...

|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, 09:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bowser

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.

I'm not pissed at it. I never said I was against it, for what we know about.

**petegz28** · 02-26-2015, 09:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave Lane

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.

What is it you know, Dave? Tell us. No one has seen the actual regulation so I am just curious as to what more you think you know than anyone else?

**dirk digler** · 02-26-2015, 09:41 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?

100% right.

Also in the majority of the country there is only 1 or 2 options for Internet service because the barriers to entry are to high and because of state laws and regulations that favored the big companies.

KC native · 02-26-2015, 09:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GloucesterChief

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

heh, a fringe op-ed held out as authoritative.

Confirmation bias FTW!

**Dave Lane** · 02-26-2015, 09:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bowser

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.

How long has it been since Pete last went unhinged? Couple weeks? That's not too bad by Pete standards. At least no one in the lounge had to witness the 9/11 insanity.

**Bearcat** · 02-26-2015, 09:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KC native

The ISPs have refrained from competing with each other to protect their margins.

The ISPs are the problem.

A few minutes spent comparing the services/cost of Google Fiber to all other ISPs should drive home both points.

It's equivalent to a new company offering gas for 3 cents/gallon.... you don't see a massive correction like that in a free market.

If that doesn't scream something is wrong with the ISPs, the whole economy must be ****ed.

**petegz28** · 02-26-2015, 09:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave Lane

How long has it been since Pete last went unhinged? Couple weeks? That's not too bad by Pete standards. At least no one in the lounge had to witness the 9/11 insanity.

I'll take your 3rd consecutive post of not answering my question as an admission you don't know jack from shit.

Discuss Thrower · 02-26-2015, 09:46 PM

Meh. Big telco still wins. Local exchanges are gonna be nuked but that's no concern to anyone here, is it.

**petegz28** · 02-26-2015, 09:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bearcat

A few minutes spent comparing the services/cost of Google Fiber to all other ISPs should drive home both points.

It's equivalent to a new company offering gas for 3 cents/gallon.... you don't see a massive correction like that in a free market.

If that doesn't scream something is wrong with the ISPs, the whole economy must be ****ed.

Something wrong? They were charging what they could, because they could. I am not saying they weren't ****ing people over because they were. But they could. So why wouldn't they?

KC native · 02-26-2015, 09:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bearcat

A few minutes spent comparing the services/cost of Google Fiber to all other ISPs should drive home both points.

It's equivalent to a new company offering gas for 3 cents/gallon.... you don't see a massive correction like that in a free market.

If that doesn't scream something is wrong with the ISPs, the whole economy must be ****ed.

It's amazing to me how far some people will go to deny what's right in front of their faces.

|Zach| · 02-26-2015, 09:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave Lane

How long has it been since Pete last went unhinged? Couple weeks? That's not too bad by Pete standards. At least no one in the lounge had to witness the 9/11 insanity.

Remember him saying how the airports one Thanksgiving were going to be a mess because of the new security machines? He thought there was going to be this grand mess and this was his issue for like...a week because he thought someone cared about what his wife looks like if she went through security.

**Dave Lane** · 02-26-2015, 09:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by petegz28

I'll take your 3rd consecutive post of not answering my question as an admission you don't know jack from shit.

You got me you've called me out and now I'm here with egg on my face because I thought I'd read it. Darn how did I forget I hadn't? I dunno maybe it because I can ****ing read what is contained in a law from what the people that wrote the law said. Maybe I won't have to read 332 pages. I'm sure you've read the rules on ILEC telephone wire routing. Yet somehow you can probably discuss telephony with someone without reading the entire text of every FFC ruling.

**petegz28** · 02-26-2015, 09:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave Lane

You got me you've called me out and now I'm here with egg on my face because I thought I'd read it. Darn how did I forget I hadn't? I dunno maybe it because I can ****ing read what is contained in a law from what the people that wrote the law said. Maybe I won't have to read 332 pages. I'm sure you've read the rules on ILEC telephone wire routing. Yet somehow you can probably discuss telephony with someone without reading the entire text of every FFC ruling.

In other words you don't know shit.

**Dave Lane** · 02-26-2015, 09:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by |Zach|

Remember him saying how the airports one Thanksgiving were going to be a mess because of the new security machines? He thought there was going to be this grand mess and this was his issue for like...a week because he thought someone cared about what his wife looks like if she went through security.

Ahhh thanks for sharing Zach anyone else have a favorite Pete thread?

**petegz28** · 02-26-2015, 09:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave Lane

Ahhh thanks for sharing Zach anyone else have a favorite Pete thread?

Don't get butt hurt because I called you out to back up something you can't back up.

02-26-2015, 12:37 PM
\|Zach\| For The Glory Of The City \|Zach\|'s Avatar Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Kansas City	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: 53,492

02-26-2015, 09:46 PM	#203
Discuss Thrower "You like to drink?" Discuss Thrower's Avatar Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: "I like to drink."	Meh. Big telco still wins. Local exchanges are gonna be nuked but that's no concern to anyone here, is it.
Posts: 42,929