Computers FCC Approves New Net Neutrality Rules - Page 2

|Zach| · 02-26-2015, 12:37 PM

FCC approves new net neutrality rules

The Federal Communications Commission voted Thursday to implement new net neutrality rules designed to make sure Internet service providers treat all legal content equally.

The historic vote on the proposal by FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler elicited hearty cheers from a wide array of technology companies and consumer groups while setting the table for further legal challenges from Internet service providers. The controversial proceedings that led up to the vote generated heated lobbying in Washington and public clamor on social media, all in efforts to steer the future direction of the rules that guide Internet traffic.

"No one ... should control free and open access to the Internet," Wheeler said to applause from the standing room-only crowd gathered before the FCC panel. "It's the most powerful and pervasive platform on the planet. The Internet is too important to allow broadband providers to make the rules."

Net neutrality, also called open Internet, is a principle that Internet networks are equally available to all types of legal content generators. Internet service providers (ISPs), mostly large cable or telephone companies, would be prohibited from discriminating against content by slowing transmission speeds or seeking payments in exchange for faster lanes of their Internet networks, a practice called "paid prioritization."

Implementing the principle at a time when Internet streaming technology is changing so rapidly proved challenging to Wheeler as he sought to balance the varying interests of influential content streamers, like Netflix, and large ISPs that have spent millions to fight the effort. The FCC was besieged with passionate comments from both sides of the debate, receiving about 4 million comments, a record. In the end, Wheeler, with a nudge from President Obama, delivered on his proposals, though not without a fight from his colleagues and Republican lawmakers who wanted to delay the vote.

Wheeler's proposal reclassifies ISPs as public utilities, like phone companies, that are subject to a set of regulations that ensure all consumers get fair access to their services. ISPs would be banned from paid prioritization deals, though they can set aside fast lanes for some exceptions, including public services, like remote heart monitoring.

The authority for the new rules comes from Title II of the Communications Act of 1934. The new rules also call for the regulators to "forbear" — or refrain — from some provisions of Title II, including pricing regulation and other parts that are less relevant to broadband services.

The regulations will be published in the Federal Register in a few weeks. They become effective 30 days after publication.

Pro-business advocates and ISPs, including wireless carriers, have denounced Wheeler's approach. The proposal's insistence on laying out the do's and don'ts of operating Internet networks would inhibit ISPs from introducing new services — say, connected refrigerators and smartphone-controlled windows and doors — and limit innovations in improving their networks, they say.

"What doesn't make sense, and has never made sense, is to take a regulatory framework developed for Ma Bell in the 1930s and make her great grandchildren, with technologies and options undreamed of eighty years ago, live under it," said Jim Cicconi, AT&T's senior executive vice president-external and legislative affairs, in a statement.

The five-member commission voted 3 to 2 to approve the proposal, as expected. Joining Wheeler in voting for his plan were Commissioners Mignon Clyburn and Jessica Rosenworcel. Commissioners Ajit Pai and Michael O'Rielly, the two Republicans on the commission, voted against it.

"We cannot have a two-tiered Internet with fast lanes that speed the traffic of the privileged and leave the rest of us lagging behind," Rosenworcel said. "We cannot have gatekeepers who tell us what we can and cannot do and where we can and cannot go online."

The outcome is hardly surprising as all five commissioners had telegraphed their stances since Wheeler revealed the summary of his proposal earlier this month. President Obama came out strongly in support of the Title II option late last year.

Opponents sought to delay the vote until, citing a lack of transparency. On Monday, Pai and O'Rielly issued a joint statement criticizing Wheeler's refusal to reveal the entire 332-page plan and called for "the FCC leadership … to allow the American people a reasonable period of not less than 30 days to carefully study it" before the vote. The chairman made public only a summary before the vote.

O'Rielly reiterated his concern that Obama had inserted himself into the process. "I am just sick about what Chairman Wheeler was forced to go through during this process," O'Rielly said in a statement. "It was disgraceful to have the Administration overtake the Commission's rulemaking process and dictate an outcome for pure political purposes."

Several Republicans — Reps. Greg Walden, R-Ore. and Fred Upton, R-Mich., and Sen. John Thune, R-S.D. — helped create draft legislation in an effort to overrule the FCC's plans. Their legislation would ban paid prioritization, but falls short of reclassifying the Net as a utility.

"We will continue to seek a consensus solution, and hopefully bipartisan legislation, Cicconi said.

The FCC approved net neutrality rules since 2008. But Wheeler, a former tech industry executive and industry lobbyist, was forced to come up with a new proposal when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in early 2013 tossed out the earlier rules.

Anticipating Wheeler's proposals, ISPs have started to threaten lawsuits. "Instead of a clear set of rules moving forward, with a broad set of agreement behind them, we once again face the uncertainty of litigation," Cicconi said.

Some the key details of the proposal are still unclear. The FCC would have authority to enforce any "interconnection" agreements — deals struck between ISPs and content providers to transmit data more efficiently in the "back-end" of the Internet networks — that are "not just and reasonable."

But whether Netflix can continue to pay some ISPs to locate its servers closer to their networks' key distribution points to stream its movies without too much lag — as it does now — remains unclear.

In a lengthy speech before the crowd, Pai also questioned the FCC's ability to continue to refrain from the "forbearance" promises it made. The FCC also has agreed to not impose further tariffs or require ISPs to unbundle some services or file a burdensome amount of documents. But "the plan repeatedly states that it is only forbearing 'at this time,'" Pai said. "For other rules, the FCC will refrain 'for now.'"

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/...ules/24053057/

Garcia Bronco · 02-26-2015, 02:12 PM

Anyone think now that they'll try to gerimander what a "Legal content provider" is? And some tech has to have prioritization...so does this impact QoS for voice and video traffic?

**DaneMcCloud** · 02-26-2015, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Garcia Bronco

Anyone think now that they'll to germander what a "Legal content provider" is?

Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, iTunes, etc.

Garcia Bronco · 02-26-2015, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, iTunes, etc.

What about this site for example?

**loochy** · 02-26-2015, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Garcia Bronco

What about this site for example?

not legal

plz restrict bandwidth plz

ndws · 02-26-2015, 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hometeam

If my shitty ass country electric company can come up with the money to build THOUSANDS and THOUSANDS of miles of rural fiber lines, and provide uncapped, world-leading internet speed, at an affordable price, why cant companies making money hand over fist?

Oh I know. They can.

I was paying 7.99 per mb of download speed, and 53.99 (!!!!!) per mb of upload speed via centurylink

I now pay .10 per mb of upload and .10 per mb of download through an electric co-op.

So I dont want to hear they cant build infrastructure. Cant and wont are two different things.

If that shitty company is part of RUS or other funding programs, that's how they are able to deploy ftth. I work for one of those small shitty isp's that recently finished a ftth rollout in the past few years. It doesn't entirely all come out of the company piggy bank. There are a number of programs geared to make that kind of thing happen.

Mr. Laz · 02-26-2015, 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bearcat

Good. Completely absurd it even got to that point... if you didn't already know, all you have to do is look at what's happening in KC to know the ISPs are completely full of shit.

this

eDave · 02-26-2015, 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bearcat

Good. Completely absurd it even got to that point... if you didn't already know, all you have to do is look at what's happening in KC to know the ISPs are completely full of shit.

Didn't ATT SUDDENLY discover new bandwidth capacities to counter Google? LOL

**Bearcat** · 02-26-2015, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by petegz28

What is happening??

ISPs cry that bandwidth is expensive and someone (content providers, but more likely customers) should pay for all the bandwidth used by Netflix, Hulu, etc.

ISPs, most notably Comcast, contribute millions to campaign funds to buy votes instead of, you know, updating their shit that's put to shame by other countries.

Google Fiber happens.

TWC starts offering Fiber customers 100mbps service at the same cost as their normal shitty service (that I'm pretty sure didn't even exist a couple years ago) and now has 50mbps and 100mbps available to just about anyone.

AT&T comes out with gigabit service.

tl;dr -- Competition happened.

Reerun_KC · 02-26-2015, 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bearcat

ISPs cry that bandwidth is expensive and someone (content providers, but more likely customers) should pay for all the bandwidth used by Netflix, Hulu, etc.

ISPs, most notably Comcast, contribute millions to campaign funds to buy votes instead of, you know, updating their shit that's put to shame by other countries.

Google Fiber happens.

TWC starts offering Fiber customers 100mbps service at the same cost as their normal shitty service (that I'm pretty sure didn't even exist a couple years ago) and now has 50mbps and 100mbps available to just about anyone.

AT&T comes out with gigabit service.

tl;dr -- Competition happened.

Pakistan has a better network infrastructure than most of the US...

They have fiber to most villages and into almost all the homes so they can surf their gay male porn.

**ptlyon** · 02-26-2015, 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reerun_KC

Pakistan has a better network infrastructure than most of the US...

They have fiber to most villages and into almost all the homes so they can surf their gay male porn.

Imon Yourside · 02-26-2015, 03:03 PM

What scares me the most about this is the fact it sets precedent to do more unpopular things in the future. Am I wrong in assuming it will be easier to move forward regulating other aspects of the internet?

sedated · 02-26-2015, 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bearcat

TWC starts offering Fiber customers 100mbps service at the same cost as their normal shitty service (that I'm pretty sure didn't even exist a couple years ago) and now has 50mbps and 100mbps available to just about anyone.

AT&T comes out with gigabit service.

I was on the phone with one of TWC's "advanced" technical support, and his quote was "you have the basic package, which in a google zone is anything but basic". Then told a story about how people on the coasts were pissing and moaning about TWC not offering (or giving as they are doing in KC) 100 Mbps to them and only "those hayseeds in flyover country" could get it.

ModSocks · 02-26-2015, 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sedated

I was on the phone with one of TWC's "advanced" technical support, and his quote was "you have the basic package, which in a google zone is anything but basic". Then told a story about how people on the coasts were pissing and moaning about TWC not offering (or giving as they are doing in KC) 100 Mbps to them and only "those hayseeds in flyover country" could get it.

"Hayseeds"?

Yeah....i bet your Rep made that shit up.

Just Passin' By · 02-26-2015, 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KILLER_CLOWN

What scares me the most about this is the fact it sets precedent to do more unpopular things in the future. Am I wrong in assuming it will be easier to move forward regulating other aspects of the internet?

People cheering this are fools who can't be bothered to learn from history.

eDave · 02-26-2015, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reerun_KC

Pakistan has a better network infrastructure than most of the US...

They have fiber to most villages and into almost all the homes so they can surf their gay male porn.

02-26-2015, 12:37 PM
\|Zach\| For The Glory Of The City Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Kansas City Casino cash: $5346768	FCC Approves New Net Neutrality Rules FCC approves new net neutrality rules The Federal Communications Commission voted Thursday to implement new net neutrality rules designed to make sure Internet service providers treat all legal content equally. The historic vote on the proposal by FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler elicited hearty cheers from a wide array of technology companies and consumer groups while setting the table for further legal challenges from Internet service providers. The controversial proceedings that led up to the vote generated heated lobbying in Washington and public clamor on social media, all in efforts to steer the future direction of the rules that guide Internet traffic. "No one ... should control free and open access to the Internet," Wheeler said to applause from the standing room-only crowd gathered before the FCC panel. "It's the most powerful and pervasive platform on the planet. The Internet is too important to allow broadband providers to make the rules." Net neutrality, also called open Internet, is a principle that Internet networks are equally available to all types of legal content generators. Internet service providers (ISPs), mostly large cable or telephone companies, would be prohibited from discriminating against content by slowing transmission speeds or seeking payments in exchange for faster lanes of their Internet networks, a practice called "paid prioritization." Implementing the principle at a time when Internet streaming technology is changing so rapidly proved challenging to Wheeler as he sought to balance the varying interests of influential content streamers, like Netflix, and large ISPs that have spent millions to fight the effort. The FCC was besieged with passionate comments from both sides of the debate, receiving about 4 million comments, a record. In the end, Wheeler, with a nudge from President Obama, delivered on his proposals, though not without a fight from his colleagues and Republican lawmakers who wanted to delay the vote. Wheeler's proposal reclassifies ISPs as public utilities, like phone companies, that are subject to a set of regulations that ensure all consumers get fair access to their services. ISPs would be banned from paid prioritization deals, though they can set aside fast lanes for some exceptions, including public services, like remote heart monitoring. The authority for the new rules comes from Title II of the Communications Act of 1934. The new rules also call for the regulators to "forbear" — or refrain — from some provisions of Title II, including pricing regulation and other parts that are less relevant to broadband services. The regulations will be published in the Federal Register in a few weeks. They become effective 30 days after publication. Pro-business advocates and ISPs, including wireless carriers, have denounced Wheeler's approach. The proposal's insistence on laying out the do's and don'ts of operating Internet networks would inhibit ISPs from introducing new services — say, connected refrigerators and smartphone-controlled windows and doors — and limit innovations in improving their networks, they say. "What doesn't make sense, and has never made sense, is to take a regulatory framework developed for Ma Bell in the 1930s and make her great grandchildren, with technologies and options undreamed of eighty years ago, live under it," said Jim Cicconi, AT&T's senior executive vice president-external and legislative affairs, in a statement. The five-member commission voted 3 to 2 to approve the proposal, as expected. Joining Wheeler in voting for his plan were Commissioners Mignon Clyburn and Jessica Rosenworcel. Commissioners Ajit Pai and Michael O'Rielly, the two Republicans on the commission, voted against it. "We cannot have a two-tiered Internet with fast lanes that speed the traffic of the privileged and leave the rest of us lagging behind," Rosenworcel said. "We cannot have gatekeepers who tell us what we can and cannot do and where we can and cannot go online." The outcome is hardly surprising as all five commissioners had telegraphed their stances since Wheeler revealed the summary of his proposal earlier this month. President Obama came out strongly in support of the Title II option late last year. Opponents sought to delay the vote until, citing a lack of transparency. On Monday, Pai and O'Rielly issued a joint statement criticizing Wheeler's refusal to reveal the entire 332-page plan and called for "the FCC leadership … to allow the American people a reasonable period of not less than 30 days to carefully study it" before the vote. The chairman made public only a summary before the vote. O'Rielly reiterated his concern that Obama had inserted himself into the process. "I am just sick about what Chairman Wheeler was forced to go through during this process," O'Rielly said in a statement. "It was disgraceful to have the Administration overtake the Commission's rulemaking process and dictate an outcome for pure political purposes." Several Republicans — Reps. Greg Walden, R-Ore. and Fred Upton, R-Mich., and Sen. John Thune, R-S.D. — helped create draft legislation in an effort to overrule the FCC's plans. Their legislation would ban paid prioritization, but falls short of reclassifying the Net as a utility. "We will continue to seek a consensus solution, and hopefully bipartisan legislation, Cicconi said. The FCC approved net neutrality rules since 2008. But Wheeler, a former tech industry executive and industry lobbyist, was forced to come up with a new proposal when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in early 2013 tossed out the earlier rules. Anticipating Wheeler's proposals, ISPs have started to threaten lawsuits. "Instead of a clear set of rules moving forward, with a broad set of agreement behind them, we once again face the uncertainty of litigation," Cicconi said. Some the key details of the proposal are still unclear. The FCC would have authority to enforce any "interconnection" agreements — deals struck between ISPs and content providers to transmit data more efficiently in the "back-end" of the Internet networks — that are "not just and reasonable." But whether Netflix can continue to pay some ISPs to locate its servers closer to their networks' key distribution points to stream its movies without too much lag — as it does now — remains unclear. In a lengthy speech before the crowd, Pai also questioned the FCC's ability to continue to refrain from the "forbearance" promises it made. The FCC also has agreed to not impose further tariffs or require ISPs to unbundle some services or file a burdensome amount of documents. But "the plan repeatedly states that it is only forbearing 'at this time,'" Pai said. "For other rules, the FCC will refrain 'for now.'" http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/...ules/24053057/
Posts: 53,422

02-26-2015, 02:12 PM	#16
Garcia Bronco No Keys, No Problem Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Denver Casino cash: $5323136	Anyone think now that they'll try to gerimander what a "Legal content provider" is? And some tech has to have prioritization...so does this impact QoS for voice and video traffic? Last edited by Garcia Bronco; 02-26-2015 at 02:18 PM..
Posts: 30,832

02-26-2015, 03:03 PM	#26
Imon Yourside WhatUneed2Hear Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: AllSoulsMatter Casino cash: $2663181	What scares me the most about this is the fact it sets precedent to do more unpopular things in the future. Am I wrong in assuming it will be easier to move forward regulating other aspects of the internet? __________________ "Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour" Peter 5:8 "Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter's clay" Isaiah 29:16 "Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me." Revelation 3:20
Posts: 44,145