Net neutrality will benefit customers

Published March 1, 2015

Editorial by Rocky Mount Telegram, February 28, 2015.

The new rules imposed last week on broadband Internet service by the Federal Communications Commission to enforce net neutrality ultimately will benefit consumers.

Despite the unfounded charges of “government takeover” by large telecommunications companies or the ludicrous howls of “government censorship” by fringe conspiracy nuts, the FCC’s decision simply will ensure that people and businesses have fair and open access to the Internet.

The new rules require companies providing broadband connections to act in the “public interest” and refrain from striking deals with content providers to move their data faster.

Telecommunications giants such as Verizon or AT&T already enjoy monopolies in providing high-speed Internet service – either by wire or over the air. And although these companies control the pipeline through which Internet data flows to users, net neutrality requires that these service providers treat all legal content on the Web equally and not pick favorites or control what flows to their customers. The FCC’s vote means that broadband providers may not block access to legal content, may not impair lawful Internet traffic and cannot move data faster for content providers willing to pay for it or slower for those who won’t.

This is not an ominous move by the federal government to either take control of the Internet or censor its content. The new rules are meant to protect the public from the power that large service providers possess to restrict consumers’ ability to freely use the Internet service that they pay for and decide for themselves how to do it.

http://www.rockymounttelegram.com/opinion/our-views/net-neutrality-will-benefit-consumers-2805227

March 1, 2015 at 7:45 am
Frank Burns says:

Remember the adage, if it ain't broke don't fix it? I can't trust the government to work competently. Do you remember the Obamacare website? Enough said.

March 1, 2015 at 8:46 am
Richard Bunce says:

FCC Comission declaration of forbearance on most of the regulations in Title 2 is written in sand. Political pressure will be applied and soon friends will be getting favorable rulings against enemies. I am old enough to remember only being able to buy a phone from Ma Bell and having only one expensive long distance provider and expensive regulated airfares. Government bureaucrats never make anything better.

March 1, 2015 at 4:31 pm
Rip Arrowood says:

So monopolies are OK if the state lets them develop...but not OK if the Feds do....

March 1, 2015 at 11:35 pm
Richard Bunce says:

Most utilities are government regulated monopolies... the government created the monopoly. Cable/Internet providers were born out of that sort of arrangement and while the State opened up the market a decade or so ago all the cable infrastructure was in place and difficult for a wired startup to compete against. The Federal government (FCC) could free up much more of the spectrum... a lot of it is unnecessarily reserved for various government functions... and Federal, State, and Local regulations and taxes reduced/eliminated and perhaps there would be opportunities for wireless startups and other innovations to provide competition to the old government regulated monopoly services.

March 1, 2015 at 7:50 pm
Johnny Hiott says:

Funny but I cannot think of a single thing government has ever made better. It has made most everything more expensive but never better. This takeover of the internet is designed for two purposes. First so the criminals in government can control the content and what people say, to restrict free speech. Secondly to give government another avenue of theft from the people via more taxation.

March 1, 2015 at 7:51 pm
Van Heath says:

Inasmuch as the rules have not been published, how does the author have any idea what the rules changes will do. By experience, many of us simply do not trust the overreaching government.

March 1, 2015 at 8:33 pm
Tom Hauck says:

Thank you for the editorial but I cannot fathom how one could write such an editorial. Has anyone in the public seen the over 300 pages of "rules" that will have to be followed.

WE know that the two opposition commissioners (who have read the newly proposed rules) are opposed to the new rules. We understand that the rules are being adjusted to try to conform to the desires of the two opposition commissioners.

In essence, no one knows what they are talking about when commenting on the new rules. We do know that President Obama wanted new rules and the Independent Commission apparently followed the President's wishes.

Seems ironic that the administration that could not set up a website for Obamacare has taken over all the websites and the system that connects them.

March 2, 2015 at 9:04 am
Norm Kelly says:

Since the author of this editorial works for what used to be called a news paper and is now just another advocate for the communist-in-chief, as well as a mouthpiece for the Demoncrat Party, let me repeat what others have already posted: since the rules have yet to be made public there is NO WAY the author can say whether this is good or bad. So, author, do YOUR JOB and show us examples of what the government has interfered with that has actually improved the market. Show us how government interference has LOWERED the price of any service they interrupt. Show us how EFFICIENT government regulation is. The pressure is on you to prove your point, not on us to prove you wrong. If it were our job to prove you wrong, the task would be so easy that a second grader could do it, even a second grader in government monopoly schools!

'Telecommunications giants such as Verizon or AT&T already enjoy monopolies in providing high-speed Internet service'. If news papers simply printed truth and the whole story, perhaps their subscriber base wouldn't be eroding. What part of this statement from the author is true? Verizon and AT&T are high-speed Internet service providers. That's it. Do they enjoy a monopoly? Really? How so? Perfect example is right here in Wake County, NC. Not only does AT*T offer Internet service, but Verizon does NOT! TimeWarner cable does, but who cares! Guess what? Even libs are forced to acknowledge this next tidbit of FACT. Google has committed to laying fiber around the Triangle. The city of Cary is even working directly with Google to expedite the permitting process. Which is another example of competition. So, where's the monopoly? Even the liberal, darn near socialist, author of this editorial can't show how this is a monopoly. And in a few towns around NC, there's even the government's version of high-speed Internet service offering another 'competitor'. So even the socialists are getting in the Internet business, where's the claim of monopoly stand in those locations? Author?. . . Times up!

'broadband providers may not block access to legal content'. So, this has been a problem? A problem that needed central planner interference to resolve? Please show examples. Since you can't let's go to the truth of the matter. Cuz facts matter, unless you are a lib who desires government control of every aspect of life. Around the world, who is it that blocks access to ANY content? That's right: government! Can the author, or any other socialist, show examples of service providers blocking legal content? Nope! Can any freedom lover show examples of governments that block legal content? Yes. Can any freedom lover show examples of how government interference in a market degrades the market, degrades innovation? Yes, that's too easy. Cuz even socialists can come up with examples of government making matters worse. Just look at what the tax on medical device manufacturers is doing and will continue to do to innovation. As well as cost. Your turn to provide examples. But since the rules aren't published, you have nothing to base your theory upon!

'This is not an ominous move by the federal government'. You mean this is an un-ominous move by the central planners to take over the Internet just like it was an un-ominous move to take over health care insurance and delivery? Since the liar-in-chief promised us numerous times that we'd be able to keep our health insurance plans, and we couldn't, does this imply that it really is an ominous move by the same central planners? Since the liar told us we'd be able to keep our doctors, and we can't, is this the same kind of un-ominous take over of the Internet? Since the socialists in Washington told us to use the VA Health system as a perfect example of how well socialized medicine would work for the rest of us, and they have since been proven right, is this an un-ominous example of a government take over of the Internet? If the rules were drafted in private, no public scrutiny allowed by the most open administration in history, how can you say it's NOT ominous? Since it appears some of the rules may be changing, being re-written, because of opposition of a few board members, how do you KNOW it's not ominous? What other take over by the central planners HAS NOT been ominous? Show us examples from around the world where government interference in a market has IMPROVED anything, made it MORE accessible, made the cost to consumers LOWER, or helped INNOVATION. Since this is a task you are not capable of, I again will not hold my breath! What part of government interference in the Internet market has driven the rapid pace of innovation over the past 20 or so years? So what should make me feel comfortable with this interference in the Internet market? What part of government had anything to do with the development and expansion of Netflix, as one example. How about Skype? What part of government interference in the Internet market made this innovation happen?

I'd go back to put my rose-colored glasses on also, as the author obviously does, but I've never liked rose-colored since it prevents one from seeing facts right in front of ones nose! Walking through life with eyes wide open!