Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Tom Wheeler has announced plans to protect net neutrality by reclassifying Internet service providers as common carriers under Title II of the Telecommunications Act. The proposal is the result of 10 years of debates, public input, and Wheeler’s personal experience with the success of open access.

Wheeler explains, in a statement to Wired, his plans for the FCC to use Title II authority to apply and enforce open Internet protections, which he calls the strongest protections ever proposed by the FCC.


“These enforceable, bright-line rules will ban paid prioritization, and the blocking and throttling of lawful content and services,” writes Wheeler.

The proposal will ensure that companies do not include rate regulations, tariffs, or last-mile unbundling in their data offerings to subscribers.

He also clarifies that these rules will apply to mobile broadband. The FCC has never before addressed the issue of wireless networks. This new proposal aims to make huge changes for both wired and mobile Internet use. Something Wheeler says is a right for consumers and innovators alike.

The FCC will vote on the proposal on Feb. 26. It is widely assumed that telecommunications corporations will fight the FCC and that Congress may attempt to undermine the department’s authority before regulations are put in place.

Via The Verge

Support Liliputing

Liliputing's primary sources of revenue are advertising and affiliate links (if you click the "Shop" button at the top of the page and buy something on Amazon, for example, we'll get a small commission).

But there are several ways you can support the site directly even if you're using an ad blocker* and hate online shopping.

Contribute to our Patreon campaign


Contribute via PayPal

* If you are using an ad blocker like uBlock Origin and seeing a pop-up message at the bottom of the screen, we have a guide that may help you disable it.

Subscribe to Liliputing via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 9,543 other subscribers

15 replies on “FCC to safeguard net neutrality with Title II modernization, mobile broadband too”

  1. The FCC is trying to fix a problem that doesn’t exist.

    Which can only mean there are other motives at play. Mainly the desire to control and tax.

    “If you like your internet, you can keep your internet”

    1. Doesn’t exist? I guess you’ve not heard about the deliberate Netflix throttling to the point of unusability by Comcast to extort more money out of them, or about ISPs throttling bittorrent traffic. And ISPs have already started providing favorable access to their own paid services over the competiton, exempting them from bandwidth caps, for example.

      Without net neutrality, this would only be the beginning.

      1. Oh, you mean the supposed “deliberate” throttling that was already worked out WITHOUT THE NEED OF NET “NEUTRALITY”?

        1. Only those cases that hit the headlines, and it’s no secret that without regulation, the ISPs were planning on artificially limiting the speed of content providers unless they paid extra. Why do you think they are so adamantly against it?

          You have such a naive view of how corporations behave when unconstrained by regulation. There are a few good actors, sure, but for the rest, it would be a race to the bottom, egged on by shareholders and their enabling stock analysts who want to squeeze every last cent our of their customers, especially when there is no viable competition for them to turn to.

          It’s happened time and again throughout history, which is why we have government regulation in the first place. You might want to return to the age of the Robber Barons, but the rest of us don’t.

          1. All I hear from you is conjecture and projection of your own assumptions.

            you make a ton of blanket statements that you think are true just because you say them.

            sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken. in the same vein, saying something is true doesn’t make it so.

            If you did some research maybe you’d find answers. Stop getting your news from blogs.

          2. Dude, what are you talking about? T-Mobile even advertise unfair treatment of data by making certain music services not counting towards their data cap. Granted, none of the music services belongs to them, what stops them from coming up with their own music service and making that a priority instead? And how does it help a startup if their music service was not included in this preferential agreement? All I hear from you is, without some secret taping of the ISPs intents, you will never believe anything. That’s all fine if you live in some fairyland, but it is not reality. I hate government regulation, but the fact of the matter is, it is hard to start digging shit around the neighborhood to build your own wires. There is really two ways to go about this, either make these ISPs a natural monopoly and you enforce certain rules on them such as net neutrality, or you force all the states to make it easier to dig up the ground and put in fiber. In which case, you will still need big corporations with enough cash to do so. And if it was so easy to get all the states to do it, why hasn’t it been done already until there was a threat of enforcing certain regulations on them? I think you did less research than you think.

          3. Yeah, like saying “there goes the Internet” isn’t a blanket statement. Sorry buddy, but libertarian economics is a disaster waiting to happen — as bad as communist economics, in fact.

      2. Oh, and that “deliberate” throttling that was more likely technically driven, stemming from the ISP’s deciding to treat Netflix data from its bandwidth provider the same as it treats any other pipe? By not going out of their way to give preferential treatment to Netflix’s pipe?

        1. Nope, not technically driven. It was clearly a deliberate effort to hold their own (i.e. Comcast’s) customers to ransom until Netflix coughed up more cash.

  2. Several thoughts:
    If you read Title II (I have read some of it) it could be a good thing or a bad thing for us netizens. It depends on which sections of Title II the FCC waives for internet services. Some sections don’t apply and some (if left in) could actually give the ISPs more power. We shall see what the FCC actually has in mind soon. Adding in wireless is most likely a good move but will be fought tooth and nail by the providers. This will likely be drawn out for years. Watch closely to see which congressmen get even more wealthy in this fight. Wheeler just threw the first punch.

    1. Yeah, but unfortunately, any decision made in Washington that isn’t a total capitulation to corporate interests can be considered a major victory these days.

  3. So… while internet in the US will still lag behind such technological paradises as Bulgaria, Latvia, and Romania in terms of both speed and cost… our telecom providers won’t be able to regress us to the 1990s.

    A small victory, but an important one nontheless.

Comments are closed.