General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIs it possible for Biden to institute Net Neutrality?
if his new admin goes through the regulatory process that should be yes, right? That would be another piece of welcome good news.
blogslut
(38,000 posts)TheBlackAdder
(28,189 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)actually been hurt under current policies?
Was that a serious question? LOL!
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Im looking for actual harm, not COULD BE.
Carriers have routinely throttled traffic they don't like - Netflix and YouTube are the two most commonly throttled services - ever since net neutrality was overturned by Ajit Pai and crew.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)just fine.
I think throttling at least nowadays is pretty much a myth or fear. But like I said, changing policies might be a good preventive measure for future. I think we have more important stuff to concentrate on early on.
kcr
(15,315 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)PTWB
(4,131 posts)This is not a power that ISPs should have. Restoring net neutrality (which the Trump administration eliminated) should be a 'first 100 days' priority for Biden's administration.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)international relations, etc. Havent heard anyone complain about internet spread in years.
Are you under the impression that the FCC is responsible for getting aid to the unemployed? Or has anything to do with healthcare? Or international relations?
The Federal Government is enormous. There are many facets, each capable of doing many different things simultaneously. The FCC restoring net neutrality will not impact aid to the unemployed one iota.
While you may not have heard anyone complain about internet (speed?) in years, that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. It isn't even related to what we're discussing, not really anyway. We're talking about ISPs having the ability treat traffic A differently than traffic B. Internet access should be treated exactly as a common utility.
If you want to talk about atrocious broadband speed more generally, though, we can certainly do that. American broadband infrastructure is severely lacking.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)But, I'll admit, I could be wrong.
I do agree 100% the infrastructure should be vastly improved. That can do a lot to solve the whole rural/rube vs. urban area divisiveness. However, that really doesn't have much to do with net neutrality, at least directly.
And yes, I'm not for wasting Biden's political capital in the near term on net neutrality. Unemployment, education, healthcare, etc., are much more important. Sorry I didn't spell that out to you.
PTWB
(4,131 posts)Reversing the Trump administrations disastrous decision to abandon net neutrality isnt going to prevent Biden from doing anything else that is also important.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)To me, that's a term you'd use for something Biden needs to go to the wall for before tackling almost anything.
With that said, I can't get access to my favorite guitar site at the moment.
onenote
(42,700 posts)Those opposed to net neutrality claimed that the adoption of the rules would kill the internet. But the internet did just fine during the years the rules were in place.
Those in favor of net neutrality claimed that the internet would be destroyed if the rules were repealed. But that hasn't happened either.
In the end, the rules may or may not have some impact around the margins, but most people won't really notice very much.
PTWB
(4,131 posts)Without net neutrality there is risk of harm. Do you really trust Verizon or Comcast to do what is in the best interest of the consumer?
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)phones, internet surfing, blogging, small businesses, etc. I believe they'll strike a proper balance and if not Biden's FCC will do more than write them a letter.
Theres absolutely no consumer benefit to allowing an ISP to treat some traffic differently than other traffic. ISPs must be treated and regulated as title II common carriers.
They are damn near monopolies in many cities. Here is a map of access in the Twin Cities from 2014.
What choice does the consumer have?
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)We already talked about this up thread. They absolutely are already throttling traffic.
Further, you completely dodged the destruction of your just find another ISP nonsense. For many, there is exactly one broadband provider in their community.
It seems to hum just fine is where we are going anchor our argument?
We had net neutrality protections briefly under Obama. They were gutted under Trump by Ajit Pai (former Verizon counsel). Now you have millions of Americans at the mercy of the ISPs that have natural monopolies where they live.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)YouTube, NetFlix, DUers, researchers, colleges teaching on-line, rubes posting confederate flags and similar crud, etc. I think they will continue to do that, especially with a Biden FCC.
But, hey, if you want to go to the wall on this -- when there are so many other things to worry about and for Biden to spend his political capital -- have at it.
You're talking in circles, friend! We've talked about all that before - the idea that we would need to 'go to the wall' or that Biden would have to expend any appreciable political capital is simply not true.
Why do you prioritize the interests of monopolistic ISPs ahead of the interests of consumers?
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)I'm glad to have my ISP. I can work at home. Research in ways that living in a library 20 years ago didn't allow. Even enjoy posting to DUers in most cases.
I sincerely hope you can find an ISP that meets your needs.
PTWB
(4,131 posts)My main ISP supplies symmetrical gigabit fiber for an affordable $65/ month with no caps and they dont engage in any throttling. My backup ISP does engage in throttling but theyre only a failover in case the first one goes down (its been over a year since they had an outage).
But that doesnt mean that net neutrality isnt a critically important issue. It is quite selfish to assume that because you dont feel personally affected, others are not.
Again, I am forced to ask the question you havent answered: Why do you prioritize the interests of monopolistic ISPs over the interests of consumers?
LeftInTX
(25,305 posts)My provider is Spectrum: 1000/1000 (Mbps)
Speed Test the other day showed: 229/11.3 Mbps....(just as a random test, done on two separate days, just now and the other night, but this should be adequate for Zoom)
I wonder if I am getting throttled in Zoom?
Yeah, I know my internet is slower than it should be, but the only site I consistently have problems with is Zoom. (The slower than purchasing is a perpetual problem with Spectrum, but we don't have problems with Netflix, YouTube etc)
I do not have a data cap.
PTWB
(4,131 posts)Its just as likely that Zoom cant keep up with the demand and their servers are struggling. The problem is that it could by the ISP intentionally throttling Zoom.
One of Zooms competitors could pay Spectrum $10m to give traffic to their service priority over Zoom and anyone who is stuck in a Spectrum monopoly area would just have to deal with it. Its absolutely abhorrent.
We had net neutrality briefly under Obama but under Trump, Ajit Pai (former and future Verizon shyster) eliminated our net neutrality projections.
kcr
(15,315 posts)Or seatbelts.
blogslut
(38,000 posts)And regulated thusly. Things have gotten quite complicated in the past 8 years. And yes, there is a problem. The ISPs charge ridiculous prices for minimal service and limited access. Part of Net Neutrality is nationwide, affordable, broadband coverage.
Statistical
(19,264 posts)rurallib
(62,411 posts)so depending on who Biden appoints and senate approves.
OMG would I love to see Michael Copps come back to the FCC.
TomDaisy
(1,870 posts)rurallib
(62,411 posts)onenote
(42,700 posts)rurallib
(62,411 posts)onenote
(42,700 posts)Ultimately, the imposition of network neutrality rules turns on a question of statutory interpretation. Th FCC originally reached one conclusion, the Pai Commission reached a different conclusion. Depending on the panel of judges -- and ultimately on the Supreme Court -- a reversal back to the original interpretation could be struck down. The chances of that happening are even greater now because there is a growing sentiment amongst the republicans on the Supreme Court against giving "deference" to an agency's interpretation of the statute under which it operates.
But I would expect a proceeding to be started....but not to be acted on very quickly.
onenote
(42,700 posts)One of the Republicans, Mike O'Rielly, is leaving and Trump has named his replacement. Will the Republicans ram through his nomination or will it stall out long enough so that Biden can fill that seat (albeit with another Republican)? The term of one of the Democrats on the Commission, Jessica Rosenworcel, expires in June -- will she be renominated? Probably. Some even speculate she might be elevated to be the chair, since there's never been a woman at the head of the FCC.
One issue that will be taking up a lot of the conversation -- maybe more than net neutrality -- is the so-called Section 230 proceeding, which would look into regulating social media. There is support on both the left and right, but there also is opposition. For example, O'Rielly, a reliable right winger, was against regulating social media on first amendment grounds and the two Democrats also believed it was not something the FCC had jurisdiction to address. Trump's replacement for O'Rilly would give Pai the third vote he needs, which is why I expect an attempt to push that nomination through before Biden takes office.