Computers FCC Approves New Net Neutrality Rules - Page 9

|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/

KC native · 02-26-2015, 08:04 PM

Holy ****. There are people still arguing that this is a bad thing?

**DaneMcCloud** · 02-26-2015, 08:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

Again, maybe its a Fox News misinformation thing, It's about double charging for that bandwidth. And huge corporations being able to buy up all the bandwidth and squeeze out small businesses.

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.

**Bugeater** · 02-26-2015, 08:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GloucesterChief

Yes. Mark Cuban who made his billions from the internet providing content opposes net neutrality but you know he is just misinformed.

Yes, because billionaires become billionaires by always having the general public's best interests in mind.

**petegz28** · 02-26-2015, 08:09 PM

According to USA Today, no one outside of the FCC has actually seen the 317-322 pages regarding this regulation. I will be curious to see what else is in there. The main issues everyone who seems to champion seems to be a no brainer and you have to wonder why it would take a year and 322 pages to say that ISP's cannot sell preferential treatment?

Mr. Laz · 02-26-2015, 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baconeater

Yes, because billionaires become billionaires by always having the general public's best interests in mind.

exactly

I bet Donald Trump is against Net Neutrality too.

Mr. Laz · 02-26-2015, 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by petegz28

According to USA Today, no one outside of the FCC has actually seen the 317-322 pages regarding this regulation. I will be curious to see what else is in there. The main issues everyone who seems to champion seems to be a no brainer and you have to wonder why it would take a year and 322 pages to say that ISP's cannot sell preferential treatment.

This is definitely a concern.

No telling what kind of shit people have tried to sneak in there.

mr. tegu · 02-26-2015, 08:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GloucesterChief

I would actually. If I am a gamer I would want my ISP to favor my gaming packets. If I like streaming videos, I want my ISP to favor those. If I have VOIP I want my ISP to favor that.

There are very good reasons why a customer would want their ISP to favor one type of packet over another.

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."

**Bearcat** · 02-26-2015, 08:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by petegz28

According to USA Today, no one outside of the FCC has actually seen the 317-322 pages regarding this regulation. I will be curious to see what else is in there. The main issues everyone who seems to champion seems to be a no brainer and you have to wonder why it would take a year and 322 pages to say that ISP's cannot sell preferential treatment?

Well, the law about gas container regulations was 250 pages...

**srvy** · 02-26-2015, 08:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jspchief

I think there is a ton of misinformation being put out by right wing media. Hannity had a politician on the other night spouting total nonsense similar to what these guys are saying.

There's a lot of information out there, but it takes time to understand this issue. Too many people think they are informed by soundbites.

Enlighten us since it seems you were privy to these 300+ pages.

**dirk digler** · 02-26-2015, 08:16 PM

As I said in the DC thread this is a good thing and I support it but there will be unintended consequences from their action. It had to happen though to keep the ISP's from killing content providers like Netflix, Amazon etc and also to allow me to continue to watch porn without all the stuttering and downloading bittorrents.

Fish · 02-26-2015, 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GloucesterChief

Actually working just fine without the government involvement. The dispute between Comcast and Netflix was a business dispute. Netflix's service was flooding Comcast's network taking up about a third of the bandwith in the evening.

Netflix's service was flooding Comcast's network?

You mean, Comcast's own customers were accessing Netflix. You know... using the service they're paying for..

That's essentially what this is about. Comcast wants to control which sources their customers access the most, and throttle access to those sources unless a premium is paid.

**petegz28** · 02-26-2015, 08:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dirk digler

As I said in the DC thread this is a good thing and I support it but there will be unintended consequences from their action. It had to happen though to keep the ISP's from killing content providers like Netflix, Amazon etc and also to allow me to continue to watch porn without all the stuttering and downloading bittorrents.

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.

KC native · 02-26-2015, 08:21 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'll take unfounded and paranoid nonsense for $1000, Alex.

**petegz28** · 02-26-2015, 08:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KC native

I'll take unfounded and paranoid nonsense for $1000, Alex.

Yeah because the history of our government is so against my statement, right?

**Bugeater** · 02-26-2015, 08:22 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.

Well by all means start freaking out about it now!

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, 08:04 PM	#121
KC native Banned Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Fort Worth, TX Casino cash: $10049239	Holy ****. There are people still arguing that this is a bad thing?
Posts: 24,946

02-26-2015, 08:09 PM	#124
petegz28 Supporter Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Olathe, Ks Casino cash: $2714127	According to USA Today, no one outside of the FCC has actually seen the 317-322 pages regarding this regulation. I will be curious to see what else is in there. The main issues everyone who seems to champion seems to be a no brainer and you have to wonder why it would take a year and 322 pages to say that ISP's cannot sell preferential treatment?
Posts: 128,055

02-26-2015, 08:16 PM	#130
dirk digler Please squeeze Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Clinton, MO Casino cash: $3184644	As I said in the DC thread this is a good thing and I support it but there will be unintended consequences from their action. It had to happen though to keep the ISP's from killing content providers like Netflix, Amazon etc and also to allow me to continue to watch porn without all the stuttering and downloading bittorrents.
Posts: 66,324