...

|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/

Mr. Laz · 02-26-2015, 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bearcat

Wow, that Fox News post takes any train wreck here and puts it to shame... I stay far far away from politics, but holy shit talk about uninformed.

leave it up to that POS network, they shouldn't be allowed to label themselves 'news'

of course that cum dumpster Drudge is right there with them as usual, with snarky shit

**notorious** · 02-26-2015, 05:59 PM

Misinformation happens on both sides.

It goes to show how many people can't think for themselves.

GloucesterChief · 02-26-2015, 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loneiguana

Please explain how reclassifying ISPs under a stricter regulatory scheme is not internet regulation.

prhom · 02-26-2015, 06:02 PM

This is great news. Maybe now I'll be able to get my Directv on-demand to work with my Comcast broadband. I can't prove it with my limited expertise, but since we switched from Century link to Comcast our dtv on-demand suddenly stopped working and I'm sure it's because Comcast doesn't want to let Dtv customers use their Internet to watch tv. You could connect to the Internet but would soon after get disconnected. Dtv tech support couldn't figure it out and blamed Comcast and Comcast blamed Dtv. Really irritating.

Zebedee DuBois · 02-26-2015, 06:03 PM

maintaining the status quo - the internet we've all grown to love.

eDave · 02-26-2015, 06:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Laz

leave it up to that POS network, they shouldn't be allowed to label themselves 'news'

of course that cum dumpster Drudge is right there with them as usual, with snarky shit

I love the fact that he is gay yet promotes anti-gay agenda's. All about the Benjamin's man.

Mr. Laz · 02-26-2015, 06:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eDave

I love the fact that he is gay yet promotes anti-gay agenda's. All about the Benjamin's man.

I didn't even know he was gay.

jspchief · 02-26-2015, 06:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

People cheering this are fools who can't be bothered to learn from history.

Yes, because look how badly Americans are being fleeced by other utilities.

Comcast, a company notorious for abysmal service, was building a monopoly on television and internet. Bribing cities into legislation that barred competition. This ruling puts an end to that. How horrible.

jspchief · 02-26-2015, 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by petegz28

I don't think it will be challenged in court.

Verizon has already stated they will sue.

**Rausch** · 02-26-2015, 06:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eDave

I love the fact that he is gay yet promotes anti-gay agenda's. .

That's just ****ed up...

Mr. Laz · 02-26-2015, 06:26 PM

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

**BigRedChief** · 02-26-2015, 06:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by suzzer99

Pretty soon all topics will be relegated to DC and never discussed in polite company. Say hello to corporate-ocracy.

This is only a political issue because one side decided to turn the partisan spigot on it in hopes of drumming up support.

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?

jspchief · 02-26-2015, 06:31 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?

Probably not.

**BigRedChief** · 02-26-2015, 06:32 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?

Nope. Free market decides that. Google resolved that a long time ago. Just label them advertisements or paid.

**Bearcat** · 02-26-2015, 06:47 PM

Quote:

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?

Because Obama supports it?

Oh god, I think I'm in a political discussion....

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: 53,446

02-26-2015, 05:59 PM	#77
notorious Supporter notorious's Avatar Join Date: May 2005 Location: Who knows?	Misinformation happens on both sides. It goes to show how many people can't think for themselves.
Posts: 83,445

02-26-2015, 06:02 PM	#79
prhom Veteran Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Denver	This is great news. Maybe now I'll be able to get my Directv on-demand to work with my Comcast broadband. I can't prove it with my limited expertise, but since we switched from Century link to Comcast our dtv on-demand suddenly stopped working and I'm sure it's because Comcast doesn't want to let Dtv customers use their Internet to watch tv. You could connect to the Internet but would soon after get disconnected. Dtv tech support couldn't figure it out and blamed Comcast and Comcast blamed Dtv. Really irritating.
Posts: 2,267

02-26-2015, 06:03 PM	#80
Zebedee DuBois Veteran Zebedee DuBois's Avatar Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: floating in a tin can	maintaining the status quo - the internet we've all grown to love.
Posts: 3,762

02-26-2015, 06:26 PM	#86
Mr. Laz Don't Tease Me Mr. Laz's Avatar Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: KS	So does this stop search engines and ISP from returning searches etc for paying sites first as well?
Posts: 95,626