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 jspchief

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.

Must be too young to remember Ma Bell. Another FCC regulated utility.

[mnchiefsguy]

It is no secret that I do not agree with the President all that often. However, I believe that today's ruling is a very, very good thing for the internet and good for customers.

[Mr. Flopnuts]

****ing conservatards...

[GloucesterChief]

Originally Posted by Mr. Flopnuts

****ing conservatards...

Yes because the government has proven that it is so consumer friendly, knowledgeable about most things, and not prone to regulatory capture at all.

[Mr. Laz]

Originally Posted by jspchief

Probably not.

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

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

well dam

you can pretty much skip the 1st page of any google search related to buying anything. Bastards.

[jspchief]

Originally Posted by GloucesterChief

Must be too young to remember Ma Bell. Another FCC regulated utility.

This ruling is designed to prevent monopolized internet... to prevent a MA Internet. You should read up on the subject.

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by GloucesterChief

Yes because the government has proven that it is so consumer friendly, knowledgeable about most things, and not prone to regulatory capture at all.

Couldn't be helped. They tried self regulation. Didn't work. The internet was going towards a model that those with the deepest pockets get the bandwidth. Bandwidth should be the same price for all. Companies are free to charge whatever they want, but its the same price for everyone.

I see the bandwidth as important to our daily lives as any utility. In our communities, we all pay the same price for Electricity, Gas, water etc. Same principle.

We don't have Ford/Macy's/Best Buy buying all the electricity they want and whats left, someone else buy. If there is not enough electricity left over for your business, too bad.

[Mr. Laz]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

Couldn't be helped. They tried self regulation. Didn't work.

Self-regulation almost never works because it relies on people doing the right thing, just for the sake of doing right.

too many people are scum so ........

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by Mr. Laz

well dam

you can pretty much skip the 1st page of any google search related to buying anything. Bastards.

I'm okay with that. It's a business. They need to make money, Advertising is the best model. Yahoo had 90% of the search engine traffic.

They started accepting money to get to the top of the results. Search for Revlon and Faberge was at the top of the results. Without telling anyone that the results were rigged and they were paid.

Along comes Google and says we will label our paid results. You can trust our search. That was it. Search engine supremacy was decided. And the beemoth that is Google was born.

[GloucesterChief]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

Couldn't be helped. They tried self regulation. Didn't work.

Actually working just fine without the government involvement. The dispute between Comcast and Netflix was a business dispute. Netflix's service was flooding Comcast's network taking up about a third of the bandwith in the evening.

Of course Comcast is going to want to see some money from that. Also, there is good evidence that it was Netflix actually doing the throttling..

The internet was going towards a model that those with the deepest pockets get the bandwidth. Bandwidth should be the same price for all. Companies are free to charge whatever they want, but its the same price for everyone.

Bandwith is still a scarce resource. Those who pay the most for bandwith must need it the most. Bandwith can't be the same price for all because there are different capacities geographically.

I see the bandwidth as important to our daily lives as any utility. In our communities, we all pay the same price for Electricity, Gas, water etc. Same principle.

Not in my community. We have competitive electric companies where I live. I can change providers whenever I choose. Your community might have crappy monopolized services but not everybody does.

We don't have Ford/Macy's/Best Buy buying all the electricity they want and whats left, someone else buy. If there is not enough electricity left over for your business, too bad.

Without government intervention in your scenario here another power company will be more than willing to step in and provide more electricity particularly when price goes up. Price is a signal after all. That other company could possibly be a new company or one from the next town over.

Regulations and government created monopolies stop that from happening. They raise barriers to competition and entrench current players. If you think this is a good thing then you will probably be sadly mistaken not long down the road.

[Mr. Laz]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

I'm okay with that. It's a business. They need to make money, Advertising is the best model. Yahoo had 90% of the search engine traffic.

They started accepting money to get to the top of the results. Search for Revlon and Faberge was at the top of the results. Without telling anyone that the results were rigged and they were paid.

Along comes Google and says we will label our paid results. You can trust our search. That was it. Search engine supremacy was decided. And the beemoth that is Google was born.

I understand but it's still pretty fraudulent.

If you go to a company trading stocks they aren't supposed to be allowed to suggest you to buy some trash stock just because some company paid them to.

Search results aren't supposed to be bought and paid for imo

at least put all the "ad" results in yellow or off to the side to let people know that your a whore.

[GloucesterChief]

Originally Posted by Mr. Laz

I understand but it's still pretty fraudulent.

If you go to a company trading stocks they aren't supposed to be allowed to suggest you to buy some trash stock just because some company paid them to.

Search results aren't supposed to be bought and paid for imo

at least put all the "ad" results in yellow or off to the side to let people know that your a whore.

Actually, it is fine if the company discloses that it was paid to recommend that stock. You can then decide if you want to do business with that firm or not.

[Mr. Laz]

Originally Posted by GloucesterChief

Actually, it is fine if the company discloses that it was paid to recommend that stock. You can then decide if you want to do business with that firm or not.

Yea, but you know they don't.

If they were honest about it there wouldn't need to be a rule about it.

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by GloucesterChief

Actually working just fine without the government involvement.
.

No idea what reality your in, but no one on any side thought it was working just fine.

Originally Posted by GloucesterChief

The dispute between Comcast and Netflix was a business dispute. Netflix's service was flooding Comcast's network taking up about a third of the bandwith in the evening.

That # is BS put out by Comcast but so what if a 1/3 was Netflix. The customer has paid for that bandwidth. They can watch or download whatever they want with that bandwidth. ISP's shouldn't get paid by the customer and the company for the same bandwidth.

As for the rest of your comments. They seem like right wing talking points. Not going down that road here in the Lounge.

[Bearcat]

Originally Posted by GloucesterChief

Without government intervention in your scenario here another power company will be more than willing to step in and provide more electricity particularly when price goes up. Price is a signal after all. That other company could possibly be a new company or one from the next town over.

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.