|
02-26-2015, 12:37 PM | |
For The Glory Of The City
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: 54,005
|
02-27-2015, 09:52 AM | #256 | |
In Search of a Life
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: L.A.
|
The braintrust at the FoxNews.com comment stream weighs in:
Quote:
|
|
Posts: 27,497
|
02-27-2015, 09:53 AM | #257 |
Ultrabanned
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Northland
|
I'm not sure if that came from the FoxNews comment section or our own DC forum.
Just beautiful work there. |
Posts: 42,077
|
02-27-2015, 10:00 AM | #258 |
In Search of a Life
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: L.A.
|
It actually makes DC look pretty moderate. o_O
|
Posts: 27,497
|
02-27-2015, 10:03 AM | #259 |
Starter
Join Date: Mar 2011
|
Naturally the usual cast of stupid is here saying how great this is. For the 'selling point', ie stopping throttling of certain services, yeah, it's great. The problem here is 1. This opens the door for them to regulate internet traffic - kiss another piece of liberty good bye, thanks to 'liberals' and 2. The FCC, on their own, decided they wanted the power to make this decision and thus gave the power to themselves. If that doesn't scare you / piss you off, then you are a dumbass.
|
Posts: 690
|
02-27-2015, 10:08 AM | #260 | |
In Search of a Life
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Jefferson City
|
Quote:
Jesus, the amount of misinformation out there is amazing. I'll just stick with this false analogy. First, using this analogy, it needs to be pointed out the analogy completely ignored the consumer. So, let's bring them into the picture. To make internet access comparable to truckers and furniture, we have to point out the consumer is already paying the trucking company to ship the furniture and the trucking company is already charging different rates based on the speed of delivery. Now, what happened, using this analogy, is the trucking company went to the certain furniture suppliers whom customers liked the most and said "Nice company you have here, be a shame if it took longer for your furniture to reach the customer compared to your competition." Remember, the customer is already paying the trucking company for delivery, speed, and the ability for the trucking company to ship a truckload of furniture. What "furniture neutrality" would do is stop trucking companies from charging certain furniture companies access to customers. It has nothing to do with usage, but equal access. As in, the trucking companies cannot charge different rates to different companies just to access their shipping. |
|
Posts: 31,738
|
02-27-2015, 10:11 AM | #261 | |
In Search of a Life
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Jefferson City
|
Quote:
Please explain how the FCC doesn't have the power to regulate. |
|
Posts: 31,738
|
02-27-2015, 10:14 AM | #262 | |
Fight, build, win!
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: KC
|
Quote:
Company I worked for used to do a lot of civil engineering and construction staking for Walmart. The people in small towns in Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma, Nebraska and Iowa where we worked were thrilled to hear they were coming to their lil town. Walmart Casey's and Dollar store they were thrilled no more being raped by Mom and Pop. Many farmers were able to keep there family farm because a second income from the arrival of these businesses. People want to pay a fair price not be raped and in small town Midwest that's exactly what they were getting from Mom and Pop. |
|
Posts: 25,134
|
02-27-2015, 10:15 AM | #263 |
Seeking the Truth daily
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: In the Country in MO
|
Supporters on this are being crazy happy with no information, its just really good, cause regulation!
Opponents are wearing tin foil. Soon we will see them shuffle over to Loony Town with Truthers and Birthers. Until the act is implemented no one has a clue what the impact or effect will be. |
Posts: 53,793
|
02-27-2015, 10:18 AM | #264 |
Forever Royal
Join Date: Mar 2012
|
You can spin it however you want. You can say that they aren't slowing down someone else, but they are still paying to have theirs faster than their competition. So yes, they are basically paying to slow others down in comparison to their product.
|
Posts: 24,897
|
02-27-2015, 10:22 AM | #265 | |
Ain't no relax!
Join Date: Sep 2005
|
Quote:
|
|
Posts: 48,276
|
02-27-2015, 10:23 AM | #266 |
No Keys, No Problem
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Denver
|
The converse could also be said, because nothing has actually changed one way or another from yesterday to today.
|
Posts: 31,585
|
02-27-2015, 10:28 AM | #267 | ||
Ain't no relax!
Join Date: Sep 2005
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
Posts: 48,276
|
02-27-2015, 10:37 AM | #268 | |
Special Teams ACE!!!
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Where the hell is SNR
|
Quote:
|
|
Posts: 91,840
|
02-27-2015, 10:38 AM | #269 |
Would an idiot do that?
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Arizona
|
It sucks the government can't be trusted to do what's best for the people they work for, just like it sucks the ISPs can't be trusted to do what's best for those same people.... pretty sure no one in this thread is arguing either of those points.
|
Posts: 56,579
|
02-27-2015, 10:38 AM | #270 |
Ultrabanned
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Northland
|
Hey man, whenever you get a chance to live your life in a state of constant fear and paranoia, you just gotta take that chance!
|
Posts: 42,077
|
|
|