Sadly... that boat has sunk. No more Net Neutrality. Verizon won, the public lost.

Despite overwhelming public protest, FCC Chairman Pai is rolling statutes back to 1996, prior to Title II classification (which said the internet is a public utility to be regulated against price gouging.)

Hasn't gone into effect yet, but it's queued to do so.

FCC Chairman Pai

Former Verizon lawyer so no surprise to anyone.

Is it over yet? I thought the legislation was still pending?

Hi sobredinero and welcome to WebmasterWorld [webmasterworld.com]

The kool-aid is still being drunk, apparently.

Rolling back to 1996 RESTORES the internet and it's ability to innovate and expand. Title II PUBLIC UTILITIES have no incentive or even mandate, to do either.

There is no price gouging, but there are pricing tiers, costs of operation, infrastructure, and Big Fights how all that works at the ISP level (and we should let the market determine who wins).

These are facts:

Nobody gets full bore t1 access at the consumer level for $30/month, so those folks were never hurt in the first place.

No "unlimited plan" is unlimited.

No guarantee regarding service speed or reliability.

Pricing tiers exist to accommodate the USER and what they are willing to pay for what they want to receive.

Meanwhile, TANSTAAFL

Net Neutrality (under the past administration) was an attempt to gain political control over the internet and eventual regulations on what kind of content and how it was presented.

Personally, when somebody comes up and says "Hello, I'm from the government and I'm here to help you." I grin and say no thanks!

Net Neutrality (under the past administration) was an attempt to gain political control over the internet and eventual regulations on what kind of content and how it was presented.

Could not be farther from fact.

@tangor, you are talking about price levels, net neutrality is not about price levels, but about equal access to infrastructure.

It is not about price control, it is about preventing deal making distorting the free market - it is similar, in intent and effect, to laws that prevent the formation of cartels.

Ideology: a system of ideas and ideals, especially one that forms the basis of... political theory and policy.

...when somebody comes up and says "Hello, I'm from the government and I'm here to help you." I grin and say no thanks!

Your fidelity to an ideology is keeping you from seeing the facts of the matter. Your ideology is shaping how you see reality.

A former lawyer for Verizon is in charge of the FCC. He's there to look after the financial interests of the ISPs. The Verizon Lawyer is not concerned with an unfettered free market.

Rise above ideology. Ideology is a system of belief that locks you into one way of seeing things. Why lock yourself into a box? Aren't you at all interested in seeing things as they are?

I don't have ideology, or at least I try not to be influenced by any. I am interested in seeing things as they are.

"Rolling back to 1996" is a slogan meant to convey freedom. But that's just propaganda; it does not communicate a fact. Open your eyes Tangor. A Verizon lawyer is in charge of the FCC. ISPs have a monopolistic control of the Internet because the costs associated with it creates a barrier to entry. Thus, they are fighting for their right to charge as much as they can, without the consumer having recourse to a free market that self-regulates according to the principles of supply and demand.

A market that is consolidated within the grip of a few corporations is not an unfettered free market with prices set by supply and demand.

I am FOR a free market and against regulations that unnecessarily restrain commerce. But open your eyes, man. The fox is calling the shots in the hen house.

@ Tangor ...

Personally, when somebody comes up and says "Hello, I'm from the government and I'm here to help you." I grin and say no thanks!

Would you please give an example of a government regulation that limited YOUR ability to move forward with success. innovation or opportunity?

Would you please give an example of a government regulation that limited YOUR ability to move forward with success. innovation or opportunity?

I would chime in and list just a few from California, with the risk that it might quickly turn into a political-flavored rant...

* Requirement for Workman's Comp Insurance (not sure if the requirement exists in other states as well)- not required to get it as long as I don't have any employees. But as soon as I get employee #1, have to signup for ridiculously expensive insurance in case someone gets injured on the job. Yeah, I know- programmers are always going around breaking their legs... This is the number 1 reason I don't have employees.
* Minimum Wage (it's nationwide, but California's is among the highest, and politicians are working hard to make sure it becomes #1)- an artificial floor that determines what I can pay people. Most work that I would have an employee for would be quite a bit higher than the minimum wage, so it's not an issue. However, there is a lot of menial work that I'd like to farm out that isn't worth that rate.
* Mandatory Paid Sick Leave- employers must grant at least 24 hours of paid sick leave to employees each year- either a lump total of 24 hours of sick leave, or an accrual rate of 1 hour for every 30 hours worked amounting to no less than 24 hours sick leave annually. This means that even if an employee is set on an accrual basis and works for two hours a day for 30 days, the employer owe at least 24 hours of sick pay.
* There are too many other regulations that make California extremely pro-employee/anti-employer that I won't go into.
* Regulations requiring x% of electricity to be generated by "green" sources- making California's electricity rates some of the highest in the nation, requiring more money to be spent on electricity and related costs (e.g., server co-location) than expanding the business.
* Doesn't affect me, but in Los Angeles, it is illegal to advertise with a metallic balloon.

Ideology works both ways. :)

What some see as price gouging or throttling content (access) is merely a part of the infrastructure being overwhelmed and poor planning in the past has led a few companies to attempt unilateral changes to existing contracts.

And some desire to get part of the other fellow's pie because it is thrilling the customers and they don't have it (so they charge extra to make up for it). These are legal matters, not FREE ACCESS as regards consumers.

Paying for what you consume is not a foreign concept. Everyone understands that. However, paying for something you don't consume (as fixed rates will bring about) is not very popular when the bill arrives. Title II and regulations sure to come out of that, will make that happen. Service will be bare minimum then sharply scale UPWARDS for use above those minimums (see any PUC anywhere in the world for examples).

The companies who (unfettered by Title II) provide the firstest with the mostest at the bestest pricing will be market winners. Those who do not won't see the same success.

In 1996 Congress and then president Clinton, opted for an UNREGULATED INTERNET which caused explosive growth and opportunity across the board. Net Neutrality (a very misleading term) reclassifed the web, took it to 1934 telecom regulations, and opened the door to further regulation and the possibility of content control as well.

1996 works better for me than 1934.

As for Pai being a lawyer, that's standard in Washington, DC. It's far more difficult to find a member of the government who is NOT a lawyer.

3 years ago when Verizon made a big push towards reversing Net Neutrality (which failed that time) they discussed charging website owners for the traffic they received from ISPs.

Can't wait to see how that turns out this time with this laissez faire FCC.

laissez faire FCC

- That's French for "goats guarding the lettuce farm" isn't it?

Yeah, that about sums it up :)

@ LifeinAsia - After 17 years in business, here's my recommendation. Hire contractors, issue 1099, problem solved.. Successful companies (plenty in California) eventually hire dedicated employees. Don't get ahead of yourself.

Hire contractors, issue 1099, problem solved.

Oh, if only it were so easy!
Actually, we have done that in the past, but it also opens up a different can of worms. If you hire them directly, you have a serious burden of proof that they are not improperly classified (with huge fines if you lose that fight). If you go through an agency, you often have a high cost if you eventually decide to hire them as an employee.

Don't get ahead of yourself.

Don't worry- the government regulations keep me from getting ahead. :)

@ LifeinAsia - California, by it self is the 5th or sixth largest economy in the world - doing quite nicely economically. Job creation in California is and has been healthy for many years.

I have no doubt that you may be having challenges, however I can assure you that regulations are not the problem..

Just imagine the powerhouse the state could have been if the existing regulations hadn't been in place. A lot of companies/jobs might not have left the state.

In addition to the regulations I already pointed out, the California Chamber of Commerce has identified another 25 existing bills [cajobkillers.com] that would seriously impact job creation.

Yeahhhhh but California still manages to be the sixth largest economy in the world. How's that possible with so many "business stifling" regulations?

There's a balance that works well for business, the rights of workers & the environment. It's called California.

@martinibuster agreed. a free market is NOT the same thing as letting businesses do what they want. As Adam Smith said:

The interest of the dealers, however, in any particular branch of trade or manufacture, is always in some respects different from, and even opposite to, that of the public. To widen the market and to narrow the competition, is always the interest of the dealers. To widen the market may frequently be agreeable enough to the interest of the public; but to narrow the competition must always be against it, and can serve only to enable the dealers, by raising their profits above what they naturally would be, to levy, for their own benefit, and absurd tax upon the rest of their fellow-citizens.