FCC Net Neutrality Rules Released

FCC ^ | 12/23/10 | FCC

[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.

[dila813]

Depends how you define “Net Neutrality”.

I define it as getting what you were promised.

Don’t sign me up for a contract then change it once I am subscribed.

I think the problem is, most people think they know what “Net Neutrality” is and that the FCC Rules mirror their understanding.

So they question is, who is right? I believe that most people have at least a basic idea of what they think “Net Neutrality” is. I think we should start there.

These Net Neutrality Rules of the FCC are a taking from business for a social experiment. It is pure and simple theft of another man’s labor.

[Wuli]

“Google is currently doing a pilot project where they will put in fiber to all the houses in a town. It might not go any further than this, but then again we may see Google willing to take over the last mile to people’s houses.”

BFD.

Verizon has spent gazillions doing this everywhere in the country where they offer FIOs services. In fact, they have been chastised in NYC because they have said that after such work is completed all over NYC they plan to quit offering any new service on the old old copper-wire lines; that maintaining both indefinitely will only delay additional new investments.

They are right. But look for NY state to first demand they not do that, and then create tax-supported subsidies to get them to not do that. Socialize an enterprise and you have to pay for that socialization.

[dila813]

I think the thing here that Wuli is saying is that it is a distinction without a difference.

If you refer to the National Broadband Plan published by the Obama FCC you will see that they very much see Net Neutrality as part of the plan and they do address very clearly in the plan that they are aiming at Broadband Backbone which is different from the Country’s Telecommunication Backbone.

They both have back bone in the name but are very different.

Read more at the following link:
http://www.broadband.gov/download-plan/

[dila813]

I wouldn’t be surprised if they used eminent domain to take the old copper and use it for a public ISP for the poor.

It would become a competitor to FIOS and diminish their investment. If I was FIOS, I would start stripping that wire as quickly as possible.

[Gene Eric]

>> Depends how you define “Net Neutrality”.

It really doesn’t matter how it’s defined. It’s only the deceptive name for govt policy that interferes in the marketplace.

Be sure to check your bills for the FCC Net Neutrality tax.

[dila813]

touche

[Wuli]

“You’re talking about billing the user by the downloaded byte”

No I am not.

I’m talking about the telecos having the right to have higher bill rates for the profitable companies SENDING “the bytes”.

“Net neutrality” is trying to make sure THAT is NOT an option, that ISPs can only raise YOUR rates to raise revenue.

If they - the content provider - wants to have a subscription service, like Netflix, or a “free” service paid by advertisers, like Google, that’s the choice of the content provider. But, how telecos bill THEM, and on what basis, should be up to them and their contracts, not some federal dictator.

[dila813]

Here are the FCC Rules, See why this will be the end to big investment in America.

Here we discuss the rules, join the thread...

[Nachum]

The list, ping

Let me know if you would like to be on or off the ping list

http://www.nachumlist.com/

[Wuli]

“It would become a competitor to FIOS and diminish their investment. If I was FIOS, I would start stripping that wire as quickly as possible.”

I don’t think Verizon wants to spend money even “stripping” it out. It’s mostly in multi-use conduits that run under the streets.

Maybe they’d sell the rights to use the old copper lines - which would be pure profit for them, having obtained their ROI on them years ago.

[dila813]

http://blog.broadband.gov/?entryId=10646

Julius Genachowski - Chairman, Federal Communications Commission: "Of course, network operators will be permitted to implement reasonable network management practices to address issues such as spam, address copyright infringement, and otherwise ensure a safe and secure network for all users."

Please note how the example "reasonable network management practices" exclude the number one practice of ensuring that networks don't get swamped with traffic. It other words, Load Management.

This is a Government Website, but this note is at the bottom "(Cross-posted on Huffington Post)"

Julius goes on to say that he created www.openinternet.gov to "This is just the first step in what will be an ongoing process. While these goals are clear, the best path to achieving them is not, and involves many hard questions about how best to maximize the innovation and investment necessary for a robust and thriving Internet." regarding the FCC Rules. Sounds like he doesn't even have this figured out.

Welcome to Central Planning! Absolutely Scary!

Look at his picture, He looks like a little dictator

[dila813]

It would displace demand for the fiber. That reduces their ROI on the Fiber investment.

They can pull the copper out by selling it off for scrap in place. Just like salvager for a condemned house.

A company will bid for the copper and they have to pull it out from the conduits themselves. Pure profit for the Telco with no downside.

[CharlesWayneCT]

Yes. I tell them what I want, and what I want to pay. They decide what they want to provide, and how much they want me to pay.

And if we can agree, we make a deal. If not, we don’t.

It’s not like when government gets involved and orders me to buy something I don’t like, or taxes me to give my money to other people who do what they want. Verizon can’t take a dime from me without my consent.

So yes, I would rather have Verizon deciding things, than the government.

And if Verizon can’t please a significant number of customers, somebody, maybe even me, can create my own company and compete for those customers.

Except not with the net neutrality rules, which will mostly impose impossible burdens for a start-up, while the big companies with the big bucks can afford to pay the regulatory fees.

Regulations are the number one way corporate america destroys competition — they may pretend not to like regulations, but government regulations make it impossible for newcomers to break into a business.

[CharlesWayneCT]

All we need from government is for government to use it’s power to ensure that companies live up to whatever private agreements they have been a party to.

So if Comcast wants to interrupt my service, they need to make that clear in our agreement. If not, government should punish them.

[dila813]

Regulations are the number one way corporate america destroys competition — they may pretend not to like regulations, but government regulations make it impossible for newcomers to break into a business."

How right you are. Lets look at the Tobacco Regulations and the Tobacco Taxes

Phillip Morris raised holy hell then their profits went way up. Lets look at their stock chart and we can see it shot into the stratosphere.

When someone goes to buy a pack of cigarettes, they make a rational decision on price vs quality. These tobacco taxes made the relative difference between brands disappear causing the cigarette buyer to prefer the premium brand.

The government is perverse. They demonized Phillip Morris and in the process of signing these taxes into place created a situation where the government became their best ally.

http://www.dailyfinance.com/quotes/philip-morris-international-inc-common-stock/pm/nys

Look from Feb 2009 till now, ridiculous!

[CharlesWayneCT]

It’s pretty clear it does. Verizon provides several services over the same wires. I have phone, TV, and internet. The phone is sold as a 24/7 availability, complete with 8-hour battery backup so it is supposed to work even in a power failure.

The TV is sold as a 24/7 service for all the channels I paid for in my lineup. If at ANY time ANY channel shows pixelation, much less completely fails to show up, I call their service, and they respond.

The Internet is sold as an on-demand service with speeds only advertized as being “up to” the amount I paid, with clear notation that the service can be interrupted, and can be effected by other internet users.

So yes, I fully expect that if Verizon gets to a situation where they have to choose between me receiving a TV channel, or my neighbor playing an online game, they better choose my TV channel — it’s the agreement that both me and my neighbor signed.

Of course, the FCC apparently wants to change my contract out from under me.

As to movie downloads vs games, that’s simply the nature of the service — the movie can be downloaded in spurts, so interruptions don’t matter, while the game demands full-time service.

And I presume that, if there is a market for it, some company will create and sell a service that provides what gamers need.

In the meantime, I find that by buying the larger bandwidth that I don’t really need, I get enough headroom that my son rarely complains about his internet gaming.

[dila813]

Down with that, we have fraud laws.

All Congress needs to do is state they have to make full disclosure and if they mess with your service they will be smacked by you with a fraud suit in your local small claims court.

[WHBates]

"So if Comcast wants to interrupt my service, they need to make that clear in our agreement. If not, government should punish them.

That's not the governments job! If your not getting the service you contracted for stop paying for the service and get it elsewhere.

If you get a rotten apple for the store do you want the storm troopers to put the produce manager in jail. Damn are we are turning into a nation of helpless morons.

[CharlesWayneCT]

PLus, they are getting rid of the wires. Verizon Fios is fiber, and they discontinue support for the hardlines as they convert people.

[dila813]

You likely will have to go to court. The Cable company likely has a contract with you.

They may try to collect the remainder of the contract or the difference between the contracted rate and a month to month rate.

I do find, that when these situations do occur, the cable company usually backs down when they discover you are ready to go to court to protect your rights.

Once that’s done, yes, go to another Internet Service Provider, they obviously don’t want your business.