FCC to reinstate Net Neutrality Rules removed under Trump

Polds4OSU

Sheriff
Patreon Supporter
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Federal Communications Commission will vote to reinstate landmark net neutrality rules and assume new regulatory oversight of broadband internet that was rescinded under former President Donald Trump, the agency's chair said.


The FCC told advocates on Tuesday of the plan to vote on the final rule at its April 25 meeting.

The commission voted 3-2 in October on the proposal to reinstate open internet rules adopted in 2015 and re-establish the commission's authority over broadband internet.

Net neutrality refers to the principle that internet service providers should enable access to all content and applications regardless of the source, and without favoring or blocking particular products or websites.

FCC Chair Jessica Rosenworcel confirmed the planned commission vote in an interview with Reuters.

"The pandemic made clear that broadband is an essential service, that every one of us - no matter who we are or where we live - needs it to have a fair shot at success in the digital age," she said.

An essential service requires oversight and in this case we are just putting back in place the rules that have already been court-approved that ensures that broadband access is fast, open and fair."


Reinstating the rules has been a priority for President Joe Biden, who signed a July 2021 executive order encouraging the FCC to reinstate net neutrality rules adopted under Democratic President Barack Obama.

Democrats were stymied for nearly three years because they did not take majority control of the five-member FCC until October.

Under Trump, the FCC had argued the net neutrality rules were unnecessary, blocked innovation and resulted in a decline in network investment by internet service providers, a contention disputed by Democrats.

Rosenworcel has said the reclassification would give the FCC important new national security tools. The agency said in its initial proposal that rules could give it "more robust authority to require more entities to remove and replace" equipment and services from Chinese companies like Huawei and ZTE.

Republican FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr opposed the move, saying that since 2017 "broadband speeds in the U.S. have increased, prices are down (and) competition has intensified." He argued the plan would result in "government control of the internet."

Despite the 2017 repeal, a dozen states now have net neutrality laws or regulations in place. Industry groups abandoned legal challenges to those state requirements in May 2022.
 
Do you want to say why other than Government bad?
Never said government bad. I said these regulations were unnecessary. The regulations are a solution in search of a problem so no surprise with your reply.

Record residential fiber investments have exploded over the last 6 years since Net Neutrality repeal. Investment in broadband infrastructure hit a record in 2020, then broken again in 2021, and broken again in 2022.
Speeds have increased dramatically (nearly 5x since 2017) and there is much more competition. Over 99% of households have access high speed internet.
 
Never said government bad. I said these regulations were unnecessary. The regulations are a solution in search of a problem so no surprise with your reply.

Record residential fiber investments have exploded over the last 6 years since Net Neutrality repeal. Investment in broadband infrastructure hit a record in 2020, then broken again in 2021, and broken again in 2022.
Speeds have increased dramatically (nearly 5x since 2017) and there is much more competition. Over 99% of households have access high speed internet.
Correlation is not causation. That was happening with or with out the repeal. That is where the industry was headed.
 
Never said government bad. I said these regulations were unnecessary. The regulations are a solution in search of a problem so no surprise with your reply.

Record residential fiber investments have exploded over the last 6 years since Net Neutrality repeal. Investment in broadband infrastructure hit a record in 2020, then broken again in 2021, and broken again in 2022.
Speeds have increased dramatically (nearly 5x since 2017) and there is much more competition. Over 99% of households have access high speed internet.
Government is also providing $65B in funding (passed Nov 2021) specifically for broadband infrastructure and raising the min speed by 4x to be considered broadband. So that should prevent future reduction in infrastructure.

Also, I wouldn't be surprised if ISPs started upping their service due to prevalence of and reduced cost of high speed cellular data. There were also the programs to provide broadband internet to low income households that I'm sure helped spur some development.
 
Never said government bad. I said these regulations were unnecessary. The regulations are a solution in search of a problem so no surprise with your reply.

Record residential fiber investments have exploded over the last 6 years since Net Neutrality repeal. Investment in broadband infrastructure hit a record in 2020, then broken again in 2021, and broken again in 2022.
Speeds have increased dramatically (nearly 5x since 2017) and there is much more competition. Over 99% of households have access high speed internet.
https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/why-net-neutrality-cant-wait
 
if you don’t understand an issue it is okay to just admit it.

* You posted an article arguing against several examples of innovation (for example, AT&T offering DirectTV without counting against data usage). What is the consumer benefit by stifling innovation and allowing competitors actually to compete in the open marketplace?

Two of the four points in your article are not part of Net Neutrality.
* Your article lists a reason as cell phone providers throttling traffic. You realize cell phone speed throttling happened before, during, and after net neutrality? Providers do this as a way to manage bandwidth. They put priority on voice data over video. Are you really wanting providers to have customers drop more calls?
BTW, the FCC has said several times there is no intent of this regulation to alter that practice, but I get the writer is just grasping at straws.

* The article points out Verizon giving away Netflix for a year. And mentions it like that promotion is bad. Why on earth would you be against this? And BTW, that practice has absolutely zero to do with Net Neutrality and would not be affected by the regulations.
 
Last edited:
Government is also providing $65B in funding (passed Nov 2021) specifically for broadband infrastructure and raising the min speed by 4x to be considered broadband. So that should prevent future reduction in infrastructure.

Also, I wouldn't be surprised if ISPs started upping their service due to prevalence of and reduced cost of high speed cellular data. There were also the programs to provide broadband internet to low income households that I'm sure helped spur some development.
Are you claiming federal spending approved at end of 2021 was linked to 2019, 2020, and 2021 record infrastructure spend? I don’t think that is what you meant, but capex spend increased dramatically after the short lived net neutrality from 2014-2017.

Certainly broadband infracture spend is in direct response to competition. That is a great thing. Competition breeds innovation.

I still have not heard one argument why this regulation is necessary. And what is the consumer benefit of imposing an onerous regulation that was first designed 90-years ago for the telephone industry?
 
Last edited:
Are you claiming federal spending approved at end of 2021 was linked to 2019, 2020, and 2021 record infrastructure spend? I don’t think that is what you meant, but capex spend increased dramatically after the short lived net neutrality from 2014-2017.

Certainly broadband infracture spend is in direct response to competition. That is a great thing. Competition breeds innovation.

I still have not heard one argument why this regulation is necessary. And what is the consumer benefit of imposing an onerous regulation that was first designed 90-years ago for the telephone industry?
I am not claiming funding after companies spent money impacted that money. I'm saying that funding will lead additional investment.

I have no way to back it up, but I think a lot of that work in the late 2019-2021 was due to competition with high speed cellular data and funding in 2020 to support internet access for low income families.
 
I am not claiming funding after companies spent money impacted that money. I'm saying that funding will lead additional investment.

I have no way to back it up, but I think a lot of that work in the late 2019-2021 was due to competition with high speed cellular data and funding in 2020 to support internet access for low income families.
Then we may be in agreement.

I concur that broadband infrastructure investment was due to competition. Competition among mobile carriers, the sudden push from smaller fiber overbuilders, and telcos and cable operators growing networks.
Competition and innovation is a great thing and I want that to continue.
 
Then we may be in agreement.

I concur that broadband infrastructure investment was due to competition. Competition among mobile carriers, the sudden push from smaller fiber overbuilders, and telcos and cable operators growing networks.
Competition is a great thing and I want that to continue.
Guess I'm missing how it prevents competition.
 
Guess I'm missing how it prevents competition.
Prevent is a strong and incorrect term.

Additional regulations, albeit burdensome and costly, can be handled by larger corporations. (Ie they don’t like it but will just pass through expenses to consumers).

The regs as written in 2014, and presumably near exact same language for later this month’s vote, will make it much more difficult for smaller companies. But more specifically it will certainly slow innovation. We should want smaller competitors to have more keys to compete in the marketplace, not hamstring them.

That said, congress really needs to step in. The FCC changing regulations back and forth depending upon the Presidency is not an ideal situation.
 
Prevent is a strong and incorrect term.

Additional regulations, albeit burdensome and costly, can be handled by larger corporations. (Ie they don’t like it but will just pass through expenses to consumers).

The regs as written in 2014, and presumably near exact same language for later this month’s vote, will make it much more difficult for smaller companies. But more specifically it will certainly slow innovation. We should want smaller competitors to have more keys to compete in the marketplace, not hamstring them.

That said, congress really needs to step in. The FCC changing regulations back and forth depending upon the Presidency is not an ideal situation.
Completely agree on the last part. Congress needs to stop passing all regulation to executive branch. Issue is congress also refuses to do anything at all and it's getting worse every year. Because of that executive branch has to regulate... EPA, FCC etc.

I am not a person that believes the government needs to stay out of everything. That got us rivers on fire in the 60s, bank collapses in 08, monopolies and other issues.

Regulations drive innovation as well, it just takes a bit to happen and may cost a bit initially. Consistency is what is important. For a few examples in totally different industries: Car mileage requirements drove efficiency innovation (turbos on smaller engines, hybrids, weight reduction, improved engine design and control... etc). Car crash safety requirements drove huge innovation as well. Incandescent bulb restrictions drove development of LEDs after CFLs. Both last significantly longer but wouldn't have been developed without that push. Now prices for LEDs have come down significantly.
 
Completely agree on the last part. Congress needs to stop passing all regulation to executive branch. Issue is congress also refuses to do anything at all and it's getting worse every year. Because of that executive branch has to regulate... EPA, FCC etc.

I am not a person that believes the government needs to stay out of everything. That got us rivers on fire in the 60s, bank collapses in 08, monopolies and other issues.

Regulations drive innovation as well, it just takes a bit to happen and may cost a bit initially. Consistency is what is important. For a few examples in totally different industries: Car mileage requirements drove efficiency innovation (turbos on smaller engines, hybrids, weight reduction, improved engine design and control... etc). Car crash safety requirements drove huge innovation as well. Incandescent bulb restrictions drove development of LEDs after CFLs. Both last significantly longer but wouldn't have been developed without that push. Now prices for LEDs have come down significantly.
I am not a person either that believes the government needs to stay out of everything. Your examples of car mileage, polluted rivers, and crash safety were all problems that needed a solution. And the FCC regulations for spectrum licenses and frequency usage is also important and necessary. I certainly agree each was needed intervention by the government.

But we are now several posts into this thread and yet no one can seem to claim what problems are being addressed by adding net neutrality regulations.
 
Last edited:
I am not a person either that believes the government needs to stay out of everything. Your examples of car mileage, polluted rivers, and crash safety were all problems that needed a solution. And the FCC regulations for spectrum licenses and frequency usage is also important and necessary. I certainly agree each was needed intervention by the government.

But we are now several posts into this thread and yet no one can seem to claim what problems are being addressed by adding net neutrality regulations.

Link to oped from previous FCC chair

My poorly worded view:
Companies always act in their own best interests to earn the maximum revenue. To do that they will do anything they can creatively do to charge for things that should be free or already included. This forces them to act in a "just and reasonable manner" and maintains their service in the same light as telephone, mail etc. Part of that is that they must treat all traffic the same. There must be some reason why they accepted no throttling but fought to have the rest removed from the rules.

Is this leading the issue it's preventing, maybe to probably but what's wrong with that? They should fall under the same category as other interstate communications.

Editing to add: Pretty sure this also prevents self regulation. Boeing convinced the FAA it could save them money and time and self regulate... look how that has gone.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top