Well, yes and no. The FCC is considering a proposed rulemaking that would require ISPs to disclose their policies to consumers, ban blocking of legal content, and prohibit "commercially unreasonable" traffic discrimination. http://transition.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/openinternet.pdf
The specific regulations, of course, have not been drafted, but if these are the only three policies the FCC has in mind, it seems reasonable to infer that the ban on "commercially unreasonable" discrimination, implies that "commercially reasonable" discrimination is permissible. The devil, of course, is in the definition of ""commercially unreasonable." But it seems like there is good reason to worry that this would permit something like a fast lane and, thus, it seems like a good idea for those of us who think this is a bad idea to begin mobilizing.
That all said, I do think that throttling the entire FCC to dialup speeds is a stupid idea. As others have pointed out, this will harm many more people than are actually involved in the regulatory decision in any way, and is unlikely to make a difference in the thinking of the actual regulators in the face of the reams of actually well-thought-out comments they will be receiving from lawyers and internet policy experts.
It also ignores the fact that the "slow-lane," if it does come to exist, is very unlikely to be at anything like dialup speeds. Given the FCC's overall commitment to increased broadband penetration (which has been amply demonstrated, I think) I doubt that anyone at the FCC would be inclined to find such discrimination "commercially reasonable."
If you really want to have an impact, maybe you should band together and write a comment letter.
> But it seems like there is good reason to worry that this would permit something like a fast lane
There might be reason to worry that it could, but to assume that it will and react as if that were an established fact rather than a possibility of concern is not reasonable. Before there is a rule in effect there will be a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking which will say exactly what the rules would be and how the FCC intends to apply them, just as there was with the old Open Internet Order.
Sure. I agree with this, of course. But I suppose I don't see the harm in taking action now, even if these are early days, to make our views known. (Though, as I said, I don't like this particular strategy.)
Lobbying in Washington does not begin after an NPR has been issued. Why should we behave differently? The NPR is an important regulatory document because it typically indicates the Commission's favored outcome and plays an important role in framing the debate.
> But I suppose I don't see the harm in taking action now, even if these are early days, to make our views known.
I agree with that -- I just think that the action should be focussed on what regulation should or should not contain, not on treating the regulatory agency involved as an enemy.
> Why should we behave differently?
Attacking people who are decision-makers that have historically been (and overtly still are) supportive of the position you espouse based on media rumors of provisions that might be in a plan that they are preparing is behaving differently than the firms that lobby before a concrete proposal in the form of an NPRM is released. Compare that attacks on Wheeler and the FCC to the Google/Amazon/Facebook/etc. letter.
The specific regulations, of course, have not been drafted, but if these are the only three policies the FCC has in mind, it seems reasonable to infer that the ban on "commercially unreasonable" discrimination, implies that "commercially reasonable" discrimination is permissible. The devil, of course, is in the definition of ""commercially unreasonable." But it seems like there is good reason to worry that this would permit something like a fast lane and, thus, it seems like a good idea for those of us who think this is a bad idea to begin mobilizing.
That all said, I do think that throttling the entire FCC to dialup speeds is a stupid idea. As others have pointed out, this will harm many more people than are actually involved in the regulatory decision in any way, and is unlikely to make a difference in the thinking of the actual regulators in the face of the reams of actually well-thought-out comments they will be receiving from lawyers and internet policy experts.
It also ignores the fact that the "slow-lane," if it does come to exist, is very unlikely to be at anything like dialup speeds. Given the FCC's overall commitment to increased broadband penetration (which has been amply demonstrated, I think) I doubt that anyone at the FCC would be inclined to find such discrimination "commercially reasonable."
If you really want to have an impact, maybe you should band together and write a comment letter.