FCC Approves New Net Neutrality Rules

[|Zach|]

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]

Originally Posted by Cunning Linguist

You didn't use his name (we all know what you mean by administration, however), but this is your comment regarding full document not being published directly from the thread in DC.

And to elaborate further, this had nothing to do with the ruling. It had to do with the regulation not being made public.

Try a little harder next time.

[Don Corlemahomes]

Originally Posted by petegz28

Stand by what I said.....I never once said nor blamed Obama. As your girlfriend cosmo loves to remind us all, the "administration" is not Obama.

Do you agree, such that when you say administration you mean not obama?

[KC native]

Originally Posted by GloucesterChief

Here is a blog post with links to the original reports research. Decide for yourself.

And here's a guy from Level 3 that says they are full of shit

http://blog.level3.com/open-internet...tal-mea-culpa/

[Bearcat]

Originally Posted by GloucesterChief

Points were being made that there wasn't a free market and more government regulation wouldn't make for a free market since franchise agreements still exist.

Gotcha... but, that wasn't exactly the point of this anyway. Google Fiber will go a long way towards fixing that, and in the meantime, today's ruling will hopefully prevent shit from getting even worse.

[petegz28]

Originally Posted by Cunning Linguist

Do you agree, such that when you say administration you mean not obama?

Do you even realize that post had nothing to do with the ruling? We were talking about the regulation and the lack of its publicity.

So **** off already. I never blamed Obama for this going through the FCC as opposed to Congress. Now

[Don Corlemahomes]

Originally Posted by petegz28

Do you even realize that post had nothing to do with the ruling? We were talking about the regulation and the lack of its publicity.

So **** off already. I never blamed Obama for this going through the FCC as opposed to Congress. Now

I can't tell if you are dishonest or just dumb.

[petegz28]

Originally Posted by Cunning Linguist

I can't tell if you are dishonest or just dumb.

I can tell your a dumb ****. Now and go away.

[Don Corlemahomes]

Originally Posted by petegz28

I can tell your a dumb ****. Now and go away.

So both; just as I suspected.

[Bearcat]

Originally Posted by petegz28

Well let's look at that because there is some merit to that argument. Google Fiber did more to lower prices and increase bandwidth for the consumer than any government ruling. I realize I am talking about the consumer end but nonetheless, the free market did its job there so you can't just throw the baby out with the bath water.

Oh, I'm all for the government not being involved... FFS, the damn thing is 300 pages, and only government could do that to such a simple issue. But, Google Fiber isn't fixing the market soon... it's been what, 4 years since they chose KC and it's still not completely rolled out (and I'm not blaming Google, it's not a simple task)?

Hell, to that point, I see why the ISPs are pushing something so absurd... squeeze all you can out of it until you're forced to actually upgrade your shit and charge reasonable prices.

If/when Google fixes shit and it's a free market with actual competition, etc; sure, throw out net neutrality stuff, because all the ISPs will be providing more bandwidth than anyone ever needs.

Until that happens, if it takes 300 pages to stop the ISPs from being even more evil, I'm all for it.

[GloucesterChief]

Originally Posted by KC native

And here's a guy from Level 3 that says they are full of shit

http://blog.level3.com/open-internet...tal-mea-culpa/

I am not saying that Verizon is an angel and Netflix isn't either. I am sure both used dirty tactics in negotiation. You know what though? They came to agreement without the government stepping in. That is what is supposed to happen. Not for one party to go running off the government to come down on their side.

Of course I believe Level3 for their study in Los Angeles but that blog post doesn't mention the M-Labs report linked in the blog post I posted.

[GloucesterChief]

Originally Posted by Bearcat

Gotcha... but, that wasn't exactly the point of this anyway. Google Fiber will go a long way towards fixing that, and in the meantime, today's ruling will hopefully prevent shit from getting even worse.

Doubtful. The government always makes things worse because it is ham handed and begotten to political, not economic interests. Not to mention regulatory capture.

[petegz28]

Originally Posted by Bearcat

Oh, I'm all for the government not being involved... FFS, the damn thing is 300 pages, and only government could do that to such a simple issue. But, Google Fiber isn't fixing the market soon... it's been what, 4 years since they chose KC and it's still not completely rolled out (and I'm not blaming Google, it's not a simple task)?

Hell, to that point, I see why the ISPs are pushing something so absurd... squeeze all you can out of it until you're forced to actually upgrade your shit and charge reasonable prices.

If/when Google fixes shit and it's a free market with actual competition, etc; sure, throw out net neutrality stuff, because all the ISPs will be providing more bandwidth than anyone ever needs.

Until that happens, if it takes 300 pages to stop the ISPs from being even more evil, I'm all for it.

Actually the mere threat of Google Fiber in the area got my cable bill lowered by $100 and increased channels and internet speed. so while GF is still slow rolling, the price effect of competition is happening all over by companies trying to get out in front of it.

I am all for what we think has happened. It's what else that might be in the 300 pages that we don't know about yet that I am reserving judgment on.

[GloucesterChief]

Originally Posted by Bearcat

Oh, I'm all for the government not being involved... FFS, the damn thing is 300 pages, and only government could do that to such a simple issue. But, Google Fiber isn't fixing the market soon... it's been what, 4 years since they chose KC and it's still not completely rolled out (and I'm not blaming Google, it's not a simple task)?

Hell, to that point, I see why the ISPs are pushing something so absurd... squeeze all you can out of it until you're forced to actually upgrade your shit and charge reasonable prices.

If/when Google fixes shit and it's a free market with actual competition, etc; sure, throw out net neutrality stuff, because all the ISPs will be providing more bandwidth than anyone ever needs.

Until that happens, if it takes 300 pages to stop the ISPs from being even more evil, I'm all for it.

That is the problem. Once government regulates an industry very rarely are those regulations rolled back even with all the negative consequences that usually follow.

[Discuss Thrower]

Originally Posted by Dave Lane

Eventually pots is going away. ILECs will become ISPs. A few very rural CLECs may hang on but 20 years from now no one will remember a phone line.

And that's good and well... if everyone migrates to cities or suburbs.

But I'm sure it'll be the ISP's fault when they refuse to upgrade from any copper lines to towns with fewer than 10,000 people for broadband because they can't justify the expense.

[Bearcat]

Originally Posted by petegz28

Actually the mere threat of Google Fiber in the area got my cable bill lowered by $100 and increased channels and internet speed. so while GF is still slow rolling, the price effect of competition is happening all over by companies trying to get out in front of it.

I am all for what we think has happened. It's what else that might be in the 300 pages that we don't know about yet that I am reserving judgment on.

I was curious how quickly other providers were reacting in Johnson County, LS, etc; but even then I assume it takes a contract between Google and that location before the other ISPs will do anything.... and even if it only takes an announcement of future Fiber, we're only at 7 cities at this point.

Fair enough, and in response to that and what GC said, I'm just an IT geek and only care about the net neutrality part of it... the issue itself and the need for government interaction and like others have said, the thought of there being opposition outside of ISPs is just mind boggling. The only politics I ever pay attention to come to me via The Daily Show, so I'm well aware how the government is just as corrupt and as much out for themselves & money and how they're blind to those they work for than the ISPs.

So yeah, I'm not arguing for that part, either, but given the circumstances & outside of something crazy in those 300 pages, it seems pretty clear that the consumers won one.