FCC Passes Net Neutrality Rules

[coldmast]

I agree that certain things (read CHILD PORNOGRAPHY) should be blocked, but this "lawful" item should be clearly defined: who does it protect -- children, ISPs, consumers, big business, government. There is a grey area between what is lawful and what is just.

"Consumers and innovators have a right to send and receive lawful traffic"
It is my understanding that if my one device can access the internet, my other devices should be able to access the internet through it as well.

"meaningful flexibility" this needs to be defined, as a consumer I wish to be notified of when an overage would commence prior to being charged extra; i.e. Phones should have indications for day time minutes remaining, data plans / internet plans should indicate data use remaining; also when internet is being throttled down (to less than 50% of expected service) the consumer should be made aware . If a consumer goes over the allotment and wishes to proceed surcharges should not go over the next tier (one that would cover such data use) in price i.e. if a consumer is over their plan by 100 minutes they should not be charged more than the next plan tier that would allow them 1000 extra minutes.

 

[flachet]

• Title VI of the Communications Act protects competition in video services. Internet video distribution is increasingly important to video competition. A cable or telephone company’s interference with the online transmission of programming by Direct Broadcast Satellite operators or stand-alone online video programming aggregators that may function as competitive alternatives to traditional Multichannel Video Programming Distributors would frustrate Congress’s stated goals in enacting Section 628 of the Act, which include promoting “competition and diversity in the multichannel video programming market.”

Rule 2: No Blocking
A person engaged in the provision of fixed broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not block lawful content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices, subject to reasonable network management.
A person engaged in the provision of mobile broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not block consumers from accessing lawful websites, subject to reasonable network management; nor shall such person block applications that compete with the provider’s voice or video telephony services, subject to reasonable network


Rule 3: No Unreasonable Discrimination
A person engaged in the provision of fixed broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not unreasonably discriminate in transmitting lawful network traffic over a consumer’s broadband Internet access service. Reasonable network management shall not constitute unreasonable discrimination.

Reasonable network management. A network management practice is reasonable if it is appropriate and tailored to achieving a legitimate network management purpose, taking into account the particular network architecture and technology of the broadband Internet access service. Legitimate network management purposes include: ensuring network security and integrity, including by addressing traffic that is harmful to the network; addressing traffic that is unwanted by users (including by premise operators), such as by providing services or capabilities consistent with a user’s choices regarding parental controls or security capabilities; and by reducing or mitigating the effects of congestion on the network.

 

[Guest]

@flachet

now what if i told you even though you paid for that expensive car to run 60mph in the fast lane, your really only allowed to go 60mph if your trying to get to a certain city all other destinations have to drive at 40mph, doesn't that sound nice and fair

 

[flachet]

I think my other posts addresses that. That info was taken directly from the FCC. It seems to be that the scenario you outlined would be against the regulations.

Am I reading this wrong?

 

[Guest]

@flachet

would you think it reasonable if comcast placed youtube on a lower priority due to network management issues (it can be argued that youtube is one of the prime offenders of network congestion issues)

'reasonable network management' is an open invitation for the service providers to abuse the interpretation of reasonable until such time as they are caught

like someone noted, these service providers are overselling their infrastructure, it's like having 4 quarters of a pie and selling a quarter of the pie to 20 people

 

[dark_lord69]

Good for the people...
Bad for companies...
... and the Republicans that own and run those companies. That is why you'll see every single republican is against this.
Bravo FCC, THANK YOU for leveling the playing field.

 

[itchyisvegeta]

This is a HORRIBLE piece of news. The last piece of true free speech in the US where people can voice what ever they want, and now the government has control of it? This is utter BS!

For those who think the FCC does a good job at protecting free speech, tell that to Howard Stern.

The FCC was created to monitor telecommunications. The only authority they should have is anything involving wireless. Hard wired cables from a server to your home are not telecommunications.

 

[kinggraves]

You guys can bounce back and forth about the interpretation of these laws, but let's get one thing straight. The reason your internet is still a free and open forum and China/Aus/Britain's Internet is censored is because your internet is owned by private corporations and their internet is owned by the government. You may not like the prices they charge, but they make money off of you, whether or not you're accessing content that the government may approve of, so they will allow you to access it. The government will not make money off of you, so they will only allow you to access what they want you to.

Do you think it's coincidence that the FCC has pushed this through after the Wikileaks trouble? It isn't. The FCC is doing what their bosses want, slowly snaking their way to controlling the internet by pretending it's a service to the people. They don't want to stop the major telecos from sticking it to you, or they would take the much simpler action of breaking up the backdoor monopoly the major telecos run with each other. Forced competition between them would solve this issue in a matter more befitting a capitalist nation, but instead the government will take the internet for themselves, like so many other countries have done.

If you want high speed, censored internet, move to Australia. I'll take an open and overpriced internet over that any day.

 

[itchyisvegeta]

I hate sticking up for these 2 companies, but if I were comcast and at&t, I would give a big F*** YOU to the government, and shut down internet everywhere! They are big enough and have enough money where they can shut down, and pocket what they have, move to the best part of the Bahamas, and not give a s***!

Does the government realize how much money is made on the internet? All that translates to income and sales taxes. What about all the jobs and careers from people who have internet businesses, to the ones who work for these companies. KISS IT ALL GOODBYE!

 

[utengineer]

Item #4 means ISP's will start charging you access to Youtube and other sites that congest their network.

 

[itchyisvegeta]

ISPs will not charge me for it, because I will not pay for it.

 

[sykozis]

[citation][nom]getefix[/nom]What exactly is "lawful" content? The internet is global and laws are local -- something America seems to never have quite grasped.[/citation]

Lawful content, means content that isn't stolen.

 

[elbert]

No unreasonable discrimination: A key term being thrown around this week is "network management," which basically governs how an ISP like Comcast or Time Warner Cable runs their operations. Under the FCC rules, ISPs can manage their networks, but it can't be "unreasonable" or discriminate against specific applications. In other words, Comcast could slow down its entire network to handle an influx of users, but it could not cut off a specific, bandwidth-hungry service – like BitTorrent or Netflix or Hulu. The FCC acknowledges that network management is necessary to block harmful things – like malware and child porn – from making its way onto ISP networks. Blocking child porn and spam? Good. Blocking Netflix or BitTorrent because it competes with your own service or eats up bandwidth? Bad.

While in a perfect world net neutrality rules wouldn't affect us but allows throttling due to influx of users. The best part is Paid prioritization is only likely to be deemed unreasonable.

Again, we haven't seen the actual text of the rules, so what makes something "unreasonable"? In a press conference after Tuesday's meeting, an FCC official said the agency has included specific language in its rules to define unreasonable network management.

"Generally if there are practices that are targeted for specific use – like controlling spam or malware – [that] would be reasonable," she said. "Certainly things that appear to be discriminatory would be a red flag."

Among those things that would probably be unreasonable? Paid prioritization. The whole idea behind net neutrality is that everyone has equal access to the Web; a wealthy company like Amazon should not be able to pay to have their Web site load faster than a mom-and-pop e-commerce site. While this practice of paid prioritization is not strictly banned in the net neutrality rules, the FCC said yesterday that it would likely be deemed unreasonable.

If small ISP's don't pay for prioritization see rule influx of users. The small business ISP buying bandwidth may end up paying more or be forced to cut back their tier services.

 

[sykozis]

[citation][nom]itchyisvegeta[/nom]This is a HORRIBLE piece of news. The last piece of true free speech in the US where people can voice what ever they want, and now the government has control of it? This is utter BS!For those who think the FCC does a good job at protecting free speech, tell that to Howard Stern. The FCC was created to monitor telecommunications. The only authority they should have is anything involving wireless. Hard wired cables from a server to your home are not telecommunications.[/citation]

FCC means "Federal COMMUNICATIONS Commission"......notice the "COMMUNICATIONS" part.... the internet is a communications medium originally developed in conjunction with the US Military. I would say the US Gov't has the right to control that which they funded the development of...within US borders. If it wasn't for funding from the Gov't and the US Military....the internet wouldn't have come into existance when it did....if at all.

 

[littleleo]

It just goes to show Repuckicans are a against freedom unless its the freedom to fill their pockets.
Lets hope they don't derail this with their shear greed.

 

[tayb]

[citation][nom]neiroatopelcc[/nom]ehh? you've overlooked the last 200 years of history me thinks ... obama's the only time in modern history where the country's been respectable and democracy still keeps being masacred in cali every day.[/citation]

Wow. What a joke. Obama is the only time in modern history where this country has been respectable? Wow. Have you ever heard of the Patriot Act? What about the Lone Wolf provision inside the Patriot Act? Read up on it and then wonder why your savior of Democracy , Mr. Obama, supports this Act and all of its provisions.

 

[Guest]

The ignorance of the general population is mind boggling. Do you all not realize that this is the first stage of governmental control of the Internet? These plans ALWAYS sound good at first. They ALWAYS are designed to protect you. They are like vampires, once you invite them in its game over. Why do you think pedophiles lure children with candy and puppies? Please people for the love of God think for once in your lives! Even if everyone in the government had nothing but love in their hearts and were looking out for you do you really think it will be so forever? Try to think of one thing the government does well and efficiently. Exactly. Nothing.

 

[everygamer]

[citation][nom]von death[/nom]What, really? REALLY? I don't even have jokes, puns, or snide comments for this one. + 1 for the good guys![/citation]

Huh? Democrat and Democracy do not go hand in hand nor mean the same thing. Also if you pay attention to your history we are a Republic not a Democracy. That said, Republic and Republican do not go hand in hand either

 

[everygamer]

I intended my reply for the following statement ...

"ehh? you've overlooked the last 200 years of history me thinks ... obama's the only time in modern history where the country's been respectable and democracy still keeps being masacred in cali every day."

 

[Guest]

wow.. everyone is screwed... Hope you like slow traffic (especially http content) or paying for more bandwidth. Prioritizing traffic was a good thing when used properly.

I'm going to be that guy with the highest service package; eating away all of your VOIP, HTTP and video bandwidth with my P2P and Streaming services 24/7.

- Network Engineer / 17yrs