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/

Tom Wheeler - Apparently not a Dingo.

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.

Terrible situation that will, hopefully, be quickly reversed

what?

What is happening??

Pete has no idea why neutrality is desired let alone needed...I am going to step aside to allow is idiocy to take center stage.

google fiber

You should have stepped aside and left this topic in DC.

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.

It's a huge deal.

It can be a huge deal in the DC section, cuz I can just about guarantee this thread ends up there.

So, does this mean an internet service provider can't charge say

$50 for 200 mbps
$30 for 100 mbps
$15 for 10 mbps
$10 for 2 mbps

It would just all be the same speed, for the same price??

???? anybody know

Maybe if you shut the hell up it won't

No. They can still offer different tiers of service.

It just means they can't prioritize websites/content on the basis of those companies paying for "fast lanes".

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?

Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, iTunes, etc.

What about this site for example?

not legal

plz restrict bandwidth plz

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.

this

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

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.

ROFL

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?

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.

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

Exactly as I suspected then huh? Ya i find it hard to cheer for this, the CP lawyers can step in and answer the question but i know how this movie ends. I've seen it in other aspects of our life.

And probably all fiber... Its a cluster**** for sure... But they make us Hayseeds in flyover country look like we in the stone ages with our technology....

Its embarrassing as I have seen it first hand.

We should have let poor St. Vanderbilt keep his trains. :(

Okay, I guess I'm one of these fools you speak of.

Explain to me why Net Neutrality is a bad thing.

They're under the impression that these rules are set in stone and that no governing body has the power to change this....

It doesn't allow the rich to get richer.

Well sure, I'm not that foolish. I understand that when the tides change, so do the rules. But does that make this a bad ruling?

If you're saying it shouldn't have been ruled on in the first place, I totally agree. But, given that it was ruled on and there were two possible outcomes, one is clearly better than the other.

The people cheering this largely don't even understand what actually happened. This isn't just a one off law added by Congress.

Maybe those people cheering will smarten up and figure it out. In the meantime, maybe the courts will strike down this FCC power grab on the issue, as they did the last time. One can always hope.

Seems safe.

The people posting in this thread largely speaking in vague terms on the ignorance of others could always elaborate.

This

/its not getting struck down. That was a major reason they made this change, so it would stand up to the courts. When such a major element of your post is so very wrong, chances are the rest of the post is garbage as well.

So, from what I understand, a couple people think net neutrality is a slippery slope and now the FCC will control us all.

Gotcha.

You're reeruned.

page 332

In which specific aspects have you seen this?

dumb **** is dumb.

Damn it, you stole my thunder. I was about to tell Killer_Clown how reeruned the slippery slope argument is.

LMAO

Nothing in my post was wrong, you idiot.

And then....



What else would you expect?

As this is in my wheel house, I applaud the FCC decision and think it will hold up in the courts.

If there is an intelligent discussion about this, I'd be happy to join that thread but flinging insults and poo...... no thanks.

I don't think it will be challenged in court.

I'm not sure if you understand this legislation.

With the passage of Net Neutrality, small businesses are the clear winner. Had it not passed, huge corporations could pay ISP's to provide their customers with more bandwidth while slowing down internet speeds (and the traffic that goes along with it) to smaller business, independent websites, etc.

It basically keeps the internet "neutral" gateway in which corporations cannot control the flow of information.

I think it will and by you know whom

I love you

ROFL

This is good.

(That's about all I have to contribute.)

If you men the Repubs then I'd say they have not the spine to challenge anything. They'll yack and bitch and all that but as always, stop short of doing anything about it.

Cable companies?

The GOP will sue because they want you to pay more and so the rich get richer. Did you vote for the GOP??? Well if you did and you're not rich you are a fool. They want to make you poorer and the rich richer. You might as well become a Scientologist.

Outside of all of it, the most glaring wrongness is this:

"In the meantime, maybe the courts will strike down this FCC power grab on the issue, as they did the last time. One can always hope. "

From here:

http://media.npr.org/documents/2015/...eninternet.pdf

It's built to withstand the courts. In short, you are the very definition of wrong.

I guess that makes more sense, especially with comments like "move forward regulating other aspects of the internet," when the whole point is not regulating the internet.

We need to end women's suffrage, too!

meh...

LMAO The meltdown on the FOX news facebook page is priceless.

LMAO

I think Dane is right... and Fox headlined it as "sweeping Internet regulation plan," so people are freaking out about it, thinking "net neutrality" = "throttling the internet".

My completely apolitical take: it'll go horribly wrong. Because that's what government do.

Wow, that Fox News post takes any train wreck here and puts it to shame... I stay far far away from politics, but holy shit talk about uninformed. LMAO

Anyone who watches that $3it for anything other than legs or election coverage is full blown dumb as ****...

Great news.

End thread right there!

Secrecy in Government is so cool! Don't ya love it. Of course CP experts are making comments on 300 some pages only a hand full of people have seen and Im willing to bet none are CP members.

Pretty soon all topics will be relegated to DC and never discussed in polite company. Say hello to corporate-ocracy.

This is only a political issue because one side decided to turn the partisan spigot on it in hopes of drumming up support.

Strict rules might be even better than "sweeping regulations".... it's basically saying "Rule #1: There are no rules".

But Loneturdinthebowl knows

And I was just texting someone about the hilarity and they said "I don't get your point, didn't they just approve internet regulation?"


At that point I had to read the beginning of the article again to make sure I wasn't going crazy. LMAO

leave it up to that POS network, they shouldn't be allowed to label themselves 'news'


of course that cum dumpster Drudge is right there with them as usual, with snarky shit

Misinformation happens on both sides.


It goes to show how many people can't think for themselves.

Please explain how reclassifying ISPs under a stricter regulatory scheme is not internet regulation.

This is great news. Maybe now I'll be able to get my Directv on-demand to work with my Comcast broadband. I can't prove it with my limited expertise, but since we switched from Century link to Comcast our dtv on-demand suddenly stopped working and I'm sure it's because Comcast doesn't want to let Dtv customers use their Internet to watch tv. You could connect to the Internet but would soon after get disconnected. Dtv tech support couldn't figure it out and blamed Comcast and Comcast blamed Dtv. Really irritating.

maintaining the status quo - the internet we've all grown to love.