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."
"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
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.
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
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.'"
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.