Slashdot Mirror
FTC Allows ISPs To Block Apps But They Must Disclose It (arstechnica.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: The FTC can punish U.S. companies for unfair or deceptive practices. But in regard to net neutrality, this simply means that ISPs must disclose any behavior that would have violated the old net neutrality rules. "Under Section 5 of the FTC Act, we may prosecute unfair or deceptive acts or practices... Simply stated, we have a strong interest in ensuring that companies stand by their promises to consumers," FTC Chairman Joseph Simons said. The FTC would review whether ISPs keep their promises just as it reviews whether other companies keep their promises. "We would review ISPs' activities in the same way," Simons said. "For example, we could take action against ISPs if they block applications without adequately disclosing those practices or mislead consumers about what applications they block or how."
How would the FTC handle throttling of websites or online services? Simons explained: "To determine whether particular instances of throttling are deceptive, we would first evaluate what claims an ISP made to consumers about their services and how those claims are supported. We would look closely at any relevant research and evaluate the study's design, scope, and results and consider how a study relates to a particular claim. To evaluate whether a practice was unfair, we would consider whether the alleged throttling had countervailing benefits and whether there were reasonable steps consumers could have taken to avoid it. We would also consider consumer injury, the number of consumers affected, and the need to prevent future misconduct."
How would the FTC handle throttling of websites or online services? Simons explained: "To determine whether particular instances of throttling are deceptive, we would first evaluate what claims an ISP made to consumers about their services and how those claims are supported. We would look closely at any relevant research and evaluate the study's design, scope, and results and consider how a study relates to a particular claim. To evaluate whether a practice was unfair, we would consider whether the alleged throttling had countervailing benefits and whether there were reasonable steps consumers could have taken to avoid it. We would also consider consumer injury, the number of consumers affected, and the need to prevent future misconduct."
Yeah, as if.
Is this some sort of April Fools thing? I only read the first sentences of the summary but it sounds like the FTC might be doing something good for the consumer?
"To determine whether particular instances of throttling are deceptive, we would first evaluate what claims an ISP made to consumers"
That sure doesn't sound like it's requiring disclosure -- it sounds like they're just requiring that ISPs not claim to be neutral if they aren't.
If there is something unexplained that somehow requires an actual disclosure instead of just silence, the article is unclear about how exactly the disclosure would be required to work. Would it just be another line buried in a legalese terms of service that nobody reads, or are they actually required to promote the information in some way?
"In previous years, the FTC has sued both TracFone and AT&T for failing to adequately disclose throttling on unlimited data plans."
^ This sounds like a different issue: unlimited mobile data plans that throttle you when you exceed a soft cap. I don't see how that kind of thing has anything to do with net neutrality, except I guess when they choose to exempt certain partners from the throttling when over the cap.
This space intentionally left blank
FTC Chairman Joseph Simons,
I am unable to read your statements, nor report anything to you as my ISP blocks access to all FTC websites. Or maybe they just throttle access to them down to the point where it takes years for any page to load.
Is this Net Neutrality Fair?
It really should be this simple. If you fuck with my internet connection its fraud. Blocking ports, IP addresses, or similar equates to not actually providing internet access because internet access is not a particular network or set of services but rather it is access to the wider WORLD's network of networks that converge via the major exchanges. To restrict or otherwise hamper access in any way to the rest of the net while advertising it as internet access is fraud. If you don't want to provide internet access then you need to advertise yourself as provide access to a network or set of networks thereof and not the internet. But if you do that you also should not be able to obtain contracts for internet access from the likes of government(s), government schools, and similar, or any party whom is purchasing or believes they are purchasing internet access.
Of the slight use of weasel words "the claims they make"...... make no claims or promises, block everything you like.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
If the ISP changes the deal after I sign up I should be allowed to exit the remainder of any contract without punishment or any exit fees!!!
But that won't happen I just have to pray they don't alter the deal any further!!!
They block you from running a mail, dns, and web servers. You're a fool if you believe you're buying a truly open and free internet connection from your ISP. ISP's are content providers not really ISP's. They choose what apps you can use already.
Mod parent up!
If it's not a dumb pipe, it's not net neutrality.
What ISPs these days do, is not throttle apps - everyone gets baseline performance.
For some selected content or apps, you get either enhanced performance for a fee, or reduction in something like bandwidth charges when used in a mode that inherently takes less bandwidth.
Just in case anyone was wondering what was really happing, vs. just wanting to be mad at whatever.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Then they'll stop calling it The Internet
What ISPs these days do, is not throttle apps - everyone gets baseline performance.
Not my ISP, Exede. They explicitly throttle all the popular video services. I wish they'd throttle Amazon slightly less, but overall it's a reasonable thing to do.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Easy, just put in the terms of service and the fine line on commercials that access to certain computers on the internet is limited to ensure the quality of their network. Done. No false advertising as long as they disclose it.
Legal now because of the death of net neutrality. (Thanks Trump!)
Legal now because of the death of net neutrality. (Thanks Trump!)
Yep, thanks to Trump I can't use a wifi hotspot on Cricket, cause they can now say, bits that aren't requested by a cell phone that makes phone calls are special and more expensive.
Of course he is also nearly singly responsible for the country to reach the point where someone could ask him, "At long last, have you left no sense of decency?" and he could answer honestly and his supporters wouldn't blink an eye.
I kinda wish I was born in Canada. Ah well.
The problem with dropping Net Neutrality isn't just deceptive and sneaky behavior , its the lack of consumer choice.
The FTC has based its current trajectory on a pure ideological "Let the market decide" approach. The problem is, many, perhaps most, consumers don't have access to a free market, because internet access is monopolized in various geographic locations due to interference from corporate lobbyists, and payouts to councils and states to entrench monopolies. For some people their choices are Comcast (OR WHATEVER) or the 1980s. To make it worse, attempts at remedying this by state and local governments trying to anticipate consumer concerns by trying to enforce net neutrality via supply contracts or whatever, are being blocked by courts.
THIS is why net neutrality is so important in the United states. Without it, it becomes impossible for a consumer to purchase a product that at least maps onto what might be considered a "Rational choice" had they been given a choice.Banning net neutrality is effectively enforced irrational behavior in the market.
AOL circa 1988.
Gotta thank Obama too while you're at it. He stuck Pai in there first.
The FTC will do absolutely nothing to stop ISP's from abusing their power to make more money for less investment.
Why is Snark Required?
peek in side the packets. So now that they are reading the contents of all packets! I winder if they are covered under common carrier liability protections.
;)
Seems odd that they are reading everything and are still covered by common carrier status?
Just my 2 cents
You say that if they disclose it publicly its not a problem... so if ALL US ISP decided one day to tell all their customer, we are blocking the FTC site then it would be fine, since they disclosed it. It`s not unfair, everyone`s doing it and it`s not deceptive since they clearly stated that they would. That makes sense....
My team good, your team bad.
We throttle all apps. See if you can go o the competition.
This is We block Netflix, just like the others.
Yes, no way this wil be a disadvantage for the enduser.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
They would say an ISP can do anything it wants, but only in areas where there are at least two providers of:
* 25 megabits +
* 100 ms -
Last I heard, that's only about 5% of the US.
To a Lisp hacker, XML is S-expressions in drag.
Pretty much anything could be considered an 'app'.
Now the FTC will have to police all these policies, hiring more people for all the complaints and cost tax payers even more money. Can we get this reversed already, shit should probably be an amendment to the constitution.
At the request of McConnel, the committee is bipartisan.