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/

[GloucesterChief]

Originally Posted by KC native

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

My electrical rates are fine. I shop around but I haven't found them more expensive than say Northern Virginia. Better service too. Power went out more frequently in Northern Virginia than here in Houston. Much more frequently where I grew up in the sticks in Hampton Roads.

[KC native]

Originally Posted by GloucesterChief

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.

You're a ****ing moron. The ISPs have refrained from competing with each other to protect their margins.

The ISPs are the problem.

It's even worse when you look at the billions in tax breaks they were given specifically to run fiber to houses and they've come no where close to what they promised they would when they asked for those tax breaks.

[KC native]

Originally Posted by GloucesterChief

My electrical rates are fine. I shop around but I haven't found them more expensive than say Northern Virginia. Better service too. Power went out more frequently in Northern Virginia than here in Houston. Much more frequently where I grew up in the sticks in Hampton Roads.

Anecdote bullshit.

Electricity in Texas is less reliable than before deregulation. It also went from being below the national average to above the national average.

Competition and deregulation has failed for utilities. But hey free markets solve everything in your fringe nut job view.

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by GloucesterChief

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.

Their purchasing power afforded them discounts on the same exact instruments that the Mom & Pop competitors sold, which allowed them to undercut their competitors until they were forced to close their doors.

Once their competitors were gone, they raised their prices.

Customers lose.

[petegz28]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Their purchasing power afforded them discounts on the same exact instruments that the Mom & Pop competitors sold, which allowed them to undercut their competitors until they were forced to close their doors.

Once their competitors were gone, they raised their prices.

Customers lose.

Isn't that pretty much capitalism? I'm not saying I like what they did or what Wal-Mart does, etc. but still....

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by GloucesterChief

The problem is government not the ISPs.

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by petegz28

Isn't that pretty much capitalism? I'm not saying I like what they did or what Wal-Mart does, etc. but still....

I think it's Monopolization, not capitalism.

And I will never, ever and have never shopped at a WalMart or Sam's for that very reason. I'd rather pay a little more elsewhere than patronize them.

[petegz28]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

I think it's Monopolization, not capitalism.

And I will never, ever and have never shopped at a WalMart or Sam's for that very reason. I'd rather pay a little more elsewhere than patronize them.

I'm a Costco person but that's a separate issue. You call it monopolization but that's what capitalism ultimately breeds to one degree or another.

[Don Corlemahomes]

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.

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by petegz28

I'm a Costco person but that's a separate issue. You call it monopolization but that's what capitalism ultimately breeds to one degree or another.

It's also the same reason why the City of Los Angeles won't allow Walmarts to operate. There are too many Mom & Pops that would be put of out business. I'm pretty sure that had they known that Guitar Center was going to wipe out scores of musical instrument stores across SoCal, they'd have done something about that, too.

I'm all about local business, when possible. Screw the Private Equity firms.

[GloucesterChief]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Their purchasing power afforded them discounts on the same exact instruments that the Mom & Pop competitors sold, which allowed them to undercut their competitors until they were forced to close their doors.

Once their competitors were gone, they raised their prices.

Customers lose.

And if they raise their prices too much then more competition comes in. Like you said before, they are already fighting internet competition.

Now the question is was Guitar Centers prices after the mom and pop went out of business still lower than the mom and pop stores price? If so consumers still won.

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by GloucesterChief

And if they raise their prices too much then more competition comes in. Like you said before, they are already fighting internet competition.

Now the question is was Guitar Centers prices after the mom and pop went out of business still lower than the mom and pop stores price? If so consumers still won.

You're completely out of your element and I have no desire to discuss this with you.

[KC native]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

You're completely out of your element and I have no desire to discuss this with you.

That's how fringers are.

Notice how quickly he moved past the real world failure of deregulation of utilities.

[mr. tegu]

Originally Posted by GloucesterChief

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.

I find it hard to believe you are in favor of processes that would allow company x to pay an ISP more than their competitors to keep company y's product down as an inferior product by limiting the speed to company y's product. A new innovative competitor would have no chance to really even get started.

[Dave Lane]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

No shit. Its to ensure the little guy or start up gets a fair shot at success and not crushed before they ever get going by a huge conglomerate.

This is good for entrepreneurs, small businesses. Why is Fox and the right wing not happy?

Ummm you must be living in the 80's when the GOP actually paid lip service to being proponents of small business.