Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

FCC Posts Its 400-Page Net Neutrality Order

Posted by timothy on from the meet-the-new-boss dept.

jriding sends word that the FCC has released new rules outlining its recently officialized role as internet regulator. Simply titled "Open Internet FCC-15-24A1," the order runs 400 pages. The actual text of the new rules is only 305 words long. [FCC head Tom] Wheeler said reclassifying broadband as an utility gives the FCC its best shot at withstanding legal challenges. The courts have twice tossed out earlier rules aimed at protecting Internet openness. The FCC chairman has said repeatedly the agency does not intend to set rates or add new taxes to broadband bills. More than 100 pages of the 400-page document released Thursday explain that forbearance. AT&T had hinted it would file a lawsuit once the new rules become public. The company's chief lobbyist, Jim Cicconi, didn't indicate Thursday when or even if AT&T would sue — only that the battle is far from over. "Unfortunately, the order released today begins a period of uncertainty that will damage broadband investment in the United States," Cicconi said. "Ultimately, though, we are confident the issue will be resolved by bipartisan action by Congress or a future FCC, or by the courts."

13 of 347 comments (clear)

  1. We'll know if its a good bill.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ....by whether or not AT&T sues.

  2. Issue will be resolved... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Ultimately, though, we are confident the issue will be resolved by bipartisan action by Congress or a future FCC, or by the courts."

    AKA, We will get our way once we buy off enough people.

    1. Re:Issue will be resolved... by Holi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You know I am getting tired of this anti government rhetoric. Since when in your life has the FCC ever done anything that caused you more harm then the ISP's

      And tell me how hurt are the phone companies from having to deal with their title 2 status? How about FedEx or UPS and their motor common carrier status under the Motor Carrier Act of 1935? You see all regulation as bad? Then you really should study our history and see why these regulations were absolutely necessary.

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    2. Re:Issue will be resolved... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And tell me how hurt are the phone companies from having to deal with their title 2 status? How about FedEx or UPS and their motor common carrier status under the Motor Carrier Act of 1935? You see all regulation as bad? Then you really should study our history and see why these regulations were absolutely necessary.

      Thank you. I've made this argument several times before. Although I am pretty solidly Libertarian and I don't believe in UNnecessary regulation, Title II regulation for phone companies was necessary and it worked just fine for 60 years or more. And there is very good argument that it should have applied to the Internet from Day 1.

      Big ISPs have a virtual monopoly on Broadband over more than 80% of the U.S. It's a de facto oligopoly, which free market -- as much as I believe in the concept -- won't fix. There IS a time for government regulation, and this is one of them.

  3. ...a period of uncertainty.... by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Not for Google. I guess AT&T needs a new CEO who's not afraid to run a business.

    1. Re:...a period of uncertainty.... by jythie · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Ever notice that 'uncertainty' seems to always be something that someone else is responsible for?

  4. What's this "bipartisan Congress" thingie... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Ultimately, though, we are confident the issue will be resolved by bipartisan action by Congress or a future FCC, or by the courts."

    What is he smoking and where can I get some?

    1. Re:What's this "bipartisan Congress" thingie... by alvinrod · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think he means that they'll be bribing^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hcontributing to both political parties to pass some laws.

  5. The actual text of the new rules is only 305 words by Pope+Hagbard · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So much for the ZOMG 300-ODD PAGES fucktards. Bet they don't come back and admit they were wrong either.

  6. Re:Reason for delay? by Pope+Hagbard · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Standard FCC rules. They're not allowed to publish new rules while they're still in the making stage.

    Whether or not that's a good idea is up for debate, but this is far from the only FCC reg this applies to.

  7. Re:Have we handed the government control over it? by StikyPad · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You mean how dirty phone calls are illegal? Or porn on cable TV? Or fearmongering on the Internet?

    --
    https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
  8. Re:Reason for delay? by Pope+Hagbard · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Because it's a good way to make political hay out of peoples' ignorance. See also Fox Agitprop.

  9. Re:Regulations are all bad in the long term by GerryGilmore · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I do have mod points, but I'd rather respond directly. You do know, don't you, that you undercut your own argument by referencing the superior state of internet access in Europe? Especially as Europe is, in general, much thicker in regulations than here in America. Besides the national laws (and, again, this is Europe we're talikng about), you have an ever-growing raft of EU-wide regulations. Please square that logical circle for us, if you logically can.