Net Neutrality

[Bo D]

^^  ....which is exactly the concept described in the pictures and big words on the very first post to this topic.

I just thought I would post it in terms for the literate among us. 

[Locutus]

 

[Palehorse]

. . . err. . . wait. . .  . . . It's true! 

[me]

Shouldn't the bolded part have been figured out first? Did you all read the statements of the commissioners? Sounds to me like even though they passed it they don't necessairly agree with it, or certain parts of it anyway.

Major Provisions Subject to Forbearance:


Rate regulation: the Order makes clear that broadband providers shall not be subject to

utility-style rate regulation, including rate regulation, tariffs, and last-mile unbundling.

o

Universal Service Contributions: the Order DOES NOT require broadband providers to

contribute to the Universal Service Fund under Section 254. The question of how best to

fund the nation's universal service programs is being considered in a separate, unrelated

proceeding that was already underway.

o

Broadband service will remain exempt from state and local taxation under the Internet

Tax Freedom Act. This law, recently renewed by Congress and signed by the President,

bans state and local taxation on Internet access regardless of its FCC regulatory

classification.

[Locutus]

Shouldn't the bolded part have been figured out first?

Why?  If it's being considered separately (and it really has nothing to do with net neutrality anyway),  why would it need to be addressed first?

[me]

Why?  If it's being considered separately (and it really has nothing to do with net neutrality anyway),  why would it need to be addressed first?

It does, however, have something to do with getting money from someone to fund the USF which will now be attached to it. If they can't collect it from the providers where do you suppose it's going to come from?

[Locutus]

It does, however, have something to do with getting money from someone to fund the USF which will now be attached to it. If they can't collect it from the providers where do you suppose it's going to come from?

It will probably be attached as a dollar or so surcharge to your monthly Internet bill, just like it is for phone bills, etc.  So what?  From the highlighted part of your very own post, the USF train had already left the station in advance of the net neutrality decision.  So attempting to muddy the waters by commingling it with the net neutrality decision isn't going to work. 

Here are the charges on my latest cell phone bill from AT&T reflecting the USF for this past month:


Administrative Fee
$0.61
Federal Universal Service Charge
$1.42
Regulatory Cost Recovery Charge
$0.52
Total Surcharges & Fees
$2.55

I'm not going to bitch and moan over an extra $17.04 per year on my Internet bill, especially since things were already headed in that direction independent of the net neutrality decision.    At any rate, that's chump change. 

Do you have a problem with the concept of Universal Service?

[me]

It will probably be attached as a dollar or so surcharge to your monthly Internet bill, just like it is for phone bills, etc.  So what?  From the highlighted part of your very own post, the USF train had already left the station in advance of the net neutrality decision.  So attempting to muddy the waters by commingling it with the net neutrality decision isn't going to work. 

Here are the charges on my latest cell phone bill from AT&T reflecting the USF for this past month:


Administrative Fee
$0.61
Federal Universal Service Charge
$1.42
Regulatory Cost Recovery Charge
$0.52
Total Surcharges & Fees
$2.55

I'm not going to bitch and moan over an extra $17.04 per year on my Internet bill, especially since things were already headed in that direction independent of the net neutrality decision.    At any rate, that's chump change. 

Do you have a problem with the concept of Universal Service?

That is for the phone not your internet which isn't, or wasn't, subject to that before.

[Bo D]

That is for the phone not your internet which isn't, or wasn't, subject to that before.

And the internet will not be subject hereafter. "Universal Service Contributions: the Order DOES NOT require broadband providers to

contribute to the Universal Service Fund under Section 254. "

Don't you even read what you post?

[Henry Hawk]

It will probably be attached as a dollar or so surcharge to your monthly Internet bill, just like it is for phone bills, etc.  So what?  From the highlighted part of your very own post, the USF train had already left the station in advance of the net neutrality decision.  So attempting to muddy the waters by commingling it with the net neutrality decision isn't going to work. 

Here are the charges on my latest cell phone bill from AT&T reflecting the USF for this past month:


Administrative Fee
$0.61
Federal Universal Service Charge
$1.42
Regulatory Cost Recovery Charge
$0.52
Total Surcharges & Fees
$2.55

I'm not going to bitch and moan over an extra $17.04 per year on my Internet bill, especially since things were already headed in that direction independent of the net neutrality decision.    At any rate, that's chump change. 

Do you have a problem with the concept of Universal Service?

I'm still trying to get a real handle on all of this, but Netflix is STILL just $7.99 a month, also chump change for what you get.

I understand the complaint and the possible regulations, but is this just the beginning of rules and regulations, that could have a more hurtful impact down the road?

Big Gov and Big Business....both suck!  We need a fix, but not sure how we get there...

[me]

And the internet will not be subject hereafter. "Universal Service Contributions: the Order DOES NOT require broadband providers to

contribute to the Universal Service Fund under Section 254. "

Don't you even read what you post?

Major Provisions Subject to Forbearance:


Rate regulation: the Order makes clear that broadband providers shall not be subject to

utility-style rate regulation, including rate regulation, tariffs, and last-mile unbundling.

o

Universal Service Contributions: the Order DOES NOT require broadband providers to

contribute to the Universal Service Fund under Section 254. The question of how best to

fund the nation's universal service programs is being considered in a separate, unrelated

proceeding that was already underway.

[Bo D]

 

[Locutus]

Has she ever had a salient point?   

[me]

https://www.uschamber.com/series/above-the-fold/myth-v-fact-what-s-the-truth-about-net-neutrality?utm_content=sf189006179&utm_medium=spredfast&utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=U.S.%20Chamber%20of%20Commerce&sf189006179=1

Myth v. Fact: What's the Truth about Net Neutrality?
MAY 07, 2018 - 12:00PM
NEIL BRADLEY
Executive Vice President and Chief Policy Officer

In the next few weeks, the Senate is expected to consider a Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolution that will undo the Federal Communication Commission's (FCC) "Restoring Internet Freedom Order," rather than working to pass bipartisan legislation that establishes a net neutrality framework and does not over regulate the Internet.

Before Senators vote to impose Great Depression-era regulations on the Internet, it's important to set a few things straight.

Myth: Those who support net neutrality will support the Senate CRA legislation to restore the Obama-era FCC's internet rules.
Fact: Many people and organizations, including the U.S. Chamber and much of the business community, support net neutrality, but oppose the Senate CRA legislation to restore the FCC's rules. Why? Because the FCC's rules went well-beyond net neutrality by regulating the Internet like a public utility.

Regulating the Internet like a public utility – using a 1930s era law – has real world consequences. The most damaging consequence: less investment in the broadband necessary to deliver high-speed Internet to more homes, schools, and businesses across the United States.

All over the country, communities saw a decrease in broadband investment during the two years that the Obama-era FCC treated the internet like a public utility, broadband investment declined for the first time outside of a recession. For example, one broadband company in Arkansas decided to withdraw plans to reach unserved rural communities because of the regulations.

The fact is, reinstating the Obama-era net neutrality regulation means fewer Americans have access to the latest high-speed connections.

Myth: Restoring the Obama-era FCC rules is the only way to get net neutrality rules that will prevent Internet service providers from slowing or blocking content.
Fact: Legislation is currently pending in both houses of Congress – H.R. 4682 and S. 2510 – that would codify net neutrality into law without going the additional step of regulating the Internet like a public utility, which we already know is extremely anti-growth.

Incredibly, of the 48 Senate Democrats who have cosponsored the CRA resolution under consideration, not one of them have cosponsored legislation that would achieve net neutrality without taking the extra step to regulate the Internet like a public utility.

What's their goal? To achieve net neutrality or to give the federal government the power to regulate the Internet just like it regulated phone companies in the 1930s?

If the goal is to achieve net neutrality, bipartisan legislation will bring the most certainty to American consumers and job creators and will drive much-needed investment and innovation in the internet. That's a fact.

We urge the Senate to establish net neutrality the right way, promote a free and open Internet, and put rural and other unconnected Americans first by voting "no" on the net neutrality CRA.

[Bo D]

I hate to say this but we told you this would happen.
https://www.cnet.com/news/verizon-throttled-california-firefighters-and-this-wasnt-the-first-time/