Joe Rogan Experience No. 1064 with Jessica Rosenworcel of the FCC

Well, for one thing, the FCC rules didn't prohibit charging extra for access to certain sites. In fact, they (illegally) declared the Internet to be subject to Title II of the Telecommunications Act, which explicitly allows different rates to be charged depending upon the source, destination, time of day, and - yes - content of communications!

What they did was prohibit ISPs from doing a bunch of things they don't do and wouldn't do (the lobbyists who wrote it had been engaging in fearmongering, falsely claiming they would)... and then, after that, prohibit them from challenging the monopolies of the big edge providers such as Google, Facebook, and Netflix. Or providing services which would enable a startup to challenge them. The rules also hamstrung ISPs with reporting and technical requirements - some of them either technically or economically completely infeasible - just to tie the ISPs, which the edge providers consider to be their rivals in their quest to siphon every last dollar out of the Internet ecosystem, up in red tape.

By raising ISPs' costs (they'd have to spend millions on lawyers), driving away investors (which means no capital to expand or upgrade networks), and preventing them from managing their networks. (If the ISP doesn't manage the network, the big edge providers, such as Netflix, can manipulate it to give themselves and edge and slow down smaller ones.)

(b) Policy

It is the policy of the United States—

(1) to promote the continued development of the Internet and other interactive computer services and other interactive media;
(2) to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet and other interactive computer services, unfettered by Federal or State regulation;

In short, the FCC cannot interpret the law in any way that allows the Internet to be regulated. 47 USC 230(f) goes farther still, declaring Internet access to be a "data service" which is not subject to FCC regulation.

In short, the so-called "net neutrality" regulations were an example of a corporation (Google) achieving regulatory capture of an agency and writing regulations for it to pass... regulations which harmed the public and other businesses for its benefit. They were the result of corruption, and it is wonderful that they have been repealed. Not many swamps have been drained under the current administration, but this one actually has.

 

I don't know, but that tin foil hat must mega herts.

 

It gets really bad if it killer hurts.

 

As if the Internet were a kitchen. Dangerously false analogy.

The fact is that Internet bandwidth costs money... and, yes, those who consume more should pay more.

 

Yes, it means cutting into the spectrum 'reserved for hams'.

Sort of.

In 2004-2006 I warned everyone publicly that we would lose the 3300 MHz band and that we needed to think of a realistic band plan that saved, say, 20 MHz of that band and gave up the rest.

So what happened? I got labelled a traitor. Not pleasant, mind you.

The good news is that we are NOT the only user of that band. The bad news is we most likely will lose it all, and the 3300 MHz band will join the extant 3500 MHz band for carrier telephony and data.

Why will this happen? Because we did a crappy job of using precious spectrum so allotted to us in this case. Don't blame the ARRL, its not their fault. It's our fault for not using an allocation in sufficient numbers.

 

Please get real.

How many hams do you believe are employed by Verizon or ATT or Sprint or T-Mobile. One? Two? Try thousands. Its in bad taste to label any carrier affiliates as essentially payoffs or traitors, for example.

Look: I work with carriers. I work with hams. I try to advocate for Part 97, as do many others. The ARRL does a pretty good job on that , for example. But if you don't use spectrum, hams get labelled as place holders pending future use.

Read that carefully:

PLACE HOLDERS PENDING FUTURE USE.

I have heard that many times in the last year.

Not what I want.

BTW, your labelling of 'monopolistic corporations' begs the issue, Its the hundred million plus END USERS that are driving the bus. Your kid or grand kid playing a streaming video game is dooming (some)bands of our spectrum.

Not the carriers.

Its not sick capitalism, Its the citizens themselves.