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/

[Imon Yourside]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

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

Exactly as I suspected then huh? Ya i find it hard to cheer for this, the CP lawyers can step in and answer the question but i know how this movie ends. I've seen it in other aspects of our life.

[Reerun_KC]

Originally Posted by eDave

And probably all fiber... Its a cluster**** for sure... But they make us Hayseeds in flyover country look like we in the stone ages with our technology....

Its embarrassing as I have seen it first hand.

[Chiefspants]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

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

We should have let poor St. Vanderbilt keep his trains.

[mdstu]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

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

Okay, I guess I'm one of these fools you speak of.

Explain to me why Net Neutrality is a bad thing.

[ModSocks]

Originally Posted by mdstu

Okay, I guess I'm one of these fools you speak of.

Explain to me why Net Neutrality is a bad thing.

They're under the impression that these rules are set in stone and that no governing body has the power to change this....

[eDave]

Originally Posted by mdstu

Okay, I guess I'm one of these fools you speak of.

Explain to me why Net Neutrality is a bad thing.

It doesn't allow the rich to get richer.

[mdstu]

Originally Posted by Detoxing

They're under the impression that these rules are set in stone and that no governing body has the power to change this....

Well sure, I'm not that foolish. I understand that when the tides change, so do the rules. But does that make this a bad ruling?

[Bearcat]

Originally Posted by KILLER_CLOWN

What scares me the most about this is the fact it sets precedent to do more unpopular things in the future. Am I wrong in assuming it will be easier to move forward regulating other aspects of the internet?

If you're saying it shouldn't have been ruled on in the first place, I totally agree. But, given that it was ruled on and there were two possible outcomes, one is clearly better than the other.

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by KILLER_CLOWN

Exactly as I suspected then huh? Ya i find it hard to cheer for this, the CP lawyers can step in and answer the question but i know how this movie ends. I've seen it in other aspects of our life.

The people cheering this largely don't even understand what actually happened. This isn't just a one off law added by Congress.

the agency will regulate network owners by scooping them up under Title II of the 1934 Telecommunications Act, a specific set of regulations that apply to phone companies.

Maybe those people cheering will smarten up and figure it out. In the meantime, maybe the courts will strike down this FCC power grab on the issue, as they did the last time. One can always hope.

[BWillie]

Originally Posted by eDave

Seems safe.

[Bearcat]

The people posting in this thread largely speaking in vague terms on the ignorance of others could always elaborate.

[Loneiguana]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

The people cheering this largely don't even understand what actually happened. This isn't just a one off law added by Congress.



Maybe those people cheering will smarten up and figure it out. In the meantime, maybe the courts will strike down this FCC power grab on the issue, as they did the last time. One can always hope.

Originally Posted by Bearcat

The people posting in this thread largely speaking in vague terms on the ignorance of others could always elaborate.

This

/its not getting struck down. That was a major reason they made this change, so it would stand up to the courts. When such a major element of your post is so very wrong, chances are the rest of the post is garbage as well.

[saphojunkie]

So, from what I understand, a couple people think net neutrality is a slippery slope and now the FCC will control us all.

Gotcha.

You're reeruned.

[Jakemall]

page 332

[Pitt Gorilla]

Originally Posted by KILLER_CLOWN

Exactly as I suspected then huh? Ya i find it hard to cheer for this, the CP lawyers can step in and answer the question but i know how this movie ends. I've seen it in other aspects of our life.

In which specific aspects have you seen this?