F.C.C. Has Published Statement Regarding Net Neutrality Rules

Transparency, No Illegal Blocking, No Unreasonable Discrimination. Full rules in a few days.

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2374705,00.asp


F.C.C Chairman Julius Genakowski made the following statement in Washington,D.C.,

"Let me start with a quote", he started. “The Web as we know it [is] being threatened.”

That’s Tim Berners-Lee, the inventor of the World Wide Web, who continued, “A neutral
communications medium is the basis of a fair, competitive market economy, of
democracy, and of science. Although the Internet and Web generally thrive on lack of
regulation, some basic values have to be legally preserved.”

Today, for the first time, we are adopting rules to preserve basic Internet values. For the
first time, we’ll have enforceable rules of the road to preserve Internet freedom and
openness.

As we stand here now, the freedom and openness of the Internet are unprotected.

No rules on the books to protect basic Internet values.

No process for monitoring Internet openness as technology and business models evolve.

No recourse for innovators, consumers, or speakers harmed by improper practices.

And no predictability for Internet service providers, so that they can effectively manage
and invest in broadband networks.

That will change once we vote to approve this strong and balanced order."

----------------------

 

This is a big deal.

In a two to one decision, the FCC has approved the following principles and backed them up with rules designed to ensure Net Neutrality.

One important thing to note is that the FCC hasn't actually released the full text of its net neutrality rules yet.

The vote was split by party: Republican commissioners voted against the plan yesterday, and the Democratic ones for. According to FCC procedures, the commission must respond to any dissent before releasing its rules. So it could be another day or two before the commission adds that response and publishes the rules.

These are the three main areas the statement deal with as will the new rules.

Transparency: They will have to be upfront about how they manage their networks, how well (or poorly) their networks perform, as well as details about their plan options and pricing. 

No Blocking: Under the FCC rules, an ISP would not be able to pick and choose apps or services to block in order to improve network performance. 

The rules differ slightly on this for fixed versus wireless: Fixed providers cannot block lawful content, apps, services, or "non-harmful" devices, or charge providers of these services for delivering traffic to and from their networks. Wireless providers, meanwhile, cannot block access to lawful Web sites or block apps that compete with their own voice or video telephony services. It does not apply to mobile broadband app stores.

No unreasonable discrimination:  Under the FCC rules, ISPs can manage their networks, but it can't be "unreasonable" or discriminate against specific applications. The FCC acknowledged 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? OK. Blocking Netflix or BitTorrent because it competes with your own service or eats up bandwidth? Not OK.

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 Microsoft should not be able to pay to have their Web site load faster than "mom and pop" e-commerce sites, While this practice of paid prioritization is not strictly banned in the net neutrality rules, the FCC said yesterday that it that it would likely be deemed unreasonable.

To me, that's a bit wishy-washy, and probably a political "olive leaf".

"It's a very dynamic marketplace … so everything would have to be evaluated," the FCC official said. "I think there's significant concern about paid prioritization … but it's not ruled out."

"Can I Report a Violation?". Yes. If you think your ISP is violating these rules, you can complain to the FCC. The agency has two types of complaint processes: an informal consumer complaint and a more organized formal process.

To get the full 194 page statement, go HERE. For the actual rules, you'll have to wait for a few days or more.

5,575 views 6 replies
Reply #1 Top

An ISP should be able to pick what their bandwidth is used for. As long as they are up front with it and the consumer knows what he is signing up to.

Let me guess who picks what is a lawful web site ....

Reply #2 Top

And as with all things regulated watch the price skyrocket. Bad enough bandwidth is expensive as it is. Now you'll pay more get less and that's that. IMHO. Although I may be way off base here.

Reply #3 Top

An ISP should be able to pick what their bandwidth is used for.
End of quote

Actually, it's the public's bandwidth licensed to the ISP. Much like the federal research grant money to investigators in the pharmaceutical field only to have the medicines developed sold back to them at outrageous cost.

Reply #4 Top

Time to dust off my Etch-A-Sketch! ;P I pay enough as it is for internet and if it goes any higher I'll be using my pc for a door stop. ;)

Reply #5 Top

Quoting DrJBHL, reply 3
Actually, it's the public's bandwidth licensed to the ISP.
End of DrJBHL's quote

Which the ISP pays for. I can't see why its wrong for a company to sell me a cheaper service if I agree to certain restrictions. As long as it is transparent and they are upfront with it.

Maybe I am reading it all wrong ...   :S

Reply #6 Top

Which the ISP pays for.
End of quote

With your money.

I can't see why its wrong for a company to sell me a cheaper service if I agree to certain restrictions.
End of quote

The restrictions will dictate which services you use (i.e. BitTorrent, Netflix or Hulu), because they use bandwidth, the ISP would get to choose to slow it down but not the big company which wants it's site to load faster than another's. You then might not be able to use the services you want, or wait an impossibly long time to download. Do you want to pay cable prices for dial up or DSL speed?

To get the services you want or need (why you signed up in the first place) you would be put in a bidding war with someone you couldn't beat, or pay a price you couldn't afford.

Essentially, to get anything at all (I admit I'm using an extreme example) you'd end up paying a lot and getting very little.

With paid prioritization, how will the value of bandwidth be set? By people and big companies who have the means to pay. Not by you even though you paid the same amount as the ISP C.E.O and the big company's C.E.O. for the lines over which they transmit.

In a free market, it's "charge what the market can bear". I don't want (and cannot afford) to compete with huge corporations for time on the lines I paid equally for. That's simply not just.

I also do not trust ISP's to determine cost for service nor be in the position to dictate which services I can or can't use. By nature, without watchdogs, they will likely collude. Such has been the history of business. Preferential deals would be made and you would be bounced from one to another with little choice because you're used to your current speed and can't afford choice.

"Thanks, but no thanks."