The FCC's Historic Day: Voting Yes For Net Neutrality

jeremy · 02-26-2015, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Today was, no hyperbole intended, probably one of the more historic -- albeit at times one of the dullest -- days in FCC history. The agency, led by a former lobbyist for the cable and wireless industries few expected anything from, bucked a myriad of low expectations and voted 3-2 to approve Title II-based net neutrality rules after an unprecedented public-driven tech advocacy campaign. While net neutrality will likely get the lion's share of today's media attention, the FCC also today voted to begin a prolonged assault on ISP-driven, protectionist state telecom law.

First, it's important to note that despite a 3-2 vote approving the Title II-based rules, we won't get to see the actual rules today. Despite claims by neutrality opponents that this is some secret cabal specific to net neutrality, the agency historically has never released rules it votes on (pdf) until well after the actual vote. It's a dumb restriction that's absolutely deadly to open discourse, but it's not unique to one party or to this specific issue. As for when we'll actually get to see and start dissecting the actual Title II rules ourselves, we may be waiting weeks -- in part, ironically, thanks to neutrality opponents on the Commission that spent the last few weeks professing to adore transparency:
"In fact, it could take weeks before the final rules are published, the official said. That’s because the two Republican commissioners, Ajit Pai and Mike O’Rielly—who oppose net neutrality of any sort—have refused to submit basic edits on the order. The FCC will not release the text of the order until edits from the offices of all five commissioners are incorporated, including dissenting opinions. This could take a few weeks, depending how long the GOP commissioners refuse to provide edits on the new rules."

Commissioners Ajit Pai and Michael O'Reilly voiced their opposition to the new Title II-based rules by not only voting against them, but by trying to bore meeting attendees to death. Pai, a former Verizon regulatory lawyer, offered a mammoth speech in which he ironically lamented "special interests" and claimed repeatedly to only be opposing net neutrality out of a concern for consumer wallets. O'Reilly tried to top Pai with an even longer, duller speech that continually insisted the FCC was trying to conduct a secret, regulatory takeover of the Internet. A visibly emotional Wheeler was having none of it:

More at TechDirt...

What do LQ members think of this ruling?

--jeremy

astrogeek · 02-26-2015, 02:12 PM

Without trying to debate what may or may not be meant by the much mangled term "net neutrality" in any particular context, I offer the following observation for what it may, or may not be worth...

It is sufficient to understand that one group of industry insiders and lobbyists, led by another "former lobbyist for the cable and wireless industries", prevailed over another, presumably evil, group of industry insiders and lobbyists who opposed the move. So in the end, at least one group of industry insiders and lobbyists obviously got what they wanted.

The new rules, still unreleased, will now be administered, interpreted and enforced by current and future groups of industry insiders and lobbyists, all for the ultimate benefit and interests of the little guy, freedom and apple pie...

Somehow that does not fill me with enthusiasm for the future.

If I were cynical I might think it has all been yet another scripted political performance where the good guys and bad guys play off each other for the cameras, but they both represent the same interess - industry insiders and lobbyists... but isn't that what I just pointed out above?

metaschima · 02-26-2015, 02:27 PM

Great news so far, but I want to see the details when they release them.

fogpipe · 02-26-2015, 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by astrogeek

Without trying to debate what may or may not be meant by the much mangled term "net neutrality" in any particular context, I offer the following observation for what it may, or may not be worth...

It is sufficient to understand that one group of industry insiders and lobbyists, led by another "former lobbyist for the cable and wireless industries", prevailed over another, presumably evil, group of industry insiders and lobbyists who opposed the move. So in the end, at least one group of industry insiders and lobbyists obviously got what they wanted.

The new rules, still unreleased, will now be administered, interpreted and enforced by current and future groups of industry insiders and lobbyists, all for the ultimate benefit and interests of the little guy, freedom and apple pie...

Somehow that does not fill me with enthusiasm for the future.

If I were cynical I might think it has all been yet another scripted political performance where the good guys and bad guys play off each other for the cameras, but they both represent the same interess - industry insiders and lobbyists... but isn't that what I just pointed out above?

I think you hit the nail on the head.
Also those repuglican "edits" will no doubt do their best to either sink or hoplessly obfuscate the ruling.
This is no time to relax. The big media corps wont rest until they turn the internet into pay for play tv.