WYP
News Guru
98% of the UK is expected to have access to 24Mbps broadband by 2020.
Read more on the UK's upcoming minimum broadband speed rules.
Read more on the UK's upcoming minimum broadband speed rules.
The UK Government will make access to 10Mbps broadband a legal right by 2020
- Thread starter WYP
- Start date
Kourgath223
Member
Personally I think 10Mbps is fine for your average Joe that only really uses the internet to check email and maybe watch a video or two.
NeverBackDown
AMD Enthusiast
I am glad the UK is getting this. The US is getting screwed left right and center with internet.
MacLeod
New member
No we're not. We've got 1 gig service pretty much everywhere. My in-laws live in a dirty little mining town in Ohio about 1 hour from the nearest shopping mall and they've still got plenty of internet options. Don't believe all the end of the world crap about net neutrality. The internet was fine from 1996 til 2015 when it was enacted and it'll continue to be fine now that it's gone.
Generally I'm not too keen on the government mandating what services you should get. I don't know what it's like in the UK but I worry about mandating certain services makes it harder or impossible for smaller companies to offer services and competition dies off.
NeverBackDown
AMD Enthusiast
I'm not talking about speeds. I am talking about how our FCC regulators are idiots and ruining the net for us. So yes net neutrality is going to affect many people. You best believe companies will take advantage.
MacLeod
New member
How are they ruining the internet for us? Was the internet broken for the 20 years before NN? NN was only around less than 2 years. The internet was working just fine before it and it had very little effect during the short time it was enacted.
If you want NN then get it passed legislatively through Congress by people that have to answer to their voters and where it's debated out in the open. Not by some faceless committee in a closed room by a bunch of people nobody knows and that don't have to answer to anybody.
NeverBackDown
AMD Enthusiast
The closed room currently controls whether or not it's enforced.
Anyway I have my opinion. Don't feel like discussing it further.
Kourgath223
Member
You do know that DSL was regulated under Title 2 until 2005 right? Cable Internet, unless it was available prior to 2002, wasn't regulated under Title 2 but the FCC did put down some voluntary Net Neutrality rules for companies to follow in 2005. Also the FCC did put some rules in place in 2010 and those only got tossed out in 2014 after the case Verizon Communications Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission ended after 3 years.
Besides the 2015 rules were a compromise between Title 2 of the Communications Act of 1934 and Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and so it didn't even able all the Title 2/Common Carrier regulations like LLU (Local Loop Unbundling), which in theory would help with competition since startup ISPs could rent lines from established ISPs until they had the money to lay their own lines (this initial cost is one of the reasons you don't see people starting their own ISPs in cities/states that don't have laws that stop you from making your own).
I mean the following rules are fairly simple:
- 8.5 No blocking. A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not block lawful content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices, subject to reasonable network management.
- 8.7 No throttling. A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not impair or degrade lawful Internet traffic on the basis of Internet content, application, or service, or use of a non-harmful device, subject to reasonable network management.
- 8.9 No paid prioritization.
(a) A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not engage in paid prioritization.
(b) “Paid prioritization” refers to the management of a broadband provider’s network to directly or indirectly favor some traffic over other traffic, including through use of techniques such as traffic shaping, prioritization, resource reservation, or other forms of preferential traffic management, either (a) in exchange for consideration (monetary or otherwise) from a third party, or (b) to benefit an affiliated entity.
(c) The Commission may waive the ban on paid prioritization only if the petitioner demonstrates that the practice would provide some significant public interest benefit and would not harm the open nature of the Internet. - 8.11 No unreasonable interference or unreasonable disadvantage standard for Internet conduct. Any person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not unreasonably interfere with or unreasonably disadvantage (i) end users’ ability to select, access, and use broadband Internet access service or the lawful Internet content, applications, services, or devices of their choice, or (ii) edge providers’ ability to make lawful content, applications, services, or devices available to end users. Reasonable network management shall not be considered a violation of this rule.
MacLeod
New member
The NN rules were over 300 pages long! That's hardly simple. And primarily, the government can't legislate fairness. A bunch of bureaucrats that have never had a real job will never be able to setup policies that create competition and spur economic growth because it's something they've never done and have no experience in. The ONLY time the government can spur competition and economic growth is when it get out of the way!
Also, ISP's are now regulated by the FTC and DOJ just like they were for the 20 years before NN. This repeal did not mean ISP's are now above the law and can do whatever they want. Anti Trust laws are still in effect as is Title 1 and a whole bunch of other commerce laws. Facebook can't go pay ISP's a bunch of money to make their service faster while throttling Twitter. That is a violation of anti trust laws and was illegal before NN and is still illegal today. Didn't Intel get in a whole lot of legal trouble for paying companies like Dell to not use AMD processors or something like that? It wasn't net neutrality that stopped them, it was the anti trust laws that are still there. Isn't that the same thing people are panicking about with NN? That Facebook will pay ISP's to hurt their competition? They can't because its ILLEGAL!
Also, NN is a policy that was written in 1934 to govern the phone company. Hardly something you want regulating the internet 100 years later.
Net neutrality didn't unleash ISP's to go run wild and above the law. It unshackled them from a 300 page rule with thousands of things they had to comply with that caused a decline in investment by near 20% in less than 2 years.
Again, the internet was running just fine the 20 years before NN and it'll be fine after it.
That would only be an issue with a system like America's where each company lays down its own lines. For clear logical, economical, environmental, and competitive reasons, pretty much all ISPs in the UK share the same generally government-funded underlying infrastructure. The reason why the UK hasn't jumped on FTTP and the like, unlike many other countries, is because of the extremely high population density compared to America or the rest of Europe, and the fact we already had the oldest and most robust network in the world(Albeit, a copper one). Recreating this network in the UK with our more stringent safety guidelines and engineering standards is a monumental task given the messy layout of our cities due to them forming naturally from smaller settlements rather than being designed and planned.
We ALMOST did it however, when BT(The once government-owned broadband service for the UK) first invented the use of fibre wiring for internet access and rolled out plans to have it across the UK by the 1990s. Unfortunately, Thatcher happened and her wave of blindly ideological libertarian policies led to us selling off the technology to Japanese and American companies while our world-renowned broadband service was privatised and sold to the Americans, who subsequently broke it up into little pieces and solid it back to us for several times the cost.
The only way to have a truly efficient and cost effective internet service, as demonstrated by a significant portion of Europe, is through government control of the infrastructure to avoid the ridiculous wastefulness created by redoing the same work over and over that an unregulated system creates, while making sure companies can't use that infrastructure in anti competitive ways or in ways that hinders the general public's ability to use the infrastructure. Net neutrality(IE- Not letting broadband companies bully other companies into giving them more money for basic services) is fundamental to allowing innovation in a nation in the modern age.
Last edited:
Kourgath223
Member
The actual rules are only about 2 pages long. The FCC is required to explain why they are making these rule changes (the first 200 and some odd pages) and to address some of the comments made during the public comment period (the last 190 or so pages). The actual rules start on page 283 here if you care to read them for yourself. You do know that prior to the 2004 court case USTA v. FCC it was easier to start up your own DSL ISP then after the court case right? The reason being that prior to that case the FCC was allowed to force the incumbent local exchange carrier (ILEC), generally the local telephone company, to lease out their lines at reasonable rates to competitive local exchange carriers (CLEC), generally other telephone companies that wanted move into a new area or your average Joe that wanted to start his own DSL ISP because he was sick of the crap of his current one.
Why do people keep saying that the FTC is getting the right to regulate ISPs again. As far as I can find they never had that responsibility and it was always handed by the FCC. Either way honestly I prefer the proactive makes the rules and make sure they are followed of the FCC over the wait for them to break the law and then deal with it of the FTC.
Last I checked the Internet didn't exist in 1934, at least not to your average individual. I think you meant to say that Title 2 existed since 1934 which is correct however the concept of Net Neutrality didn't get coined until the late 1990s to early 2000s. Net Neutrality and Title 2 are not one and the same. Title 2 is what the courts decided the FCC needed to classify ISPs as if they wanted to have the right to enforce Net Neutrality rules. Also like I said before the 2015 rules where a compromise between Title 2 (Communications Act of 1934) and Section 706 (Telecommunications Act of 1996) and it didn't enforce something like 20 sections of Title 2 and 700 regulations that would have been enforced if they had enforced those sections. In fact here is a shorted version of the rules courtesy of the FCC that shows the rules, though not in as much detail as the ones I posted before, and labels some of the 27 provisions of Title 2 that do not apply
As for how the FTC feels about this here is what one of the commissioners said (note the FTC appears to be missing members because they only list 2 people on their website this commissioner and the acting chairman when they are supposed to have 5 members):
BigDaddyKong
Active member
All the doom and gloom. All I know is they finally turned on GB internet for us, and our provider is claiming to start working on 10GB home connection next. I know that is 20 years or more away, but I am happy. I also get HBO free from AT&T with my cell phone. Sure there are things that are bound to get people upset, but I am not worried about it. Nothing throwing more money at it won't fix 
I think 10Mb is a little low. They should be aiming for at least 100Mb as the minimum.
I think 10Mb is a little low. They should be aiming for at least 100Mb as the minimum.
MacLeod
New member
Sorry, I'm not going to read through 600 pages to win an internet argument. I say 300 pages, you say 1 page and prove it with a 600 page document. Either way, hardly looks clean and simple to me.
You do know that the government has no business forcing anybody to lease their property to someone else right? If that makes it harder for you to start your own DSL business then so be it. The point is kinda irrelevant anyway because kinda like that line in Jurassic Park, the marketplace finds a way and land line providers, especially DSL are giving way to broadband. More and more people get their internet on their phones, tablets and hotspots. That is the wave of the future not hardwired options. 4G is faster than DSL and cable internet was just a few years ago and 5G will change the landscape once again.
Because as far as I can tell, it was NN that stripped the FTC of jurisdiction. Charimain Pai's own words:
"Moreover, we empower the Federal Trade Commission to ensure that consumers and competition
are protected. Two years ago, the Title II Order stripped the FTC of its jurisdiction over broadband
providers"
http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2017/db1214/DOC-348261A2.pdf
Last I checked I know the internet wasn't around in 1934 but this policy is based off that law that was used 100 years ago to govern the phone company which was becoming a monopoly.
Sorry the FTC is upset about having a responsibility put back on them that they had for 20 years prior to 2015.
Again, all the gloom and doom people are worried about was illegal before NN and is still going to be illegal. The broadband market is becoming more and more competitive so let them compete. Don't have a bunch of bureaucrats sitting in an office that have never had a real job dictating what broadband providers should offer and how they should run their business.
Again: we had no net neutrality for 20 years and the internet worked just fine and expanded just fine. All this repeal did was go back to the way it was done from 1996 til 2015. Nobody is unregulated, nobody can pay to have their competition hurt. If Verizon want's to throttle users that download 1000 GB every month then let them. Sprint or T mobile will come out with a plan that doesn't throttle anybody and they'll get their business just like they did with unlimited data plans. Remember when carriers stopped the unlimited plans and everybody lost their minds? That was til Sprint and T Mobile started offering unlimited plans and stealing Verizon and AT&T customers. Now all carriers offer unlimited plans again and they're getting cheaper. Competition works! Always has and always will in a free market. Heavy handed over-regulation from a bunch of bureaucrats not accountable to the voters mandating all companies be the same does not and has not ever worked.
looz
Active member
It's really quite simple, the US ISPs now have more avenues to screw over their customers. The door was left open previously, but people realised you could prioritise services and prevented that from happening with the 2015 ruling.
Many ISPs are cable companies as well, and that is a tremendous conflict of interest. They want to recoup the lost earnings from cable packages, either with their own internet-based services or by charging for using competitors services. I have zero doubt that this will happen in the future for customers of certain ISPs in areas where there aren't multiple options. And unless new local ISPs will emerge, people living in those single ISP areas will either have to pay more, find a way to circumvent the block or suck it up. Obviously mobile is different, you can't not have full coverage in residential areas.
None of the rules hindered healthy competition.
Many ISPs are cable companies as well, and that is a tremendous conflict of interest. They want to recoup the lost earnings from cable packages, either with their own internet-based services or by charging for using competitors services. I have zero doubt that this will happen in the future for customers of certain ISPs in areas where there aren't multiple options. And unless new local ISPs will emerge, people living in those single ISP areas will either have to pay more, find a way to circumvent the block or suck it up. Obviously mobile is different, you can't not have full coverage in residential areas.
None of the rules hindered healthy competition.
Kourgath223
Member
Again I told you exactly what page the rules start on if you can't be bothered to read that page and the following page it isn't my fault, also I linked later a shortened version that the FCC posted that again listed some of the rules along with some of the provisions that don't apply.
The only reason I mention DSL is to get people to stop thinking the Internet was regulated prior to 2015 that is constantly mentioned in these debate by anti-NN advocates despite the fact that it is completely false. DSL ISPs were regulated under Title 2 of the Communications Act of 1934 up until 2005 and Cable, if it was available prior to 2002 (I can't find anything to say one way or the other) would have also been regulated under Title 2 up until 2002.
And yet all the court cases I can find regarding Internet Service Provider Regulation are xyz v. Federal Communications Commission and I have yet to find a single one of xyz v. Federal Trade Commission nor can I find a single mention of the FTC dealing with the regulation of ISPs.
And again Net Neutrality and Title 2 are not one and the same no matter what Fox News says. The only reason the FCC had to include Title 2 Provisions to classify Broadband internet as a Telecommunication service was because that was effectively what the court said the FCC had to do at the end of Verizon Communications Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission (2014).
And again I ask for a source that the FTC ever had this responsibility because I have yet to find one no matter what I toss into Google and other search engines. The only thing I ever get is Pai saying they with no sources to back this claim up nor can I find the FTC every claiming they had this responsibility. Either way if they did have that responsibility it wouldn't have been the 2015 rules that took it away since the FCC had passed rules similar to the 2015 rules in 2010 but those only applied to landline ISPs and didn't classify ISPs under Title 2, hence why the court sided with Verizon when they took the FCC to court.
Really it is becoming more competitive? Please tell me how many options do you have for Broadband Internet (25Mbps down & 3Mbps up)? I have two options for broadband from Cable providers (Comcast & Verizon) and maybe a few DSL options, that has you mentioned are going the way of the dodo.
And again that is because of Title 2 and Section 706 rules that had been in place up until 2002/2005 (Cable/DSL respectively) that governed how these services could behave while also requiring the DSL ISPs to engage in Local Loop Unbundling up until 2004 when USTA v. FCC voided the FCC's authority to say they had to do this, which of course resulted the death of a number competitive local exchange carriers that still relied on renting lines from incumbent carriers.
Again we have the "their was no regulation from 1996 to 2015" lie that always surfaces because people just can't seem to get it that their were regulations in place by the FCC up until 2005 in the case of DSL and 2002 for any Cable companies that offered Internet.
From what I've heard from many American relatives and friends the situation is already dire enough, with much of America having monopolies or duopolies offering barely passable services. The fact that many Americans think their broadband is already acceptable when this is going on shows that regardless of how dire it gets over the next 12 months, you will always have people claiming everything golden until the whole house collapses on them.
Similar threads
