Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

FCC Finalizes US Net Neutrality Rules

Posted by Soulskill on from the final-until-the-next-election-cycle dept.

milbournosphere writes "The FCC has finalized its proposed rules regarding net neutrality. The rules go into effect on 20 November, nearly a year after they passed in a 3-2 vote. The FCC's statement (PDF) summarizes the rules thus: 'First, transparency: fixed and mobile broadband providers must disclose the network management practices, performance characteristics, and commercial terms of their broadband services. Second, no blocking: fixed broadband providers may not block lawful content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices; mobile broadband providers may not block lawful websites, or block applications that compete with their voice or video telephony services. Third, no unreasonable discrimination: fixed broadband providers may not unreasonably discriminate in transmitting lawful network traffic.' It should be noted that some of the language is a little ambiguous; who is to decide what constitutes 'unreasonable discrimination?'"

46 of 299 comments (clear)

  1. Judges, that's who! by cfalcon · · Score: 3, Interesting

    "who is to decide what constitutes 'unreasonable discrimination?"

    That can go to court. Yes, it's not perfect, but it's definitely more protection than currently available.

    I'm more worried about "lawful" in there. If that's found to be "an application or webpage that is guaranteed to have no illegal content" or something similar, then we might end up with torrent and freenet blockers anyway.

    1. Re:Judges, that's who! by tverbeek · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes, this is how sound legislation is always written. Rather than trying to spell things out in technical details that will immediately be obsolete and also provide a roadmap for how to get around the letter of the law, they use subjective terms like "unreasonable discrimination" to allow judicial rulings to define and redefine it over time in keeping with the spirit of the law.

      --
      http://alternatives.rzero.com/
    2. Re:Judges, that's who! by spidercoz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, dude. Net Neutrality supporters want to be able to access whatever they want, unhindered by CORPORATE interests. It has nothing to do with private networks. People pay for access to the Internet, a PUBLIC network, and they want to be able to use it however they want. It's about freedom, not regulation.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, re Voltaire
    3. Re:Judges, that's who! by jellomizer · · Score: 2

      The Lawful bit it is prevent a loop hole where Illegal Content would become legal, at least unenforceable.

      So if you get blocked for Illegal Content just like if you get blocked for unreasonable discrimination you go to court to try to prove otherwise.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    4. Re:Judges, that's who! by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes, this is how sound legislation is always written. Rather than trying to spell things out in technical details that will immediately be obsolete and also provide a roadmap for how to get around the letter of the law, they use subjective terms like "unreasonable discrimination" to allow judicial rulings to define and redefine it over time in keeping with the spirit of the law.

      No, it's not. It's how tyrannies are built. It's a way for an oppressive police state to arbitrarily decide when and against whom they are going to enforce the law. Fail to provide the right media support or bribe ... err, I mean "contribution", and you're targetted - and the law is simply made to apply.

      Sound legislation must disallow discrimination, provide equal protection, and enforce the tenets of the rule of law. It should be clear to anyone whether an action they take will violate the law or not. It should be unambiguous. In fact, overly broad or ambiguous legislation is often overturned on Constitutional grounds, and should be.

      It's a simple idea - if the laws are so many and confusing and open to interpretation, it means anyone and everyone can be said to be breaking the law at any time. And it's up to the enforcers to decide who to actually bring down.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    5. Re:Judges, that's who! by meerling · · Score: 4, Informative

      Also, the internet has become a major portion of our communications and cultural dissemination and participation. As such, interfering with it potentially infringes upon our already 'guaranteed' rights.

      Just imagine what it would be like if you wanted to walk downtown and talk to George Arneston, maybe give him that invite to your birthday party. But you have to pay Sidewalk-Co a $20/month fee to walk faster than 5'/minute downtown. If that wasn't bad enough, George is a member of the organization WalkFree which Sidewalk-Co doesn't really like because they are in competition with them for the pedestrian transportation contract. Why is that bad? Because every time you try to go talk to George, Sidewalk-Co blocks the sidewalk so you can't get to George. Of course maybe you could get to him, if you went through all the back alleys and cut across a few empty weed choked lots, but that's going to take all day, and even then you'll only get a sentence or two out before Sidewalk-Co sets up a new block that separates you from George.
      That's what the real world would be like if it were the internet, and net neutrality isn't enforced. I know it's not that bad in most parts of the net right now, but it's still a frontier town, and people attempting to proclaim that they own the sidewalks is pretty much laughed at. Problem is they have lawyers, connections, and other resources. Some of them are already testing the waters, so to speak. If we don't act now, greed and anti-competitiveness with turn the internet into a series of roadblocks and restrictions. That's why we need Net Neutrality, so we can stroll around the internet unimpeded.

    6. Re:Judges, that's who! by SmurfButcher+Bob · · Score: 2

      Like hell. I happen to own the copyright to the number 0x65, which happens to be a secret key, and you're distributing it. Luckily, I don't need to tell you about this - I only need to tell your provider. Start packing, buddy.

      Also, just because your website is legal *here* does not mean it's legal in The People's Republic of Zabundi. The Zabundi Grand Council has stated numerous times that your site is grossly illegal due to the forbidden topics you mention, and would arrest you on the spot if it had an extradition treaty with anyone.

      --

      help me i've cloned myself and can't remember which one I am

    7. Re:Judges, that's who! by Shotgun · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Nobody has yet to offer a single valid justification for so-called "net neutrality" legislation.

      That's only because you have your head so far up your butt that you can't smell tyranny when it comes knocking at your door.

      *Warning: US centric rant to follow*

      The founding fathers of my country left it to the federal government to establish "post roads". Why would a group of men so hell-bent on limiting the federal government specifically give them the power take land to create roads? Because leaving it up to individuals or the various states would leave the country with a mish-mash of levies and fines to get from one place to another, and ultimately weaken us all. Government is the grease that allows the machinery of society to operate efficiently. Open roads enables free and open commerce, which benefits us all.

      An open communication system is the same thing. The railroads, telephone, telegraph and electric lines should have been nationalized from the outset. Not the rail-cars, or switches, but the actual lines themselves. Anything that requires the power of eminent domain to implement should remain in control of the government entity that took it. Only then can we guarantee everyone equal access, and not tie up free commerce with entities that would like to see you tied up and limited to their walled garden.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    8. Re:Judges, that's who! by LordArgon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Medievalist had a great response to this, but I have a few points that I'd also like you to see.

      First, it's utterly ridiculous to expect laws to start and remain unambiguous. Any half-decent engineer knows there are many ways a once-clear specification can be misunderstood, especially as your system grows and interacts with other systems. People miss cases or simply can't yet conceive of new situations. The goal of the law is what's important; losing site of the goals is what leads to ridiculous lawsuits and the litigation-heavy society we have now.

      Second, unambiguous laws are not necessarily just. For example, if you exceed the speed limit by 1 mph, you've technically broken to law, but have you really violated the spirit of the law? I would argue no; I would argue that the spirit is to keep people driving responsibly and safely and I don't think there's a magic speed where everybody drives like that. In a perfect world, I would rather have a subjective law focused on safety and rely on intelligent, upright enforcers to uphold the spirit. It's not a perfect world so we end up somewhere in the middle.

      Finally, you're really focusing on the wrong thing. What we need are simple laws with clear goals and accountability for the people who enforce them (at all levels). Unfortunately, effective accountability is a very hard thing to create, but I'm sure we could do a hell of a lot better than we do now.

    9. Re:Judges, that's who! by hedwards · · Score: 2

      The thing is that it's legal precedent that private companies can't do whatever they want just because they own the property involved. If it were unconstitutional then you'd expect for anti-discrimination, environmental protection and workplace safety legislation to be unenforceable.

      Which is a moot point anyways, considering that there are subsidies and that the wires cross public property in getting to their final destination.

    10. Re:Judges, that's who! by imric · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You are incorrect. The type of law that you want to see is the type that is ALWAYS gamed; laws that disallow interpretation are the tools of tyranny. That's why the founders of the US specifically made the judicial system a separate branch of government on a par with the legislative and executive, rather than a simple tool of the executive, as the right would like it to be.

      --
      Paranoia is a Survival Trait!
    11. Re:Judges, that's who! by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 2

      Government regulations are the reason there are monopolies. Those local and regional monopolies exist because the government mandated them into existence. What makes you think that the government that created those monopolies is going to act to limit them?

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    12. Re:Judges, that's who! by spidercoz · · Score: 2

      They do it all the time.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, re Voltaire
    13. Re:Judges, that's who! by Obfuscant · · Score: 2

      Do you think we should let FedEx own the roads?

      Do you think you own the FedEx trucks because they drive on the roads?

    14. Re:Judges, that's who! by tverbeek · · Score: 2

      "Tyrannies" created by laws which outlined a principle instead of detailing specifics? Cite examples, please (so we can laugh at them).

      You have a point about overly broad and ambiguous legislation. But as you note, the courts in the U.S. throw those laws out, leaving those that are merely broad (like this) intact.

      The fact that you lump "too many" and "too broad" laws in together shows a misunderstanding of the issue, because those are two different things pulling in opposing directions. When laws are broadly worded, they tend to be few in number (e.g. Moses' commandments). When they are obsessively specific, they fill up lengthy rule books (e.g. the Torah).

      For laws that are not obviously unambiguous (like this one), those do get clarified into greater specifics, by the executive and judicial branches, which put more specific current interpretations of the law into writing in the form of regulations and court decisions. If you want to know whether you're violating a law or not, you can; you just need to do the research by consulting all three branches of government.

      --
      http://alternatives.rzero.com/
  2. So will verizon FIOS now open port 25? by h4rr4r · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I get it morons spam, but how about opening it for users on request when we want to have mailservers?

    Internet service with blocked ports is not really internet service.

    1. Re:So will verizon FIOS now open port 25? by 0racle · · Score: 3, Informative

      You might want to read your ToS on that residential line. I'll put money on you agreed not to run internet services on it.

      --
      "I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
    2. Re:So will verizon FIOS now open port 25? by h4rr4r · · Score: 2

      I don't care. The internet is a two way street. If they don't want you using it they should not be allowed to call it internet service. They should have to sell it as "one way consumption only service for ports 80 and 443."

    3. Re:So will verizon FIOS now open port 25? by erroneus · · Score: 2

      Network Neutrality rules should trump ToS agreements just as local, state and federal laws trump EULAs. There are some things they shouldn't be allowed to do.

    4. Re:So will verizon FIOS now open port 25? by nmb3000 · · Score: 2

      I get it morons spam, but how about opening it for users on request when we want to have mailservers?

      Internet service with blocked ports is not really internet service.

      And I get it that 0.03% of users are like you and want to run a mailserver at home. Unfortunately, 60% of users have spam-spewing malware infesting their machine and blocking port 25 on all the big ISP networks is a huge step forward to reduce botnet/zombie spam.

      Does Verizon not have an SMTP gateway you can use? I know when on a Comcast connection I can simply open up smtp.comcast.net and it will relay mail for me. A quick look shows they probably do, though you might have to do smarthost and authentication. Pretty easy.

      Besides, any competent spam filter will increase the spam rating for mail sent directly from a network like Verizon and Comcast anyway. You're better off using a legitimate server (Verizon, Gmail, your hosting provider, whatever) to send those messages.

      --
      "What do you despise? By this are you truly known." --Princess Irulan, Manual of Muad'Dib
      /)
    5. Re:So will verizon FIOS now open port 25? by berzerke · · Score: 2

      It could be that you want to connect to someone else's SMTP server, not running your own. Blocking port 25 prevents that, forcing the user to find an alternative port. Admittedly, that alternative is usually encrypted, so overall this is a good thing.

    6. Re:So will verizon FIOS now open port 25? by dbc · · Score: 4, Interesting

      My ISP has this one right, I think. Port 25 and other well-known server ports that are popular among the SPAMinistas are blocked by default (on residential service lines). But opening them up is a simple matter of signing into a configuration page and clicking a button to open the port. They have a few words of warning on the web page, but don't stop you from doing it.

      Let's be realistic, many customers are going to be in the "What's a port?" crowd. They are the ones who's systems are likely to get compromised and have the least idea how to fix it. People who say "I want to run SMTP on port 25." are capable of finding the button on the ISP's web site and clicking it. Also, the ISP runs statistical monitors on anybody who opens port 25. Because you found and clicked the button to open port 25, the ISP has at least half a chance that an e-mail saying: "Dude, do you know your SMTP outbound traffic just spiked up by 20X today, and that you are sending out X MB per day now?" is likely to be read by a sentient being.

      Overall, I think they have the balance about right -- they don't get in your way, but they do things to minimize problems and workload caused by compromised customer systems.

    7. Re:So will verizon FIOS now open port 25? by geekmux · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I don't care. The internet is a two way street. If they don't want you using it they should not be allowed to call it internet service. They should have to sell it as "one way consumption only service for ports 80 and 443."

      The term "internet service" 99.9% of the time in a consumer or residential contract is meant to DELIVER services to you, NOT for you to provide services to others. Of course, this works well because 99.9% of consumers only want or need exactly what is being delivered to them today.

      Interpret that all you want, but the bottom line is chances are your ISP does in fact offer a business-class service that would unblock port 25, 80, or 443. Most consumers bitch about it only because they're too cheap to pay for business-class service, that's all. Go lease your own T1 line if you want to see what "expensive" really is.

      If you want policy to change regarding consumer-class services, then shift the demand. Right now, ISPs don't have consumers in droves beating down their doors demanding they can run web and email servers. And it's not likely to happen anytime soon either.

      And no, I don't work for an ISP. This is just common sense.

    8. Re:So will verizon FIOS now open port 25? by DigiShaman · · Score: 4, Informative

      ISPs do filter port 25 going outside their network for customers using heuristic behavior monitoring. In some cases, out-right block it all together. If I had to guess, all outbound port 25 traffic gets routed to an entire management firewall device to perform this CPU intensive task. Take ATT for example. Many of my clients here in Houston, TX can send out e-mail to a 3rd party POP server. But send more than 5 or 10 within a small window of time, and the entire port gets clamped down. I've personally confirmed this using Telnet commands. Again, not normal behavior. Definitely some activity management going on at the ISP level they're not owning up to.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    9. Re:So will verizon FIOS now open port 25? by Tsingi · · Score: 2

      25 is smtp, 22 is ssh. Who needs to look it up?

      It was not a good dead, you were trying to show off how smart you are. Turns out you made a mistake while doing it, live and learn.

      I do. You win the pissing contest.

      btw, it's 'deed', not 'dead'. Look it up.

    10. Re:So will verizon FIOS now open port 25? by Hatta · · Score: 2

      The internet protocol is peer to peer. If I cannot run services, I am not a peer, and therefore I do not have internet access. If they have advertised internet access, and do not provide internet access, they are breaking the law.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    11. Re:So will verizon FIOS now open port 25? by swillden · · Score: 2

      My thoughts exactly... if they blocked 25 out then people using eudora, Thunderbird, etc would be screwed. I think the original port 25 out poster doesn't have something configured right or something just like the parent suggests

      Nah, it happens, and the solution is to use 587 instead of 25. Technically that's the right port to use anyway. 587 is for mail submission, 25 is for communication between SMTP servers. RFC 4409 defines the mail submission protocol, which includes authentication. Because it's an authenticated submission channel it's easy to shut down any accounts being abused by spammers.

      All mail servers and mail clients of note support authenticated submission on port 587.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  3. Good, but not far enough by fingers1122 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This is better than nothing, but it's only a matter of time before some of the "ambiguity" in the rules are exploited. What scares me most about net neutrality is that virtually no one outside of those who are actively interested know anything about it, and we've already seen a crazy propaganda campaign in the press to define net neutrality as a "government takeover of the Internet."

    If we have any desire for true net neutrality to be upheld, we have to figure out a way to reframe this discussion in the media--and we have to do it quickly or we're going to soon end up with an Internet that is going to resemble broadcast TV more than the open web of information that it is now. I have a bad feeling in my stomach about how net neutrality is going to play out as it seems almost no one understands how vitally important it is.

    1. Re:Good, but not far enough by h4rr4r · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You can't reframe it in the media. They are the ones you are fighting against.

    2. Re:Good, but not far enough by bonch · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What scares me about net neutrality is that people actually believe a private company running a private network doesn't have the right to regulate its network traffic however they see fit.

    3. Re:Good, but not far enough by fingers1122 · · Score: 2

      Unfortunately, yes. But we are going to lose this battle if the conversation becomes about "government control" and not about freedom to communicate. Power structures all over the world fear the Internet as it is now--and they should. It is not in the interest of power structures to allow the public to communicate freely, and as a result they will eventually try to do away with it.

    4. Re:Good, but not far enough by cfalcon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The private companies that are federally subsidized monopolies? Go look at how all that pipe got laid. That's tax dollars at work. You want to look me in the eye and tell me that anyone can just go run a giant network of fiber? Because these turkeys sure didn't, and even if you could, you would need massive government participation to bury stuff everywhere.

      These things are "utilities" for a reason. This isn't like "the only difference between these guys and the store at the corner is total money". This is different.

    5. Re:Good, but not far enough by h4rr4r · · Score: 2

      I agree they should be allowed to just as soon as they give up any right of ways or government subsidies/loans or tax credits.

      A company that survives by laying cable over my land without paying me by using the force of government should expect this. What is sauce for the goose...

    6. Re:Good, but not far enough by fingers1122 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      He probably cares very little about the fact that the government created the infrastructure of the Internet. People like him don't really believe in minimal government (as they love to claim); they believe in a very strong, robust government--but one that works only in favor of private business. We of course see this in the financial industry, where at the top, losses are socialized and gains are privatized--with no real effort to end the "to big to fail" policy. These people are not capitalist, they are Marxists, but they're on the other side. They consistently LOVE government when it funds and protects private business, but hate it when it asks for anything back--like, oh say, protection of its citizens.

      At least government is accountable to the people in functioning democracies. Corporations are tyrannical in nature, owing no accountability to the public. We've seen what happens to unregulated industries. "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to fulfill it."

    7. Re:Good, but not far enough by AmberBlackCat · · Score: 2

      What scares me about net neutrality is that people actually believe a private company running a private network doesn't have the right to regulate its network traffic however they see fit.

      Keep in mind, along with these private companies getting government deals to shut out competition, these private companies tend to sue governments who want to provide similar service paid for with tax dollars. If they want the government to make them the sole source of the service, they should be subject to regulation.

    8. Re:Good, but not far enough by sjames · · Score: 2

      Just as soon as they deposit money in my private bank account for running their private cable through my private property. That and surrender any exclusive franchise agreements they may have with local governments.

  4. "unlawful" by girlintraining · · Score: 4, Interesting

    You guys do realize that everything you do on the internet is unlawful in one fashion or another, somewhere. It's like a police officer following you while you drive. At some point during the trip, regardless of who you are, you're going to do something that is an offense the officer can stop you for. The internet is no different.

    Look at how we've made breaking an EULA a crime. Tell me, how many EULAs do you interact with during your average browsing session? That's just one example... there's thousands more buried in a byzantine legal framework. So basically, the exception that they cannot disrupt "legal" traffic is a carte blanche exception to do whatever they want... because everything is illegal somehow.

    And if not, your ISP will simply adjust their EULA for their website, and set your default homepage to it, and viola.

    --
    #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    1. Re:"unlawful" by fingers1122 · · Score: 2

      Before Andrew Jackson went into full ethnic-cleansing mode, he reasoned one way to deal with the native-American problem was to allow them to stay on their land but tell them they had to abide by state law. Obviously, this was impossible as the native way of life did not conform to US law. This gave him an ability to make the argument for removing the natives by force because he could claim that he was doing it because they were not following the law.

      These things happen in small steps. We're being treated like idiots, and it's not long before we're going to hear arguments like, "We would love to keep the Internet open and free, but no one using the Internet is following the law, so we--the ISP--have to control it to stop people from violating the law."

  5. Queue prophetic Ayn Rand quote by Quila · · Score: 2

    "There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted and you create a nation of law-breakers."

    She was a bit whacko in ways, but man did she hit the nail on the head with this one.

  6. Re:Sounds good in the summary by s73v3r · · Score: 2

    I'm gonna guess 0. Now, on the other hand, how many times have ISPs abused their power to the detriment of businesses or alternative distribution means they just happen to disagree with, politically or otherwise?

  7. Buried under state roads; tantamount to press by tepples · · Score: 2

    Internet access is a technological convenience, a service sold by private companies

    For one thing, people who buy a service have the right to know up front, in easily understood language, what limits the service will have. For another thing, fixed broadband providers operate under municipal franchises due to the state's monopoly on roads under which the last mile can be buried.

    not some right guaranteed constitutional protection

    Watch lawyers for a civil liberties advocacy group talk a judge into considering Internet publication tantamount to "speech or ... the press".

  8. If you want to talk privileges by tepples · · Score: 5, Insightful

    internet access is not considered a right here, it's a privilege.

    Nor is wireless ISPs' access to FCC-owned spectrum a right; it's a privilege. Nor is wired ISPs' access to conduit under post roads a right; it too is a privilege.

    1. Re:If you want to talk privileges by StikyPad · · Score: 2

      You're so silly. There were never days where legal channels weren't corrupted and totally preferential toward those with the most money to throw at it. Things are actually much better than they've been by historical standards. You don't wind up in jail for missing a payment to a private entity on their say-so, for example.

      --
      https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
    2. Re:If you want to talk privileges by AngryDeuce · · Score: 2

      Things are actually much better than they've been by historical standards.

      No, things were much better. From WWII-the late 70's, things were great. Then Reagan, the first fully Corporate Owned President, came along and they rectified that thorny "democracy" problem.

  9. Laws not subject to interpretation do not exist. by Medievalist · · Score: 4, Insightful

    No representational symbolic system (such as legal language) that has a functional relationship with a practical reality (such as the human condition) can eradicate paradox and ambiguity. You cannot create laws that are both useful and incapable of alternate interpretations, that's why we have judges and juries. Lawyers and kings figured this out long before Kurt Godel wrote down a suspiciously similar principle.

    This is why it's better to have fewer laws, of course - what did Tacitus say? Oh, yes, In pessima republica plurimae leges - "In the most corrupt republic, the laws are most numerous". Lao Tse said it even earlier, and it's an idea that seems to have been independently derived throughout history.

    Fewer, simpler laws (like: "don't kill anyone who is not doing harm" and "don't take stuff that isn't yours") are not only easier to understand and enforce than a large body of complex law, they are less prone to corruption by the powerful.

    Hey, didja ever notice how after "deregulation" there are always more laws than before? Deregulation is just a corrupt politician's code word, brought to you by the Ministry of Public Enlightenment. I think it means somebody has their hand in your pocket; whenever you hear someone say "deregulation" you should probably reach for your gun.

  10. I haven't read it, but here's a question... by eepok · · Score: 2

    I haven't read the document, but here's a questions for those who have:

    Will the current document allow the practice of a provider putting a bandwidth cap on an account, but offering services immune to the cap?

    An example would be the user having a set cap of 50 GB per month (limiting video consumption from sites like Netflix), but the user's provider offers their own streaming movie service that, when used, does not contribute to the consumption limit.