive in this age) but that monopoly can charge whatever the fuck they want, then there's a massive issue and free market forces can't fix it.

There are some short comings in the new regulations, but these were put into place to make it a little more resilient to scrutiny. If it tried to impose rate regulation it would have died a long time ago because of the lobbyists.

While I agree with Wendel and support Wendel's Net Neutrality.  I highly suspect that Obama's Net Neutrality will be completely different thing.  They hijack the name Net Neutrality we are yearning for and pretend that they are giving what we want.

I no longer trust FCC since Tom Wheeler became chairman.  He is there just to make sure that the "Internet reform", which is going to happen anyway, doesn't cause damage to the bottom line of his employers.

This remind me of what happen when Federal Reserve Act was made.   The bankers, who caused economic break down in 1907, knew that the reform in banking industry was going to happen.  So, they took the initiative and called for the reform themselves.  To make sure that the reform doesn't damage their profits, they also came up with their plan of the reform too.

Try watching this video from 11:55 to 13:11.  He explains the Fed's strategy very well.



Frankly I've beginning to think we should just take as much government out of this as we possibly can. Don't regulate anything else. Just say Comcast can't do things that are anti-competition (which would allow competition to come in, and the market would take care of itself because I can vouch for my town, everybody would switch in a heartbeat if a good local ISP offering 100mbps or faster for prices comparable to Comcast/Mediacom came along.)

Aren't there already anti-trust/anti-un-level-playing-field laws? Do we really need any new laws?