Computers FCC Approves New Net Neutrality Rules - Page 13

|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/

**BigRedChief** · 02-26-2015, 09:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by petegz28

How can you be all in about a regulation when they haven't released all the details yet? The part we think we know about is good. I am just sort of asking the same question you just asked but back at you.

I bet its an FCC version of Obama-care death panels. But, I could be wrong.

GloucesterChief · 02-26-2015, 09:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mr. tegu

I find it hard to believe you are in favor of processes that would allow company x to pay an ISP more than their competitors to keep company y's product down as an inferior product by limiting the speed to company y's product. A new innovative competitor would have no chance to really even get started.

It would be the opposite actually. Just like the agreement that Netflix has with Comcast and Verizon. They pay to have their product faster not to slow down somebody elses.

tk13 · 02-26-2015, 09:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GloucesterChief

AOL pretty much tried that. It worked for a while but they are a shell of their former self. I don't think in a free market you would have that. You would have ISPs that would prioritize games, or streaming video, or VoIP though. Offering the consumer faster speeds for what their particular hobby is.

Trying to restrict is probably a non-seller.

Why would that be a non-seller? If you don't put some kind of rule in place, Company A can just go to every ISP and pay to have Company B throttled. Why wouldn't you? The name of the game is to crush your competition. If you had the money, why wouldn't you raise your speeds while hurting your competition? If you had the ability to keep customers from going to a competitor, you'd take it.

**petegz28** · 02-26-2015, 09:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

I bet its an FCC version of Obama-care death panels. But, I could be wrong.

cool story, bro

jspchief · 02-26-2015, 09:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mr. tegu

I find it hard to believe you are in favor of processes that would allow company x to pay an ISP more than their competitors to keep company y's product down as an inferior product by limiting the speed to company y's product. A new innovative competitor would have no chance to really even get started.

And make no mistake. This is about cable companies that are facing competition from online television, using their control of the internet to stifle competition in the television market.

All comcast, time warner, etc need to do is price Netflix ' s "fast lane" to a degree that it's no longer a viable business. Don't want to pay for the fast lane? Then the cable company throttles bandwidth so the competing service is so poor no one has a realistic choice.

It's an industry built on monopolies, through an infrastructure payed for with tax money. And people are going to complain this ruling will kill competition?

GloucesterChief · 02-26-2015, 09:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tk13

Why would that be a non-seller? If you don't put some kind of rule in place, Company A can just go to every ISP and pay to have Company B throttled. Why wouldn't you? The name of the game is to crush your competition. If you had the money, why wouldn't you raise your speeds while hurting your competition?

Because the ISP is a business too and they don't want to piss off their customers and Company B and lose them.

Basically, company A would be paying the ISP to build out bandwith for them. Company B can opt to do the same or not.

**mdchiefsfan** · 02-26-2015, 09:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Bullshit.

I watched Guitar Center go public and wipe out every mom and pop store on Sunset and Ventura boulevards, then proceed to do it across the country. Their tactics are Mafia-like aim to crush every single Internet seller, large or small.

Had this not passed, GC could have bought bandwidth in order to further crush their competition.

It's because of those damn kids you see at Guitar Center, isn't it? They hire pros to look like really skilled kids to draw in the customers and raise profits. You don't see that outside mom and pop stores all the time, do you?

**Dave Lane** · 02-26-2015, 09:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by petegz28

So, Dave "I do" Lane, tell us about the details no one outside of the FCC has yet to see. Since you know so much, I mean.

Thank you for admitting the obvious. I shall see to it that when the internet death panels arrive at your home that you are treated with dignity before you are executed.

**petegz28** · 02-26-2015, 09:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jspchief

And make no mistake. This is about cable companies that are facing competition from online television, using their control of the internet to stifle competition in the television market.

All comcast, time warner, etc need to do is price Netflix ' s "fast lane" to a degree that it's no longer a viable business. Don't want to pay for the fast lane? Then the cable company throttles bandwidth so the competing service is so poor no one has a realistic choice.

It's an industry built on monopolies, through an infrastructure payed for with tax money. And people are going to complain this ruling will kill competition?

This regulation does nothing to get rid of the cable company monopolies.

GloucesterChief · 02-26-2015, 09:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jspchief

And make no mistake. This is about cable companies that are facing competition from online television, using their control of the internet to stifle competition in the television market.

All comcast, time warner, etc need to do is price Netflix ' s "fast lane" to a degree that it's no longer a viable business. Don't want to pay for the fast lane? Then the cable company throttles bandwidth so the competing service is so poor no one has a realistic choice.

It's an industry built on monopolies, through an infrastructure payed for with tax money. And people are going to complain this ruling will kill competition?

You may have missed it but Netflix did a lot of throttling themselves.

**petegz28** · 02-26-2015, 09:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave Lane

Thank you for admitting the obvious. I shall see to it that when the internet death panels arrive at your home that you are treated with dignity before you are executed.

What was that? You don't know? I thought you said you knew?

jspchief · 02-26-2015, 09:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GloucesterChief

Because the ISP is a business too and they don't want to piss off their customers and Company B and lose them.

Basically, company A would be paying the ISP to build out bandwith for them. Company B can opt to do the same or not.

You don't seem to grasp that these Internet companies don't have competition in a huge portion of their markets. They don't have to worry about pissing off their customers. Look at how poor Comcasts reputation is, yet how much of the market they control.

**Dave Lane** · 02-26-2015, 09:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GloucesterChief

Because the ISP is a business too and they don't want to piss off their customers and Company B and lose them.

Basically, company A would be paying the ISP to build out bandwith for them. Company B can opt to do the same or not.

Do you understand these ISP collude together and refuse to compete. You do understand that right? I ran an ISP for many years. What the ILECs did to the little guys was brutally efficient I will give them that.

**Bowser** · 02-26-2015, 09:37 PM

Just admit it Pete - you're pissed at this more because Obama backed it and less about what you're afraid the FCC "might" do down the road.

**Dave Lane** · 02-26-2015, 09:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by petegz28

What was that? You don't know? I thought you said you knew?

The obvious fact I know way more about this than you. I will see that your death is as pleasant as possible for that admission.

02-26-2015, 12:37 PM
\|Zach\| For The Glory Of The City Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Kansas City Casino cash: $5206768	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: 53,468

02-26-2015, 09:37 PM	#194
Bowser sorta mod-ish Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: KC North Casino cash: $3201616	Just admit it Pete - you're pissed at this more because Obama backed it and less about what you're afraid the FCC "might" do down the road.
Posts: 101,044