FCC will set new net neutrality rules

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

CrazyDude

Member
The U.S. Federal Communications Commission will not seek further judicial review of a January court ruling that struck down the agency's net neutrality regulations, but it does plan to issue a new set of rules covering ISPs.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit found that the FCC lacks the authority to prohibit broadband providers from selectively blocking or slowing Web traffic.

The FCC will use the agency's existing authority to regulate broadband providers, establishing "new rules of the road" to prevent ISPs from charging some companies more for network access, the agency said Wednesday in a media briefing, which was followed by the release of a statement from agency Commissioner Tom Wheeler.

The appeals court "invited the Commission to act to preserve a free and open Internet," the statement said. "I intend to accept that invitation by proposing rules that will meet the court's test for preventing improper blocking of and discrimination among Internet traffic, ensuring genuine transparency in how Internet service providers manage traffic, and enhancing competition."

In its ruling, the court affirmed that the FCC has authority under Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to "encourage broadband deployment by, among other things, removing barriers to infrastructure deployment, encouraging innovation, and promoting competition. The court, recognized the importance of ensuring that so-called 'edge providers,' those that use the network to deliver goods and services, can reach people who use the Internet," the statement said.

The FCC in 2010 adopted the Open Internet Order, which prohibited ISPs from blocking services or charging content providers for network access. Verizon challenged the order and prevailed in the appeals court decision. The company and other ISPs are now able, because of the ruling, to charge more to content providers, such as video streaming services, whose users consume large quantities of data. ISPs have long held that they should have the right to offer such tiered service so that content-heavy sites would have to pay more for network access.

While the court largely overruled the Open Internet Order it also ruled that the FCC has "general authority" to regulate how broadband providers deal with network traffic under Section 706.

"Recently in Los Angeles, I talked to start-up entrepreneurs who produce video to meet consumers' growing desire for programming," Wheeler's statement said. "Their companies may succeed or they may fail depending on whether they are truly creative and innovative. But they and other innovators cannot be judged on their own merits if they are unfairly prevented from harnessing the full power of the Internet, which would harm the virtuous cycle of innovation that has benefitted consumers, edge providers, and broadband networks. This is why the FCC's exercise of its authority to protect an open Internet is important."

In the broad plan announced Wednesday the FCC will:

-- Propose new rules to "enforce and enhance the transparency rule," requiring network operators to disclose how they manage traffic.

-- Fulfill the "no blocking" goal by considering how, "consistent with the court opinion," the agency can make sure that edge providers are not "unfairly blocked, explicitly or implicitly, from reaching consumers, as well as ensuring that consumers can continue to access any lawful content and services they choose.

-- Consider how Section 706 can be used to "protect and promote" an open Internet that falls in line with the appeals court decision and its previous affirmation of the agency's order on data roaming. The FCC will consider establishing an enforceable legal standard to give guidance to edge providers, users and broadband providers, and will evaluate on a case-by-case basis whether the standard is being met. It also will seek to identify "key behaviors by broadband providers that the Commission would view with particular skepticism."

-- Maintain authority that provides the ability to reclassify Internet access as a telecommunications service under a provision of the Communications Act.

-- Solicit public comment, by opening a docket called "Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet."

-- Hold ISPs to their commitment to maintain an open Internet.

-- Look for ways to enhance competition for Internet access.

The new rules will be proposed by late spring or early summer, but the comment period has already been opened so that input can be gathered as the rules are being considered, the FCC said.
Click to expand...

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9246443/FCC_will_set_new_net_neutrality_rules?taxonomyId=13&pageNumber=1
 
Just keep this shit neutral and stop letting ISP's play god damn games. Verizon has already started throttling my Netflix. Assholes.
 
Kyuur said:
Plan sounds very good. Hopefully it will go over well.



What is this even a response to? Trying to get first response or what?
Click to expand...

disposing of net neutrality in general

whatever they have planned is not and will never be as good as just having net neutrality.
 
Sorastitch said:
disposing of net neutrality in general

whatever they have planned is not and will never be as good as just having net neutrality.
Click to expand...

Their plan is establishing net neutrality:

Fulfill the "no blocking" goal by considering how, "consistent with the court opinion," the agency can make sure that edge providers are not "unfairly blocked, explicitly or implicitly, from reaching consumers, as well as ensuring that consumers can continue to access any lawful content and services they choose.
Click to expand...

They are trying to implement regulations to ensure the internet remains open. They aren't replacing anything. They even want to force ISPs to disclose how their traffic is being shaped.

Net neutrality is not something that just 'exists' already. It must be enforced by someone as ISPs start taking steps to work their way around existing rules.
 
Sorastitch said:
disposing of net neutrality in general

whatever they have planned is not and will never be as good as just having net neutrality.
Click to expand...

Right, but the FCC didn't get rid of Net Neutrality - the courts did, and this is an attempt to at least do an end round on the cable companies on a few big points.
 
I wish a new ISP could come into play that would treat their customers with respect. They would be rewarded by everyone switching over to them.
 
--Maintain authority that provides the ability to reclassify Internet access as a telecommunications service under a provision of the Communications Act.
Click to expand...

So they want to "maintain authority" to do so, but are actually too chicken shit to actually go through with it? Typical FCC.
 
Clear legislation is really necessary at this point. The FCC is too ineffectual.
 
Dan said:
Clear legislation is really necessary at this point. The FCC is too ineffectual.
Click to expand...

More effectual than legislation since telecoms are spending millions to maintain the status quo.

Pie in the sky solution would be municipal fiber, a huge investment, however.
 
entrement said:
More effectual than legislation since telecoms are spending millions to maintain the status quo.

Pie in the sky solution would be municipal fiber, a huge investment, however.
Click to expand...

This.

Whoever thinks congress or senate will act in our interest is foolish they side with their lobbying buddies everytime and anytime they can.
 
Heel said:
FCC, can you please tell Comcast to stop throttling my Netflix?

For those who don't understand what's going on, internet's Will Smith recently posted an old Arstechnica article that explains it a bit: The secret deals that make—and break—online video
Click to expand...

Now let me tell you something. For example, my friend sent me an Internet on Monday, and it only got to me on Friday. Why? Because the internet is like a series of tubes, and it got tangled up with all these things going on the Internet commercially. That's what happened when everyone clogged up my own personal internet. And that's why throttling is totally justified.
 
Throttling and data caps are things I don't understand. The internet isn't in some jar and if they don't cap us or throttle us it will go empty.
 
zazrx said:
Throttling and data caps are things I don't understand. The internet isn't in some jar and if they don't cap us or throttle us it will go empty.
Click to expand...

I hear there's some fine Internet down Californy-way.

I don't really get it either.
 
Netflix has definitely been shittier on my Comcast in the last couple of weeks (while Amazon Prime has not). I accept it could be coincidence though.
 
Heel said:
Speaking of Will Smith, he just published an open letter to Comcast on this issue.

Dear Comcast, re: Throttling Netflix and the Relative Value of Your Services


Whatever you want to call 'watching sub 480p video on Netflix at peak hours when other services can stream at HD at that same exact moment" is fine by me.
Click to expand...

Good read, that's a very well written letter. That's exactly what happened to me with Comcast. AT&T DSL at 6mbps is better at streaming than Comcast's 25mbps service ever was. Crazy, but true.
 
NoLoveForFailWheelDrive said:
Just keep this shit neutral and stop letting ISP's play god damn games. Verizon has already started throttling my Netflix. Assholes.
Click to expand...

How do you know this? Have you actually watched the traffic flow rate? I've noticed that Netflix has been slower than usual the last few days also (I'm on FiOS), so I'm curious if you have any evidence.
 
Get the two republicans in this article out of office right now. I guarantee you they have telecom companies as their lobbyist.

"No matter how many times the court says 'no,' the Obama administration refuses to abandon its furious pursuit of these harmful policies to put government in charge of the Web," Representatives Fred Upton of Michigan and Greg Walden of Oregon said in a joint statement. "These regulations are a solution in search of a problem, and with the many issues on its plate ... it would be wise for the commission to focus on fostering economic growth, job creation, and competition."
Click to expand...

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9246452/Republicans_protest_FCC_39_s_net_neutrality_move_ISPs_less_concerned?taxonomyId=70&pageNumber=1
 
RoninChaos said:
No?
Click to expand...

Netflix peers indirectly with most isps... There isn't enough peering bandwidth between the companies. It's not something the isps are actively doing to limit your experience and Netflixs partners aren't totally blameless. For isps that don't peer directly with Netflix is usually L3 and it's usually their (l3s) fault
 
I would actually call the cable-requirement for Olympic streaming a breach of net-neutrality, since you HAVE TO pay additional money to your ISP to access a part of the Internet.
 
j-wood said:
Get the two republicans in this article out of office right now. I guarantee you they have telecom companies as their lobbyist.



http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9246452/Republicans_protest_FCC_39_s_net_neutrality_move_ISPs_less_concerned?taxonomyId=70&pageNumber=1
Click to expand...

Yeah they're totally getting some good telecom money. Solutions in search of a problem? No. Preventative measures for a future everyone with a brain can see coming.

entrement said:
More effectual than legislation since telecoms are spending millions to maintain the status quo.

Pie in the sky solution would be municipal fiber, a huge investment, however.
Click to expand...

All of that's true, I was just talking about it from an ideal reality. The FCC keeps getting its hands slapped by the courts even when they attempt to enforce anything, so I wish congress could jump in and do some good, but you're entirely right, that's unlikely due to all the lobbyist pressure.
 
TWiT podcast talked about this a great deal this past week.

According to Om Malik, it isn't as costly as it used to be to lay infrastructure.
 
Mr. Wonderful said:
I would actually call the cable-requirement for Olympic streaming a breach of net-neutrality, since you HAVE TO pay additional money to your ISP to access a part of the Internet.
Click to expand...

thats like saying having to pay for NFL Red Zone streaming on the internet is a breach of net neutrality. Its just not in any way true.
 
I wish this topic was easier to get across to the masses. Verizon and other ISP's would be going through hell from customers right now if they knew what the companies were doing to them.
 
Mr. Wonderful said:
I would actually call the cable-requirement for Olympic streaming a breach of net-neutrality, since you HAVE TO pay additional money to your ISP to access a part of the Internet.
Click to expand...

What? NBC bought the rights to broadcast the Olympics, there is no law saying they have to stream it for free to everyone with an internet connection. They have contracts with those cable companies saying "Hey, pay us some money and we'll let your customers stream it".

More specifically, Comcast owns NBC and thus has the rights to broadcast the Olympics and they are under no requirement to let you watch it if you aren't a Comcast subscriber.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

FCC reinstates Net Neutrality
News 
33
3K
winjer replied
an Illegal immigrant just set a sleeping woman on fire on a New York subway
2
64
5K
thefool replied
A new year, a new Netflix price hike
2
60
4K
EverydayBeast replied
Counterstrike (New Netflix Movie)
8
1K
mitch1971 replied
‘Avatar’ Sequel Series ‘Seven Havens’ Ordered at Nickelodeon, Set After ‘Legend of Korra’
News 
33
1K
Lambogenie replied
Top Bottom