Computers FCC Approves New Net Neutrality Rules - Page 10

|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/

**petegz28** · 02-26-2015, 08:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baconeater

Well by all means start freaking out about it now!

Why does recognizing the inevitable have to equate to freaking out?

GloucesterChief · 02-26-2015, 08:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Exactly. Had this law not gone into effect, massive corporations with virtually unlimited resources could put the little internet guy out of business quickly.

So for now, it remains a level playing field.

The myth of a non government sanctioned predatory monopoly. Not going to happen. If a monopoly becomes predatory without government protection and sanction the raising of prices signals that there is a death of supply, so new competition enters the market.

There hasn't been a monopoly that has been predatory towards consumers without government intervention and protection.

**DaneMcCloud** · 02-26-2015, 08:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by petegz28

Since the internet is now a "utility", I fully expect to see things coming down the pipe that aren't so friendly. Our government is nothing if not greedy and controlling.

I'm sure the end result will have you packing heat while surfing the 'net.

You can never be too safe.

**petegz28** · 02-26-2015, 08:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

I'm sure the end result will have you packing heat while surfing the 'net.

You can never be too safe.

Nah, I'll just tell them I know Dane McCloud and watch them kiss my ass.

KC native · 02-26-2015, 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GloucesterChief

The myth of a non government sanctioned predatory monopoly. Not going to happen. If a monopoly becomes predatory without government protection and sanction the raising of prices signals that there is a death of supply, so new competition enters the market.

There hasn't been a monopoly that has been predatory towards consumers without government intervention and protection.

I'll take fringe nut job opinions for $1000, Alex.

**BossChief** · 02-26-2015, 08:29 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.

In cedar falls, we pay 57.50 (total after tax, no contract) per month for 50meg internet with no data cap.

All fiber

**DaneMcCloud** · 02-26-2015, 08:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GloucesterChief

The myth of a non government sanctioned predatory monopoly. Not going to happen. If a monopoly becomes predatory without government protection and sanction the raising of prices signals that there is a death of supply, so new competition enters the market.

There hasn't been a monopoly that has been predatory towards consumers without government intervention and protection.

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.

GloucesterChief · 02-26-2015, 08:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mr. tegu

So the non gamer paying that same ISP is screwed and they pay the same rate as you but their favorite content is half the speed? What happens when content providers have to start paying up to get their content on the higher speed?

"Hey Hulu, this is what Netflix pays for higher speeds for their content so you can either match it or stick with not giving us what they give and be stuck on the slower speeds. It's your fault when customers stop using you."

Then they switch to the ISP that favors the content they want. Isn't competition in the free market grand instead of the government regulated morass you favor where neither customer gets the services they want the most?

**DaFace** · 02-26-2015, 08:32 PM

Sometimes I like these threads. They help me to see the people who are so far out of touch that I honestly have no desire to interact with them. It's positively unfathomable to me that someone could look at the history of the internet and decide that this is a bad thing.

mr. tegu · 02-26-2015, 08:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GloucesterChief

Then they switch to the ISP that favors the content they want. Isn't competition in the free market grand instead of the government regulated morass you favor where neither customer gets the services they want the most?

Because everyone has multiple options since companies have been so eager to compete with one another.

KC native · 02-26-2015, 08:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GloucesterChief

Then they switch to the ISP that favors the content they want. Isn't competition in the free market grand instead of the government regulated morass you favor where neither customer gets the services they want the most?

So explain how Texas went from being below average in electricity costs to way above average after electricity was deregulated in Texas?

tk13 · 02-26-2015, 08:36 PM

Have to admit I had no idea until today there were even people against net neutrality. I thought the only people against it were lobbyists, ISPs, and people who owned stock in ISPs.

GloucesterChief · 02-26-2015, 08:36 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.

So it is not that Guitar Center provided a service or product that people wanted to buy and found at least similar enough to their smaller competition that people didn't mind?

They suddenly got all this money out of the ether right?

Please, if people didn't like Guitar Center no matter how many stores they put out of business they wouldn't be making money.

You may not personally like the results of the free market but that doesn't mean it isn't working.

|Zach| · 02-26-2015, 08:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tk13

Have to admit I had no idea until today there were even people against net neutrality. I thought the only people against it were lobbyists, ISPs, and people who owned stock in ISPs.

This.

GloucesterChief · 02-26-2015, 08:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mr. tegu

Because everyone has multiple options since companies have been so eager to compete with one another.

They are when they are allowed to do so. Every company wants to eliminate their competition or reduce their market share. Currently, there are not allowed to do so in most places due to government intervention in the market.

You are complaining about a problem caused by government (local) but blaming the free market and running to government (federal) to further regulate (restrict) the free market.

The problem is government not the ISPs.

02-26-2015, 12:37 PM
\|Zach\| For The Glory Of The City Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Kansas City Casino cash: $5276768	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: 53,446

02-26-2015, 08:32 PM	#144
DaFace Kind of a mod Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Donkey Land Casino cash: $1946899	Sometimes I like these threads. They help me to see the people who are so far out of touch that I honestly have no desire to interact with them. It's positively unfathomable to me that someone could look at the history of the internet and decide that this is a bad thing.
Posts: 51,822

02-26-2015, 08:36 PM	#147
tk13 ... Join Date: Nov 2001 Casino cash: $1902500	Have to admit I had no idea until today there were even people against net neutrality. I thought the only people against it were lobbyists, ISPs, and people who owned stock in ISPs.
Posts: 54,967