Posted on 12/28/2010 12:09:58 PM PST by dila813
---Clip Preamble---
To provide greater clarity and certainty regarding the continued freedom and openness of the Internet, we adopt three basic rules that are grounded in broadly accepted Internet norms, as well as our own prior decisions:
i. Transparency. Fixed and mobile broadband providers must disclose the network management practices, performance characteristics, and terms and conditions of their broadband services;
ii. No blocking. Fixed broadband providers may not block lawful content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices; mobile broadband providers may not block lawful websites, or block applications that compete with their voice or video telephony services; and
iii. No unreasonable discrimination. Fixed broadband providers may not unreasonably discriminate in transmitting lawful network traffic.
---Clip---
III. OPEN INTERNET RULES
43. To preserve the Internet’s openness and broadband providers’ ability to manage and expand their networks, we adopt high-level rules embodying four core principles: transparency, no blocking, no unreasonable discrimination, and reasonable network management.
These rules are generally consistent with, and should not require significant changes to, broadband providers’ current practices, and are also consistent with the common understanding of broadband Internet access service as a service that enables one to go where one wants on the Internet and communicate with anyone else online.144
---Clip---
G. Specialized Services
112. In the Open Internet NPRM, the Commission recognized that broadband providers offer services that share capacity with broadband Internet access service over providers’ last-mile facilities, and may develop and offer other such services in the future.337 These “specialized services,” such as some broadband providers’ existing facilities-based VoIP and Internet Protocol-video offerings, differ from broadband Internet access service and may drive additional private investment in broadband networks and provide end users valued services, supplementing the benefits of the open Internet.338
---Clip---
114. We will closely monitor the robustness and affordability of broadband Internet access services, with a particular focus on any signs that specialized services are in any way retarding the growth of or constricting capacity available for broadband Internet access service. We fully expect that broadband providers will increase capacity offered for broadband Internet access service if they expand network capacity to accommodate specialized services. We would be concerned if capacity for broadband Internet access service did not keep pace. We also expect broadband providers to disclose information about specialized services’ impact, if any, on last-mile capacity available for, and the performance of, broadband Internet access service. We may consider additional disclosure requirements in this area in our related proceeding regarding consumer transparency and disclosure.347 We would also be concerned by any marketing, advertising, or other messaging by broadband providers suggesting that one or more specialized services, taken alone or together, and not provided in accordance with our open Internet rules, is “Internet” service or a substitute for broadband Internet access service. Finally, we will monitor the potential for anticompetitive or otherwise harmful effects from specialized services, including from any arrangements a broadband provider may seek to enter into with third parties to offer such services.348 The Open Internet Advisory Committee will aid us in monitoring these issues.
I still don’t see how ANY of those items listed have anything to do with “communications” as defined as within the regulatory powers of the Federal Communications Commission.
They are all things I can agree to with my private company service provider.
If I want to buy an internet service that primarily delivers cable tv shows, I WANT them to discriminate against applications that use up that bandwidth to download videos from other sources — I want priority given to the channels that I have explicitly paid for and expect to receive without interruption.
It is absurd to expect Verizon Fios or Comcast Cable to screw their own customer base by interrupting their own cable/fios TV channels in order to allow someone to download streaming netflix videos.
The anti-neutrality loons should not give up hope. Look at these wiggle words:
“no unreasonable discrimination”
So, can Verizon and such cut deals with Fox and others to slow, but not “block”, access to FreeRepublic and other competitors? Looks like maybe.
Everyone can now relax. Your internet will be apportioned to who pays Verizon the most and their interests to the detriment of competitors. A libertarian dream situation.
My hat’s off to the FCC on this one. This is intelligent policy, pursued contrary to powerful vested corporate interests. Good job.
“We are from the government and we are here to help you.”
“They are all things I can agree to with my private company service provider.”
Wow, you have equal bargaining power with Verizon? Impressive.
There are many people on FreeRepublic that still think that the Net Neutrality Rules the FCC Came out with are a good thing.
They haven’t looked at all the rules. I think they only were reading the first paragraph which carries no weight.
If the Net Neutrality Rules mirrored what some of the Freepers think they are, then I would be in favor of them as well.
But they aren’t, this is a huge intrusion on the business of delivering Internet to your home that goes beyond a cable company disrupting a download without disclosing that it would and under what conditions.
You didn’t read the post did you.
How can anyone think giving the FCC the ability to arbitrate how a cable company uses it network capacity is a good thing is beyond me. This is FreeRepublic, isn’t it?
Maybe you can explain where the FCC get the authority to make such rules, weather you like them or not?
Well, that's certainly clear cut and immune to abuse....NOT!
Tell me, who will determine exactly what is discrimination, and what makes it reasonable or unreasonable? "Oh, you only stream conservative talk radio?" ... "Well, yes, it is the only one people actually connect-to and listen to." ... "We're sorry, that's unreasonable discrimination. You'll either have to find some progressive talk to stream, or stop streaming conservative talk..."
You watch, something like this will happen, I guarantee it. They've never given up on "the fairness [sic] doctrine."
We also expect broadband providers to disclose information about specialized services’ impact, if any, on last-mile capacity available for, and the performance of, broadband Internet access service. We may consider additional disclosure requirements in this area in our related proceeding regarding consumer transparency and disclosure.
Additional, unspecified disclosures... Like the IP addresses and names of everyone who comments on conservative blogs. After all, conservative sites, blogs, etc. are "specialized" services catering to us evil right-wingers. So our providers are going to be compelled to provide additional disclosures. The worst of the SS and East Germany under Soviet rule - coming to an internet near you!
I guess it comes down to whom you trust more - the FCC and the rest of the federal government bureaucracies or the private marketplace.
Sorry, no congrats from me. Even if these initial rules are OK (and I already see some real problems, but put those aside), the FCC will do what regulating bodies ALWAYS do: Add more and more regulations. The more powerful players will spend a ton of money making sure those regulations benefit them and hurt competitors. That’s what will happen, guaranteed!
Bullshit. If they had broken-up the monopolies some companies have in any particular geographical location, then they would have done something worthwhile. Without that, a lot of us are stuck with slow internet speeds while our neighbors across the town/state have lightning fast broadband by simply having a different provider.
This lack of competition reduces quality and impedes progress.
ping
“anti-neutrality loon”
Just because I don’t support the FCC’s Net Neutrality Rules doesn’t mean I don’t support Net Neutrality.
The FCC Definition is a perverse distortion of what Net Neutrality is supposed to be to enable the take over of Broadband.
I am for Net Neutrality for anything marketed as General Internet with Full Disclosure on anything used to manage the traffic on the network and rules that prevent them from blocking traffic and prioritizing pay to play schemes.
The FCC Rules aren’t what you think, so you shouldn’t be supporting them either.
The only reason it has taken the government so long to muck up the Internet is because it is light-years advanced from anything the Feds could have dreamed of.
Your attitude is pretty classic, Rat, "corporations are bad", kneejerkism.
Fact is the Internet is the latest and best example of how prodigiously a system can grow, become accessible to everyone, become super-sophisticated, and become cheap... IF LEFT ALONE BY THE GOVERNMENT.
Watch this be the beginning of the end of a bug-free Internet.
Way to go pinheads in the FCC and useful idiots who approve of this.
I think I probably trust the FCC a lot less than I trust Verizon, or AT&T, or the cable companies - who at least face competition from other market firms.
“FCC will do what regulating bodies ALWAYS do: Add more and more regulations.”
You are absolutely right on. If you look at the FCC Rules, you will see where they leave the door open to enacting more and more rules to manage the Broadband Internet Pricing, Availability, and all their other “GOALS”.
This isn’t going to stop here, it is going to go on and on until it has it’s own bookshelf in the Federal Registry.
The FCC has no authority for any of this. I hope that a legal challenge confirms this.
I can see some of this happening over 5-13 years out.
If the FCC Rules impact Broadband Growth then they will be able to declare it a limited resource that must be allocated for the public good.
We will have all equally bad Internet.
At that point in the Prioritization Process, politics come into play. They will do as you say and demand equal access to the limited bandwidth.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.