Slashdot Mirror
FCC Finalizes US Net Neutrality Rules
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?'"
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.
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/
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!