Computers FCC Approves New Net Neutrality Rules - Page 8

|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/

**Bearcat** · 02-26-2015, 07:36 PM

And bandwidth sure was scarce around here a couple years ago.... but, now there's a company that gives 5mbps away for free and will do so for the next 7 years, and now the other ISPs can't seem to give away that bandwidth fast enough.

Weird.

GloucesterChief · 02-26-2015, 07:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bearcat

That certainly didn't happen with ISPs... it's TWC or satellite here, Comcast or satellite a bit south of here, etc. And unless the utilities are going to share the same infrastructure, it seems like that would be incredibly inefficient.

Government sanctioned monopolies. Sounds like TWC has a franchise agreement with your local city or county.

**petegz28** · 02-26-2015, 07:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Laz

So does this stop search engines and ISP from returning searches etc for paying sites first as well?

I don't know but I wish it would make travel sites have to sell me direct flight tickets as cheap as tickets with layovers!!!

**BigRedChief** · 02-26-2015, 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bearcat

And bandwidth sure was scarce around here a couple years ago.... but, now there's a company that gives 5mbps away for free and will do so for the next 7 years, and now the other ISPs can't seem to give away that bandwidth fast enough.

Weird.

I have went from 40mbps to 70mps in 1 1/2 years down here for the same price. Every time someone else comes into the market and offers more bandwidth for cheaper, TWC bumps up their bandwidth.

Let the free market rein. Seems like that would be straight out of the Republican dogma.

GloucesterChief · 02-26-2015, 07:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

I have went from 40mbps to 70mps in 1 1/2 years down here for the same price. Every time someone else comes into the market and offers more bandwidth for cheaper, TWC bumps up their bandwidth.

Let the free market rein. Seems like that would be straight out of the Republican dogma.

Gee, I thought you said self regulation wasn't working. Seems like it and competition is working just fine.

Perhaps you don't need the FCC to come in and screw everything up.

**petegz28** · 02-26-2015, 07:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

I have went from 40mbps to 70mps in 1 1/2 years down here for the same price. Every time someone else comes into the market and offers more bandwidth for cheaper, TWC bumps up their bandwidth.

Let the free market rein. Seems like that would be straight out of the Republican dogma.

Um that seems to conflict with some of your other posts. Just saying....

**DaneMcCloud** · 02-26-2015, 07:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GloucesterChief

Gee, I thought you said self regulation wasn't working. Seems like it and competition is working just fine.

Perhaps you don't need the FCC to come in and screw everything up.

You really don't seem to understand this ruling. You and Just Passing By.

Maybe it's a Massachusssets thing.

mr. tegu · 02-26-2015, 07:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GloucesterChief

Gee, I thought you said self regulation wasn't working. Seems like it and competition is working just fine.

Perhaps you don't need the FCC to come in and screw everything up.

You wouldn't mind ISPs being able to favor certain content so that some is faster than others?

GloucesterChief · 02-26-2015, 07:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

You really don't seem to understand this ruling. You and Just Passing By.

Considering that it is 300+ pages instead of a few defining what Net Neutrality is. I am guessing there is a whole lot more to it than that. Even then, more regulation means more compliance costs which drive out new competition leaving the large companies entrenched.

Quote:

Maybe it's a Massachusssets thing.

I am not from Massachusetts but I wouldn't think a Scandinavian would understand that there is more than one place called Gloucester.

jspchief · 02-26-2015, 07:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

You really don't seem to understand this ruling. You and Just Passing By.

Maybe it's a Massachusssets thing.

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.

GloucesterChief · 02-26-2015, 07:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mr. tegu

You wouldn't mind ISPs being able to favor certain content so that some is faster than others?

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.

GloucesterChief · 02-26-2015, 07:56 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.

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

Mr. Laz · 02-26-2015, 07:58 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.

you really don't understand, do you?

**BigRedChief** · 02-26-2015, 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by petegz28

Um that seems to conflict with some of your other posts. Just saying....

This is not about companies. Or about their right to charge whatever they want to charge for that bandwidth. They are free to charge whatever they want for their bandwidth. It just has to charge every customer the same rate and not throttle their content unless they pay more than everyone else. And if you don't pay more.....we will throttle you and ruin your business, so pay us pal or else. If every company is doing this to every customer, there is no fair market.

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.

**Bearcat** · 02-26-2015, 08:02 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.

Sounds like he's mostly against bad government and some speculation about TV and the internet.

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, 07:36 PM	#106
Bearcat Would an idiot do that? Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Arizona Casino cash: $2734931	And bandwidth sure was scarce around here a couple years ago.... but, now there's a company that gives 5mbps away for free and will do so for the next 7 years, and now the other ISPs can't seem to give away that bandwidth fast enough. Weird. __________________
Posts: 55,403