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.
    • B
      bigbear
      last edited by bigbear

      I am starting this thread and I’m just going to go through the good things in the Open Internet Order (being referred to as Net Neutrality). EDIT: I may stop and start on it until the entire bill is here. It is a pain in the ass to copy/paste because of its formatting. My intention was to markup up all the good stuff and cross reference to the things that offer loopholes for ISP's to get around. I am done with trying to post the entire order. Not really any point to it now.

      I am changing my mind I think about whether getting rid of this bill was a good move.

      It seems that the FCC did intend to revisit this legislation to continue to better it!

      There are one or two things that basically create an entire loophole to get around a lot of the good stuff in the bill. The FCC actually admits in the bill that there’s not enough experience with interconnection to make it air tight, and perhaps they intended to return to this later once they’d observed and gained more experience managing this.

      Link to OIO (Open Internet Order) aka Net Neutrality
      https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-15-24A1_Rcd.pdf

      Net Neutrality was a concept published by Tim Wu, a Columbian Law School Professor
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Wu

      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
      • B
        bigbear
        last edited by

        I. INTRODUCTION
        1. The open Internet drives the American economy and serves, every day, as a critical tool
        for America’s citizens to conduct commerce, communicate, educate, entertain, and engage in the world
        around them. The benefits of an open Internet are undisputed. But it must remain open: open for
        commerce, innovation, and speech; open for consumers and for the innovation created by applications
        developers and content companies; and open for expansion and investment by America’s broadband
        providers. For over a decade, the Commission has been committed to protecting and promoting an open
        Internet.

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

          2. Four years ago, the Commission adopted open Internet rules to protect and promote the
          “virtuous cycle” that drives innovation and investment on the Internet—both at the “edges” of the
          network, as well as in the network itself. In the years that those rules were in place, significant
          investment and groundbreaking innovation continued to define the broadband marketplace. For example,
          according to US Telecom, broadband providers invested $212 billion in the three years following
          adoption of the rules—from 2011 to 2013—more than in any three year period since 2002.

          Would come back and add notes on what those rules were with links, and some of the issues that emerged which led to NN.

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

            3. Likewise, innovation at the edge moves forward unabated. For example, 2010 was the
            first year that the majority of Netflix customers received their video content via online streaming rather
            than via DVDs in red envelopes. Today, Netflix sends the most peak downstream traffic in North
            America of any company. Other innovative service providers have experienced extraordinary growth—
            Etsy reports that it has grown from $314 million in merchandise sales in 2010 to $1.35 billion in
            merchandise sales in 2013. And, just as importantly, new kinds of innovative businesses are busy being
            born. In the video space alone, in just the last sixth months, CBS and HBO have announced new plans
            for streaming their content free of cable subscriptions; DISH has launched a new package of channels that
            includes ESPN, and Sony is not far behind; and Discovery Communications founder John Hendricks has
            announced a new over-the-top service providing bandwidth-intensive programming. This year, Amazon
            took home two Golden Globes for its new series “Transparent.”

            Just setting the stage here, mostly around the rise in Video and Online Stores

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

              4. The lesson of this period, and the overwhelming consensus on the record, is that
              carefully-tailored rules to protect Internet openness will allow investment and innovation to continue to
              flourish. Consistent with that experience and the record built in this proceeding, today we adopt
              carefully-tailored rules that would prevent specific practices we know are harmful to Internet openness—
              blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization—as well as a strong standard of conduct designed to prevent
              the deployment of new practices that would harm Internet openness. We also enhance our transparency
              rule to ensure that consumers are fully informed as to whether the services they purchase are delivering
              what they expect.

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

                5. Carefully-tailored rules need a strong legal foundation to survive and thrive. Today, we
                provide that foundation by grounding our open Internet rules in multiple sources of legal authority—
                including both section 706 of the Telecommunications Act and Title II of the Communications Act.
                Moreover, we concurrently exercise the Commission’s forbearance authority to forbear from application
                of 27 provisions of Title II of the Communications Act, and over 700 Commission rules and regulations.
                This is a Title II tailored for the 21st century, and consistent with the “light-touch” regulatory framework
                that has facilitated the tremendous investment and innovation on the Internet. We expressly eschew the
                future use of prescriptive, industry-wide rate regulation. Under this approach, consumers can continue to enjoy unfettered access to the Internet over their fixed and mobile broadband connections, innovators can
                continue to enjoy the benefits of a platform that affords them unprecedented access to hundreds of
                millions of consumers across the country and around the world, and network operators can continue to
                reap the benefits of their investments.

                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • B
                  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
                  • B
                    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
                    • B
                      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
                      • B
                        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
                        • B
                          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
                          • B
                            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
                            • B
                              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
                              • B
                                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
                                • B
                                  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
                                  • B
                                    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