Slashdot Mirror
FCC Approves Net Neutrality Rules
muggs sends word that the U.S. Federal Communications Commission has voted 3-2 to approve an expansion of their ability to regulate ISPs by treating them as a public utility.
Under the rules, it will be illegal for companies such as Verizon or Cox Communications to slow down streaming videos, games and other online content traveling over their networks. They also will be prohibited from establishing "fast lanes" that speed up access to Web sites that pay an extra fee. And in an unprecedented move, the FCC could apply the rules to wireless carriers such as T-Mobile and Sprint -- a nod to the rapid rise of smartphones and the mobile Internet. ... The FCC opted to regulate the industry with the most aggressive rules possible: Title II of the Communications Act, which was written to regulate phone companies. The rules waive a number of provisions in the act, including parts of the law that empower the FCC to set retail prices — something Internet providers feared above all. However, the rules gives the FCC a variety of new powers, including the ability to: enforce consumer privacy rules; extract money from Internet providers to help subsidize services for rural Americans, educators and the poor; and make sure services such as Google Fiber can build new broadband pipes more easily.
4-5 years in the courts...
...you might just get it, good, hard, and deep. And without lube. And sand covered in chili oil instead of lube.
.
I, for one, welcome our new FCC overlords.
... on my next bill from Comcast
...Just like the utilities.
Is there is no local loop unbundling. This was the real solution. With competition to supply the service who cares if comcast or time warner are pieces of crap. You can drop them like hot potatoes. Instead we have more control and less freedom.
And how do we know this will solve those problems since the whole spec and process has been secret? WTF most open government ever?
So when do they release these 322 pages of new rules? With all this transparency, what could POSSIBLY go wrong?! /s
I mean, after the broadcast flag incident, how is it everyone so comfortable with letting the FCC become the packet police? The regular court system has proved to be inadequate... when?
Wonder what the public key field is for?
Anyone know if this will have an immediate effect on the throttling ISP's seem to be doing to Netflix content unless they make special deals with the ISP's (I'm looking at Verizon specifically)? Does this mean it is now illegal to demand third party websites pay extra for their content to not be throttled (which is exactly the kind of scheme Verizon and other ISP's are currently running)? If so I wonder how this will effect deals already made to speed up content.
this seems to good to be true... it's what the populace wants, what the corporations didn't, and it makes sense.
I can't correlate this with being a current government agency that interfaces between the public and commerce...
after so many time being disappointed by the choices our government makes i guess im in battered wife syndrome type shock.
I'm assuming such deals are now rendered unenforceable.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I predict that all of you net neutrality supporters are in for a nasty surprise. Your hatred of Comcast and fear of what it might do has lead to the biggest restrictions on freedom since the Patriot Act, which at least had the excuse of 3,000 dead people.
But what’s the excuse here? Ooh, Comcast might charge Netflix more money? There might be “fast lanes” that cost more? Do you think George Soros spent $196 million on NN because he’s worried about Netflix? Of course not. You don’t need 300+ pages of regulations for just that. This whole thing is a Trojan Horse so that the government can get it’s fingers deeper into the internet. As soon as the regulations are available, search them for terms like “hate speech” and "disparate impact." This will be a mass of restrictions, requirements, taxes, subsidies, and pay-offs to favored groups. I'm sure trial lawyers will be happy, because there will no doubt be lots of new things they can sue about. I’m sure the FCC will administer this with all the fairness that the IRS has brought to regulating political advocacy non-profits.
And now that the regulations have changed, the NSA will have a freer hand with wiretaps.
Get ready for a shitstorm once Silicon Valley finds out what’s really in this.
Q: What does the "B." in Benoit B. Mandelbrot stand for? A: Benoit B. Mandelbrot
What will happen when the FCC decides to use the new powers to "clean up" (i.e. censor) the Internet the same way it's done to TV and Radio? Am I the only person who believes the government will fuck this up the same way they've fucked up everything else they meddle with? People are so very shortsighted.
"IT'S (probably*) A TRAP!"
- Rear Admiral Akquixotic of the Mon Calamari
*: There's a small chance that this will end up actually helping consumers. A broken clock is right twice a day, and a reg-captured FCC occasionally does things that benefit the common man.
For example, the Block C Open Access provisions on Verizon and AT&T's LTE bands (or at least some of them) are what prevented these carriers from preventing tethering or the use of custom devices. Any FCC-certified device, rooted or not, tethering or not, can be on those bands, and there's nothing the carrier can do to stop it without breaking the law.
Those provisions have been a lifesaver for many customers of these two carriers who want to use the LTE from their phone to tether a laptop on the go, but don't want to pay extra or buy dedicated hardware for it. So the FCC definitely helped in a pragmatic sense with those rules.
Then again, I'm sure the industry coalitions have fully formed lawsuits written up, signed, in the envelope, and just waiting to be mailed when this decision hit. Who knows how long it'll be until the results of this trickle down through carrier policy and plan offerings to affect the everyman?
Now that Federal Government is, once again, judging, what content is fair, a Department of Fairness can not be far behind. And who can possibly be against fairness?
And why not just call it Ministry of Truth? Nobody can be against truth either...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
It doesn't go far enough. What we really need is to separate content creators from the network providers. Have a separate utility company that only provides your internet connection and nothing else. That way, every company that wants to sell you product is on 100% equal footing. Make the market truly free for everyone to participate on a level playing field. After all, isn't that what's most fair to everyone? Distributing your cable TV service over your now independent internet link will open it up so you can get your TV service from anyone you want. Think of what the competition will do to the industry and how much better it will be for the consumer.
Oh wait. I forgot that the cable companies will bribe everyone in congress they can in order to keep their municipal monopolies firmly entrenched. So much for real free markets and competition. Rats.
"Democrats force through socialist regulations." Nothing Obama does in the next year will make durable law, not amnesty, unnatural marriage, communication regulation, healthcare subsidies... A conservative President and congress will set things right in 2010
I'm not sure this will have an effect on those deals. The rules seem to call out throttling and fast lanes specifically, while what comcast/verizon was doing is just not expanding capacity to netflix's provider (Same effect, but they we'rent "limiting" anything, they just weren't building out the needed infrastructure (super cheap infrastructure, but infrastructure none the less))
Open your wallet. All the Netflix viewers and Facebook advertisers are counting on YOU to subsidize them.
There is no capital i in 'internet'
Seems to me that the internet providers may now actually try to roll out data capping as a way to "throttle" the users....
Comcast:no, ...eh we're more of a callcenter these days anyway.
FCC:...thats a nice internet you have there....
Verizon: No.
Time Warner:NO
Republican party: NO!
POTUS: sure would be nice if it were just....
AT&T: NO GOD NO
FCC:......a little more neutral.
Rogers:
Good people go to bed earlier.
I can think of a zillion loopholes by which this will be evaded.
Is there a definition of what is THE internet? surely comcast can create a parallel construction and sell however they wish like a private toll road. It could have discrete points where it could tap into the "real" internet. Thus amazon or netflix or whomever could connect into this autobahn on the goes-into side and pop out into "the" internet at some Comcast hub in the customers town.
Picture it like FED Ex, transporting a package 90% of the way, then mailing it. the postoffice might not charge differently for different customers and Fed Ex might not either (or they could) but only customers with valuable deliveries would be willing to pay the cost of the combined service, which would be dominated by the Fed Ex high speed service.
That's effectively what companies like Akamai sell already and those are not part of the discussion of Net Neutrality.
It might be easy to regulate comcast if comcast is the parent company of both halves of this real and shadow internet. But if these services are split into two companies then what? Even if the shadow company is privately held by comcast this is going to be hard to regulate.
Eventually the shadow compaines won't even bother with their own hardware. They will lease a certain number of dedicated switches from Comcast for their own uses. these will be cut out of the real internet.
An alternative way around this is by selectively enforcing the tragedy of the commons. In principle Netflix could prioritize its packets on a neutral interenet by emitting 100 times as many packets where each packet is sent 100 times. the receiver ignores all but the first one of the redundant packets. This of course would be retaliated by others now squeezed out doing the same thing resulting in 100x the traffic for the same data and no gain for anyone. COmcast would come down hard on these miscreants but would it be selective?
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
I favor Net Neutrality, assuming it is as was commonly known. I haven't read the new regulations, so it may be something entirely different with the Net Neutrality title slapped onto it.
What I objected to in general (prior to new ruling) was the trend for ISP's to charge me as an end user for "guaranteed" speed rates, then charge the content providers a second time for the same bandwidth that I already paid for. IOW I will be paying for the speed I want two times, because the content providers will have to pass the cost on to me.
My 3 cents.
What a nice birthday present the FCC has given me! I would have never belied it a year ago that we get this result from Tom Wheeler.
signifi3antly out how to maKe the gone Romeo and IS EFNET, AND YOU
This could be the best decision in the world and actually benefit everyone, however....
I'm so completely over this dictatorship and executive fiat BS that I have to disagree with the way these rules came to be.
And finally if this is anything like the last sweeping overhaul of industry impacting 1/6+ of the global economy hold your head and your asses because the next few years will be a funky bumpy ride for everyone while we 'learn about the details' that were so blatantly hidden.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VrCCpaEoxI
I'm happy with my cable provider.
Said no one ever.
Spelling alert. Retard found.
I approve of the FCC decision, but I have a concern about lack of regulation on pricing matters.
I suspect this will end up like POTS. Here is a sample of a future bill.
25/5 Broadband Service Base Fee $39.99
Advertising Fee $20.00
Plant maintenance Fee $20.00
Regulatory Capture Fee $20.00
Washington Lobbying Fee $20.00
Bandwidth Fee for data over the cap limit 100.00
Total amount due this month: $219.99
Some action on the FCC's part to limit these fees will be required in the future.
I have read Slashdot almost every day for 14 years, but never felt the urge to post a word, until now. I teethed on a 4k PDP-8e, wire wrapped my first PC, and today am happy just struggling with .NET. But really, when Google can comment on the text before the rest of America gets to see it, it's pretty sad. As a radio amateur I understand the need for spectrum allocation, but Internet bandwidth is not finite. Having failed previously in the courts this is just another way to achieve the same control. The proper way to handle this is through congress. Given the lobbying that goes on, maybe that is impossible, but an Executive decision is not closer to the will of the people either.
Last year netflix was paying comcast extra fees to not be in a 'slow lane'. I imagine by now Netflix is going to stop payment.
it's what the populace wants, what the corporations didn't
All sorts of corporations wanted this passed.
It's 300 pages. Does what *you* wanted take 300 pages to express? No? HMM.
Good luck with that, as the saying goes. I am really looking forward to you all finding out what has really happened today.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Wheeler is the FCC chairman, from article "Wheeler has refused to release the 332-page plan he wants the commission to approve on Thursday, citing FCC tradition as the reason."
Imvestors Daily Article
Everyone knows this is just the start of the regulations! There will be more to come in the future.
Also from the article
"It's unlikely making the rules available would change the vote's outcome - Democrats have a 3-2 advantage. But the public deserves nothing less than to see what FCC has in store for the Internet before the commissioners cast their ballots."
Good or bad, not sure. Just my 2 cents.
anyone have an idea?
the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
I notice that the summary of these provisions apply to "lawful internet traffic". And just WHO is the arbiter of "lawful internet traffic"? One interpretation could be "domestic US traffic". And "traffic from approved, lawful partners."
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
How companies like Time Warner will defeat Net Neutrality: Self-divestiture.
The "Time Warner Cable/Internet" you know of today becomes a myriad of companies specifically designed to continue on with business as usual while still adhering to the letter of the law:
- Time Warner Broadband - a company which does nothing more than operate Hybrid-Fiber-Coax outside plant (the actual wires on the actual poles).
- Time Warner Cable - a company which leases spectrum from TWB (above), and provides cable-video service on that outside plant
- Time Warner Transit - a company which does nothing more than provide wholesale (non-retail, non-mass-market) internet connectivity to ISPs and other service providers. As a wholesaler, TWT is not encumbered by net neutrality regulations.
- Time Warner Internet - a company which leases spectrum from TWB (above) to provide IP connectivity to end-users. It obtains *all* of its internet connectivity from TWT (above), and charges metered billing to all its end-users (you pay a flat rate PLUS you pay "by the bit", the same way you pay for water or electric today).
Netflix, et al, will have to tithe properly to TWT if they want access to TWI's customers, since TWT is the only path to GET to TWI's customers. The FCC can't really punish TWI for this move, without opening up an even messier Pandora's box of trying to tell ISPs "which upstreams they HAVE to obtain connectivity from".
Yes, it'll all be a LITTLE more complicated than that, but they've got teams of lawyers to work out the details.
It depends on what was actually occurring. If Verizon / Comcast were degrading performance based on IP ranges or traffic type than this would help them. If, as it seems was the case, this was a peering agreement issue than the rules would do nothing to improve the situation.
I'm dying to know what exactly the ISPs have done to "bring this upon themselves". Yes I know there has been talk about Netflix and others negotiating dedicated pipes and all but how has this affected anyone else? My DL speeds have been around 15 mps for years and I don't notice any delays on any particular websites I visit.
This is nothing but another big gubbermint power grab. They're going to use this as an excuse to regulate the internet, something I think a majority of Slashdotters oppose. Then again, a majority of American Slashdotters voted for the socialist in the White House so I'd say the American people brought this upon themselves.
Serious, who but a government agency would hide behind a ideal called neutrality? I doubt its going to be neutral when the government get's involved. Let's call it what it is. Government calling the shots on the internet.
Elections matter :)
--- guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people ---
Three people - three people in the entire world - people who you didn't even vote for have enacted rules and regulations that apply to how you can use the Internet. Rules that have not been defended in public, rules that you have not been able to read or react to, passed by people you have zero influence over (but massive lobbyists, of course, do).
When this thing comes back to bite you all in the ass I'd like you to remember: You were warned and you went ahead and blindly supported it anyway.
Troll alert, Idiot found.
The Republican party of small business and free markets tried to block it.
How do you make an "unnatural marriage" ? Marry a ghost ?
Were you an extra in the Kingsman movie ?
Am I the only one concerned that Google's lobbyist had something slipped into the proposed regulation LAST NIGHT? We the people weren't allowed to see the regulation before it was voted on, but SOMEHOW Google's lobbyist got their hands on it and proposed a change to PART OF the committee. Not even all five of them, just the three who voted yes. Of course, since the original draft wasn't public, there's no way to know exactly what sweetheart deal was slipped in to benefit Google. That's all this Title II regulation will be... A handout to special interests.
I'm friendly towards the idea of net neutrality, but this feels like a "hold my beer and watch this" type move on the part of the FCC. Using 1930s era regulatory framework that wasn't even remotely designed for what the FCC is trying to do seems like just asking for unintended consequences. The FCC admits as much when it talks about how it is going to use forbearance to try and shoehorn this thing to fit regulating the Internet. That said...is it a situation where the FCC decided to act because Congress declined to take the issue up and craft something more appropriate?
What these fuckin liberals don't get, is that your ISP in some cases is the same guy that offered you BBS dialup and access to fidonet. Sometimes out there in the REAL WORLD some of that equipment IS THE SAME EQUIPMENT from those days!
What this liberal horseshit does is says all that infrastructure that's been built up from said multi-line BBS, over the years into dialup ISP service and converted over to fully blown ISP with hosting, usenet, and on and on, is now for all practical purposes a "public utility"
Oh yeah, The state owns me? I am your new garbage man?! Fuck off.
The state can tell me what I can charge for my own business now? Fuck off.
I tell you what liberals, fuck you, I'll CLOSE my business.
soon except for the FASCIST, there will be NO BUSINESS.
There's no compromise with you motherfuckers.
You are the mortal enemy of this country now.
Watch as more netflix businesses pop up. Each of them wants a 24/7 3D HD streaming porn, and they don't give a fuck about the backbone of the web (or other ISP's like my BBS which turned to an ISP and similar)
Just turn my rack servers on they say, let me run my traffic across your rack servers they say.
OH and I get to spy on it too says the FBI / ndl so I get to shut the fuck up too now.
I say fuck you.
It's bad. I feel like breaking your fuckin neck. As 3%'er though I don't START the next civil war, but I WILL FINISH IT.
You marksist commies only want stuff for your free shit army.
You NEVER PAY FOR IT, but we do. with our fucking BLOOD, with the bankruptcy of our business.
while the truth is, while I don't have an ISP because it was sold off, I would be flipping out right now if I still did.
You laugh this post off at your own fuckin peril.
Nice in theory, but has been used in the past to subsidize the running of cable to the remote mansions of the 1%.
Wireless spectrum is limited.
Wireless spectrum is NOT very limited at ALL.
If you are willing to put a microcell on top of every phone pole (which is basically what NTT DOCOMO has done in Japan), you can pretty much have high speed wireless for everyone, everywhere.
You just have to be willing to invest in the necessary infrastructure, rather than continuing to amortize 5ESS switches and imilar equipment over a period of 20 years.
They can't do anything without finding a new way to tack a fucking fee on things.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Get ready Slashdot. Because now, the FCC can regulate you.
Don't be too partisan or it can be seen as an "in kind" contribution to a candidate.
Could you please explain why you are not capitalizing your sentences? It is sloppy and rude to the people reading.
Is it a iPhone design issue or something? Too hard to push a shift key without a physical keyboard.
I am posting this bill and I ask that all of you who think its great read it before spouting off out of ignorance. I am halfway through it and have serious reservations about this in fact I am saying congress needs to reign in the FCC for doing this. https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_pub...
" 18.2-427. Use of profane, threatening, or indecent language over public airways or by other methods.
Any person who uses obscene, vulgar, profane, lewd, lascivious, or indecent language, or makes any suggestion or proposal of an obscene nature, or threatens any illegal or immoral act with the intent to coerce, intimidate, or harass any person, over any telephone or citizens band radio, in this Commonwealth, is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.
"Over any telephone" includes, for purposes of this section, any electronically transmitted communication producing a visual or electronic message that is received or transmitted by cellular telephone or other wireless telecommunications device.
When the kiddies demonstrate they can't play nice on their own, the parents usually end up getting involved and start laying down the rules. The more intelligent ones realize this early on and self-adjust their behavior accordingly so they retain some say so in how their day to day activities are governed. It allows them a bit more freedom.
:|
It's interesting the corporate interests can't see past their quarterly profit statements to figure out that THEY are the reason broadband in this country is about as pathetic as it gets. Not a f*cking clue on their end. Then again, poster children never realize that they're poster children I guess
Personally, I hope they break the companies up. Folks who control the backbone shouldn't be in the content business and vice versa. Too many moral and ethical issues for the average US company to deal with correctly. ( Why offer a superior product when I can just degrade a competitors instead ? )
If my bill for internet service goes up and the service goes down, I'm coming back here and rip all of you a new one.
This is a government power grab, pure and simple. Mark my words - you will regret it.
Ah, the simple-minded. Aren't they precious? And so easily led.
Remember, if you like your internet, you can keep it. Period.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Although the rules are secret, based on what has been revealed so far, it will have no effect. The Netflix agreements are standard paid-peering agreements, which will exist always and forever because they are fundamental to the design of packet-switched inter-networks.
The Netflix deals were essentially we will buy an internet connection directly from you to carry traffic to your customers. This was done despite the fact Netflix openly peers for free at shared peering locations. Deals like this however won't be completely blocked but will be looked at carefully. Basically they will be looking at a couple of things.
1) Is the ISP intentionally allowing interconnect links be saturated as a way of forcing Netflix to pay for a connection
2) Is the ISP refusing to fix the problem by other available means (if both the ISP and Netflix are at a common peering location but the ISP refuses to peer for example)
The problem is not that "Right-of-way access is limited" as much as that it has been historically allocated very inefficiently. Bury conduit and let multiple providers lease conduit through which to blow their fiber or copper.
The scarcity of radio spectrum would not result in a single radio broadcast corporation monopolizing the spectrum.
Apparently you've never lived in a city whose FM radio band was dominated by Clear Channel. Or when all four major U.S. cellular carriers raised their SMS pricing from 10 cents to send and 10 cents to receive to 20 cents to send and 20 cents to receive, in near lockstep.
elect Obama for a 3rd time cuz he going get you a Obama smart phone and dat interwebs.
Cuz no ones gots time fo dat slow-azz dialup. Now I gots to go feedz my foe kidz...where'd I leave da EBT ats...
which has little to do with reality. My apartment complex has an "exclusive contract" with AT&T. Per the FCC, that's been illegal since 2007. Do they care? Not in the least. Do the actual apartment owners care? Not at all. Is there anything to be done about it? Move? Even presenting my apartments with the FCC decision just gets blank stares like they can't read.
I'm not affected, I know of nobody who is affected.
This is a power grab pure and simple and all you retards fell for it.
Liberty.
YEA! THAT WILL SHOW THEM! Joe Biden is a square shooter! Joe Biden 2016!
is actually the actual RULES. The FCC illegally did this by holding the vote BEFORE publishing the proposed rules and waiting the legally-required 30-days for the public to review them and comment on them. The 3 Democrats voted "yes", the two Republicans voted "no" (which was "good" is up to you, depending on your views).
This will now go to the courts for at least two cases:
One will be procedural... the issue I previously mentioned of not following the legally-required procedures (and there must be SOME reason why they felt it so necessary to break the law (I doubt this bodes well for what's in those 200+ pages of initial rules we are not allowed to see)
A second legal attack will be on the same lines as the earlier attack on the previous FCC attempt to regulate the net... the courts previously tossed the FCC over whether the 1990's legislation they acted under provided them broad enough powers over the net; the courts said "no" and this new action does not actually overcome the basic objections that led to THAT ruling.
One thing we DO know however, is that by wrapping themselves in the old rules aimed at telephone and television services, thay are invoking the same rules that let them stifle content on television - you cannot get the one sort of power from those rules without also inheriting the other. If this new set of rules survives the inevitable court challenges, you can expect the FCC to start ruling that all sorts of content will be banned from the net starting in about 5 years (swearing? images of peoples' "naughty bits"? it's banned from broadcast TV under those same authorities.)
Comcast is a HUGE funder of Obama and Hillary, they will be granted a waiver.
Where is the fucking document?
The FCC said they were not going to release it until they voted; well, they voted, and now I want to see the 322 page document.
I already downloaded thweir opinions.
Is the FCC going to start this off by a lie? Are they going to hold it until they send it out to the ISP's?
I want that document in the next 24 hours, PERIOD.
It is virtually certain that the contract Netflix signed with Verizon includes a provision specifically covering the eventuality of net neutrality regulations being passed. Both those companies know what they're doing, would have realized the possibility, and would have wanted to negotiate explicit terms for it rather than leave them to litigation.
The opinions stated herein do not necessarily represent those of anybody at all. Deal with it.
As several others pointed out, the best way to address any net neutrality problems, real, percieved, or (cynically) wished for, would have been last-mile local loop unbundling. Aside from being the simplest, most logical, and fairest solution not requiring reclassifying most of the Internet under Title II (My newspaper is not a goddam telecom service. Hell, DNS is not a telecom service. What was that about Congress shall make no law, etc. in the 1st amendment? FCC is WAY off base here), it actually fits the bill of common carrier service, and responsibilities attendant to being a telecom monopoly, and would not have required this mealy-mouthed wholesale power grab by the government of a whole 'nother sector of the electoral process, not to mention of the economy . (yeah, part of that sector was begging for it. Still wrong.)
But we all see there are hidden agendas being pursued here. Don't worry, the pursuers will be sorry. This will blow up in their faces. It can't help but do so. Don't say I didn't tell you so. Enjoy you're victory while you still can, before you realize you've just screwed yourselves.
Bandwidth is absolutely a physical thing. There is a physical hard limit on bits per second of information transmitted through any medium. There is also a significantly tighter (though growing) technological limit on our ability to transmit, route, and receive those bits in the physical transmission media we currently employ.
Saying "transmitting a lot ... data uses nothing" is ridiculous. It uses part of the limited supply of bandwidth. This bandwidth can be expanded by installing more transmission media (cable, fiber, microwave antennas, network switches, etc.) wherever the bottleneck happens to be, but that costs money too, and companies won't do it unless they expect to be able to capitalize on the increased capacity.
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...