ML
    • Recent
    • Categories
    • Tags
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Groups
    • Register
    • Login

    I've changed my mind about the repeal of Net Neutrality (The Open Internet Order)

    News
    net neutrality
    1
    16
    1.4k
    Loading More Posts
    • Oldest to Newest
    • Newest to Oldest
    • Most Votes
    Reply
    • Reply as topic
    Log in to reply
    This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
    • bigbearB
      bigbear
      last edited by

      6. Informed by the views of nearly 4 million commenters, our staff-led roundtables,
      numerous ex parte presentations, meetings with individual Commissioners and staff, and more, our
      decision today—once and for all—puts into place strong, sustainable rules, grounded in multiple sources
      of our legal authority, to ensure that Americans reap the economic, social, and civic benefits of an open
      Internet today and into the future.

      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • bigbearB
        bigbear
        last edited by bigbear

        II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
        *7. The benefits of rules and policies protecting an open Internet date back over a decade
        and must continue.1
        Just over a year ago, the D.C. Circuit in Verizon v. FCC struck down the
        Commission’s 2010 conduct rules against blocking and unreasonable discrimination.2
        But the Verizon
        court upheld the Commission’s finding that Internet openness drives a “virtuous cycle” in which
        innovations at the edges of the network enhance consumer demand, leading to expanded investments in
        broadband infrastructure that, in turn, spark new innovations at the edge.3
        The Verizon court further
        affirmed the Commission’s conclusion that “broadband providers represent a threat to Internet openness
        and could act in ways that would ultimately inhibit the speed and extent of future broadband
        deployment.”

        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • bigbearB
          bigbear
          last edited by

          8. Threats to Internet openness remain today. The record reflects that broadband providers
          hold all the tools necessary to deceive consumers, degrade content, or disfavor the content that they don’t
          like.5
          The 2010 rules helped to deter such conduct while they were in effect. But, as Verizon frankly told
          the court at oral argument, but for the 2010 rules, it would be exploring agreements to charge certain
          content providers for priority service.6
          Indeed, the wireless industry had a well-established record of trying to keep applications within a carrier-controlled “walled garden” in the early days of mobile
          applications. That specific practice ended when Internet Protocol (IP) created the opportunity to leap the
          wall. But the Commission has continued to hear concerns about other broadband provider practices
          involving blocking or degrading third-party applications.

          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • bigbearB
            bigbear
            last edited by

            9. Emerging Internet trends since 2010 give us more, not less, cause for concern about such
            threats. First, mobile broadband networks have massively expanded since 2010. They are faster, more
            broadly deployed, more widely used, and more technologically advanced. At the end of 2010, there were
            about 70,000 devices in the U.S. that had LTE wireless connections. Today, there are more than 127
            million.7
            We welcome this tremendous investment and innovation in the mobile marketplace. With
            carefully-tailored rules in place, that investment can continue to flourish and consumers can continue to
            enjoy unfettered access to the Internet over their mobile broadband connections. Indeed, mobile
            broadband is becoming an increasingly important pathway to the Internet independent of any fixed
            broadband connections consumers may have, given that mobile broadband is not a full substitute for fixed
            broadband connections.8 And consumers must be protected, for example from mobile commercial
            practices masquerading as “reasonable network management.” Second, and critically, the growth of
            online streaming video services has spurred further evolution of the Internet.9
            Currently, video is the dominant form of traffic on the Internet. These video services directly confront the video businesses of
            the very companies that supply them broadband access to their customers.

            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • bigbearB
              bigbear
              last edited by

              10. The Commission, in its May Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, asked a fundamental
              question: “What is the right public policy to ensure that the Internet remains open?”11 It proposed to
              enhance the transparency rule, and follow the Verizon court’s blueprint by relying on section 706 to adopt
              a no-blocking rule and a requirement that broadband providers engage in “commercially reasonable”
              practices. The Commission also asked about whether it should adopt other bright-line rules or different
              standards using other sources of Commission authority, including Title II. And if Title II were to apply,
              the Commission asked about how it should exercise its authority to forbear from Title II obligations. It
              asked whether mobile services should also be classified under Title II.

              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • bigbearB
                bigbear
                last edited by

                11. Three overarching objectives have guided us in answering these questions, based on the
                vast record before the Commission: America needs more broadband, better broadband, and open
                broadband networks. These goals are mutually reinforcing, not mutually exclusive. Without an open
                Internet, there would be less broadband investment and deployment. And, as discussed further below, all
                three are furthered through the open Internet rules and balanced regulatory framework we adopt today.

                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • bigbearB
                  bigbear
                  last edited by

                  12. In enacting the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), Congress instructed expert agencies
                  conducting rulemaking proceedings to “give interested persons an opportunity to participate in the rule
                  making through submission of written data, views, or arguments.”13 It is public comment that cements an
                  agency’s expertise. As was explained in the seminal report that led to the enactment of the APA:

                  • list itemThe reason for [an administrative agency’s] existence is that it is expected to bring to its
                    task greater familiarity with the subject than legislators, dealing with many subjects, can
                    have. But its knowledge is rarely complete, and it must always learn the frequently
                    clashing viewpoints of those whom its regulations will affect.
                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • bigbearB
                    bigbear
                    last edited by bigbear

                    13. Congress could not have imagined when it enacted the APA almost seventy years ago
                    that the day would come when nearly 4 million Americans would exercise their right to comment on a
                    proposed rulemaking. But that is what has happened in this proceeding and it is a good thing. The
                    Commission has listened and it has learned. Its expertise has been strengthened. Public input has
                    “improve[d] the quality of agency rulemaking by ensuring that agency regulations will be ‘tested by
                    exposure to diverse public comment.’”15 There is general consensus in the record on the need for the Commission to provide certainty with clear, enforceable rules. There is also general consensus on the
                    need to have such rules. Today the Commission, informed by all of those views, makes a decision
                    grounded in the record. The Commission has considered the arguments, data, and input provided by the
                    commenters, even if not in agreement with the particulars of this Order; that public input has created a
                    robust record, enabling the Commission to adopt new rules that are clear and sustainable.

                    A. Strong Rules That Protect Consumers from Past and Future Tactics that Threaten
                    the Open Internet

                    1. Clear, Bright-Line Rules

                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • bigbearB
                      bigbear
                      last edited by bigbear

                      14. Because the record overwhelmingly supports adopting rules and demonstrates that three
                      specific practices invariably harm the open Internet—Blocking, Throttling, and Paid Prioritization—this
                      Order bans each of them, applying the same rules to both fixed and mobile broadband Internet access
                      service.

                      A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such
                      person is so engaged, shall not block lawful content, applications, services, or nonharmful
                      devices, subject to reasonable network management.

                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                      • bigbearB
                        bigbear
                        last edited by

                        15. No Blocking. Consumers who subscribe to a retail broadband Internet access service
                        must get what they have paid for—access to all (lawful) destinations on the Internet. This essential and
                        well-accepted principle has long been a tenet of Commission policy, stretching back to its landmark
                        decision in Carterfone, which protected a customer’s right to connect a telephone to the monopoly
                        telephone network.

                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                        • 1 / 1
                        • First post
                          Last post