Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Net Neutrality Prevails in Historic FCC Vote

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Net Neutrality Prevails in Historic FCC Vote

    By Dana Liebelson

    WASHINGTON - The Federal Communications Commission voted Thursday to approve strong net neutrality rules in a stunning decision, defying vocal, months-long opposition by telecom and cable companies and Republicans on Capitol Hill.

    Democratic Commissioners Jessica Rosenworcel and Mignon Clyburn joined Chairman Tom Wheeler to approve a rule that reclassifies consumer broadband as a utility under Title II of the Communications Act.

    The FCC intends to use this new authority to ban "paid prioritization," a practice whereby Internet service providers can charge content producers a premium for giving users more reliable access to that content, as well as to ban blocking and throttling of lawful content and services. These rules also apply to mobile access.

    According to a fact sheet released by the FCC, the agency plans to enforce its new open Internet rules through "investigation and processing of formal and informal complaints." For the first time, the FCC can also address complaints at interconnection points, the gateway between ISPs and the rest of the Internet, on a case-by-case basis.

    "The Internet is simply too important to allow broadband providers to be the ones making the rules," Wheeler said prior to the vote.

    At the vote, Clyburn pointed out that "absent the rules we adopt today," ISP's would be "free to block, throttle, favor or discriminate...for any user, for any reason, or for no reason at all."

    The FCC's two Republican commissioners attacked the vote. Commissioner Ajit Pai called the decision an "about-face" and stoked conservative fears by claiming, "We are flip-flopping for one reason and one reason only: President Obama told us to do so."

    Those gathered in one FCC viewing room gasped and burst into laughter upon hearing Pai's remark.

    A few months ago, such rules were considered a pipe dream of net neutrality advocates. Last fall, Wheeler was reportedly still considering a "hybrid" approach to net neutrality that would have made major concessions to telecom and cable companies, who contend that strong regulations will hinder investment and innovation.

    But President Barack Obama came out in support of Title II and tough net neutrality rules in November, and Wheeler had to contend with that position as well as millions of comments from the general public in support of net neutrality. Tech start-ups like Tumblr, as well as Silicon Valley giants like Google, also advocated for strong net neutrality rules.

    The FCC decision is a major loss for Verizon, the company that initially sued the FCC in 2011 over rules that were considerably weaker than the new regulations. The new rules are also likely to be challenged in court.

    Verizon denounced the decision in a press release issued shortly after the vote. Calling it "a radical step that presages a time of uncertainty for consumers, innovators and investors," Michael E. Glover, Verizon senior vice president, public policy and government affairs, said the FCC "chose to use this order as an excuse to adopt 300-plus pages of broad and open-ended regulatory arcana that will have unintended negative consequences for consumers and various parts of the Internet ecosystem for years to come."

    Barbara van Schewick, a law professor at Stanford University and net neutrality expert, was optimistic that the rules would prevail in court, should they be challenged. "The agency's decision to reclassify Internet service as a common carrier under Title II ... puts the rules on a solid legal foundation," she said in a statement.

    "The FCC has taken us in a distressing direction. We must now look to other branches of government for a more balanced resolution," said Michael Powell, president and CEO of the National Cable & Telecommunications Association, a trade group. (Powell is a former FCC chairman who served under President George W. Bush.)

    Republicans have launched investigations into whether the White House unfairly influenced the FCC's decision, and are expected to pursue legislation, already introduced, that would gut the FCC's new authority. Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) has said he plans to hold off-the-record meetings with stakeholders in early March in an attempt to drum up support from Democrats for his bill.

    Republican members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Communications and Technology indicated they are not giving up the fight. "We were - and we remain - willing to come to the table with legislation to answer the calls for legally sustainable consumer protections for the free and open Internet that has fostered a generation of innovation, economic growth, and global empowerment," they said in a statement.

    From the other side, Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) called the decision "a landmark day in the history of the Internet" and "a tremendous victory for freedom of ideas, of information, and of expression" in a statement.

    "Popular victories like today's are so unusual that three Congressional committees are investigating how this happened," said David Segal, executive director of Demand Progress, a group that supports net neutrality. "If the net neutrality effort had followed the usual playbook, if Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T had defeated the American people, nobody would be wondering why."

    Wheeler denounced as "nonsense" the claims that the FCC has a secret plan to regulate the Internet. He added, "This is no more a plan to regulate the Internet than the First Amendment is a plan to regulate free speech. They both stand for the same concept."

    This article has been updated with additional information from the FCC and various responses to the vote.
    The Hackmaster

  • #2
    I kind of thought it was a matter of time. Seems like they've been trying to do this nonstop for over a decade. The more they ask, the more people just get sick of hearing it and eventually give up and say "Go ahead and do it, just shut up and leave me alone".
    July 7, 2019

    https://www.4shared.com/s/fLf6qQ66Zee
    https://www.sendspace.com/file/jvsdbd

    Comment


    • #3
      This Is How Verizon Bullshits You

      Verizon plays you for a fool; hopes you won't dig too deep.

      By Tuan Nguyen

      Today was arguably a landmark event for the FCC and net neutrality. The FCC successfully passed a vote that classifies Internet service as a public utility under Title II regulations, which makes ISP's become what's otherwise known as a "common carrier." If you want to read the actual rules from the FCC, check this out.

      For the better part of the last decade, net neutrality has been an increasingly hot topic, which exploded into the limelight after Netflix and other content providers started revealing network benchmarks that claimed large Internet service providers throttled network speeds for some and not for others, mainly, not for those who were willing to pay higher prices.

      While this sounds just fine, it is not. On the customer side, yes, absolutely charge me more if I want a faster Internet connection.

      However:

      Let's say I am paying $50/month for a 100Mbps connection. I then decide, I want a 200Mbps connection from my provider, and pay $100/month. I expect, under ideal circumstances to get double the bandwidth. But then, my carrier is secretly slowing down traffic from content providers and then going out to solicit extra money from those affected providers to "ensure" good service. This is called double-dipping.

      A webpage from a popular online website gets delivered to me at full speeds, while the video from a popular streaming website gets throttled. This is the issue at hand with net neutrality, where neutral states that all content is the same, regardless of what it is - since it's all 1s and 0s.

      Imagine if I was a delivery courier for packages. I charged you $10 to deliver 2-day, and then went to the company you ordered your goods from and asked them for more money or else I'll priorities another vendor first.

      As you may have heard, most if not all of the Internet service providers are up in arms about the FCC's ruling. It throws a wrench in their attempts to curb the user experience that's already been paid for, in a back-handed attempt to get more money. Much has already been documented about these shady maneuvers.

      So, let's get back to the issue at hand.

      The carriers, like Comcast, TWC, Verizon, etc., are all claiming that the new FCC net neutrality rules based on Title II Regulations, will "hurt" and "stifle" Internet innovation for future generations. In fact, Verizon went as far as releasing a press release in Morse code to mock how the FCC is using a dated rule from the 1930's to regulate modern technology.



      Clicking on the "translated statement here" leads to a readable version, except it's written in old, unclear, type-writer font, to continue mocking the FCC on using a Title II Regulations.

      This is amusing because Verizon previously forced its hand through the FCC by saying it is a common carrier under Title II Regulations. In fact, it's not recent at all. According to a extremely detailed PULP report on Verizon, the carrier has been using Title II Regulations on and off, depending on its business needs. Verizon flip-flops between saying that it's a heavily regulated network or a deregulated service provider. In a report by The Verge, Verizon's own documents say:

      "As noted, Verizon NJ has been upgrading substantial portions of its telecommunications network with FTTP technology as a common carrier pursuant to Title II of the Communications Act of 1934..."

      Straight from the horse's mouth. Talk about hypocrisy.

      Verizon uses Title II to gain common carrier benefits, such as regulated lower prices, for when it wants to push out infrastructure and dip its hands into tax dollars for the build-outs, but shams Title II for when it wants to throttle broadband speeds so that it can siphon money from content providers--all after the Verizon customer has already paid for the access.

      How exactly can Verizon claim Title II? Easy: Verizon also has a land line telephone business. Telephone carriers are classified and regulated under Title II of the communications Act. This regulation controls costs, and allows telephone carriers to use backbones of other utilities, to ease the build-out of networks by piggybacking on existing infrastructure. Since land-line businesses are dying, Verizon and others keep this part of its business around as a very powerful tool.

      So, Verizon jumps back and forth on Title II classification, depending on whether or not it perceives an advantage, and even outright classifies itself under Title II. Yet today it is publicly trashing Title II as an old regulation from the 1930's.

      The fact that Verizon is releasing this kind of PR stunt designed to tell you, the public, that the FCC is using an outdated regulation not suitable for the modern technology era, is complete horse shit. The PR machine at Verizon is essentially spitting in your face thinking you won't even notice because it knows the majority of the public is too ignorant of what actually goes on behind the scenes and that most people don't really have the time to dig through reports and papers.

      Up until today, Verizon was freely using Title II on and off wherever it felt it could cut costs and fund infrastructure using public funds. It's now only making a play that the FCC's rules are unfit for modern society because the new rules will hurt its revenue stream from content providers.

      It still remains to be seen what will happen in the coming months and years. Carriers will no doubt take the FCC's ruling to court and attempt to have it modified or thrown out. And for critics that are claiming that the FCC's new net neutrality regulation is a play by the government disguised to fool the average citizen? Verizon's dealt that card already.
      The Hackmaster

      Comment

      Working...
      X