Net Neutrality is dead. Its official. Edit: FCC's new rules protect Net Neutrality

[gho3st]

FCC approves plan to consider paid priority on Internet

The Federal Communications Commission on Thursday voted in favor of advancing a proposal that could dramatically reshape the way consumers experience the Internet, opening the possibility of Internet service providers charging Web sites for higher-quality delivery of their content to American consumers.

The plan, approved in a three-to-two vote along party lines, could unleash a new economy on the Web where an Internet service provider such as Verizon would charge a Web site such as Netflix for faster video streaming. The proposal would, though, prohibit telecom firms from outright blocking Web sites.

The plan is not a final rule, but the vote on Thursday is a significant step forward on a controversial idea that has invited fierce opposition from consumer advocates, Silicon Valley heavyweights, and Democratic lawmakers. The FCC will now open the proposal to a total 120 days of public comment. Final rules, aimed for the end of the year, could be rewritten after the agency reviews the public comments.

Critics of the plan, as it stands now, worry that it would mark the end of net neutrality, the principle that says that all content online should be treated equally by Internet service providers.

After weeks of public outcry over the proposal, FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler said the agency would not allow for unfair, or "commercially unreasonable," business practices. He wouldn't accept, for instance, practices that leave a consumer with slower downloads of some Web sites than what the consumer paid for from their Internet service provider.

Wheeler moved forward with a proposal that could allow new business arrangements between Internet service providers--such as AT&T, Verizon and Time Warner Cable--and Web content providers, such as Facebook, Google and online startups for preferential treatment online. But he also asked whether such deals should be banned outright.

"There is one Internet. It must be fast, it must be robust, and it must be open," Wheeler said. "The prospect of a gatekeeper choosing winners and losers on the Internet is unacceptable."

The prospect of telecom companies cutting deals with content providers has drawn fierce criticism from investors, startups and big Silicon Valley firms. They say smaller companies that can’t afford to pay for faster delivery would likely face additional obstacles against bigger rivals. And consumers could see a trickle-down effect of higher prices as Web sites try to pass along new costs of doing business with Internet service providers.


Even one of the Democratic commissioners who voted yes on Thursday expressed some misgivings about how the proposal had been handled.

“I would have done this differently. I would have taken the time to consider the future,” said Democratic Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel, who said the proposal can’t allow for clear fast lanes for the most privileged companies. She said she supported a proposal allowing the agency to consider questions on how it could prevent certain Web sites from being blocked, in addition to figuring out the overall oversight of broadband Internet providers.

“I believe the process that got us to rulemaking today was flawed,” she said. “I would have preferred a delay.”

Democratic Commissioner Clyburn said she also had concerns with the proposal but after a federal appeals court in January struck down the FCC’s previous attempt to implement net neutrality rules, she felt the urgency to approve baseline rules that prevent the blocking of Web sites.

Wheeler sought to defend his plan, stressing that consumers would be guaranteed a baseline of service and that the agency would beef up enforcement of companies that strike deals that are harmful for consumers or anti-competitive. The agency is considering the appointment of an ombudsman to oversee the broadband Internet industry, saying it would watch for abuse on a case-by-case basis.

“If a network operator slowed the speed of service below that which the consumer bought, it would be commercially unreasonable and therefore prohibited,” Wheeler said. “If the network operator blocked access to lawful content, it would violate our no-blocking rule and therefore be doubly prohibited.”

He did not supply many examples of what a “commercially reasonable” practice would be, which could leave room for interpretation.

But some consumer advocates doubt the FCC can effectively enforce anti-competitive practices or ensure consumers aren’t stuck with fewer choices or poorer service. They note that the FCC will only investigate complaints brought to them, and many small companies and consumers don’t have resources to alert the agency.

“No one really knows what the commercially reasonable test would look like,” said Gabe Rottman, policy advisor at the ACLU. “Even if the current Commission is acting in good faith, and we have no reason to think it is not, a vague totality test always raises the possibility of misuse.”

One idea that consumer groups applauded was on the open question of whether the government should redefine broadband Internet as a public utility, like phone service, which would come with much more oversight from the FCC.

Internet service providers strongly oppose the idea.

Treating broadband as a utility would “reverse years of settled precedent, dry up investment in broadband deployment and network upgrades, and result in protracted litigation and marketplace uncertainty,” said Michael Powell, president of the National Cable & Telecommunications Association, and former head of the FCC, in a statement.

The FCC’s proposal has sparked a massive fight between two of the most powerful industries in the country — on one side, Silicon Valley, and on the other, companies such as Verizon and AT&T that built the pipes delivering Web content to consumers’ homes. The telecom companies argue that without being able to charge tech firms for higher-speed connections, they will be unable to invest in faster connections for consumers.

 

[newworldafro]

The Internet's 51 New Regulators - WSJ.com

The Internet's 51 New Regulators
The FCC goes ahead with its plan to control Web pricing.

May 15, 2014 7:31 p.m. ET
Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler went ahead with his proposal on Thursday to give his agency the power to decide whether the terms and prices of broadband Internet services are "reasonable." That's bad enough as political discretion, but according to dissenting Commissioner Ajit Pai, regulators from every state will also be able to get into the act.

Mr. Wheeler's goal is to satisfy the "net neutrality" supporters demanding that every broadband customer receive the same deal, no matter how much bandwidth they consume. Backed by two other Democrats, Mr. Wheeler said he prefers the "reasonable" pricing standard. But he also suggested another, even worse option to regulate broadband prices: reclassifying Internet connections as "telecommunications services."

For two decades Congress has wisely refused to give the FCC the same power over the Internet that it holds over the telephone system. And for two decades the Internet has enabled a gusher of creativity that was unimaginable over a century of regulated telephony. Mr. Wheeler's brainstorm to change all this is simply to pretend the Internet is a phone network.

This would apply to today's broadband networks common-carrier rules that were designed for monopoly telephone companies—and created decades before the inventors of smart phones and social media were even born. Since this designation would automatically impose myriad obligations that have nothing to do with current customer needs—and that many modern firms could not possibly fulfill—the commission would then have to issue a flurry of exemptions ("forbearance" in FCC parlance) to prevent chaos in the market for Internet connections.

Think of this as ObamaCare for the Web: enact an unworkable system and then get busy issuing waivers to prevent the new system from operating as designed.

GOP Commissioner Michael O'Rielly, who also dissented, notes that the FCC's net-neutrality campaign "rests on a faulty foundation of make-believe statutory authority." But even if the FCC can persuade federal courts to accept one of its methods to assert control over the Internet, that still doesn't mean the agency can satisfy the net-neutrality crowd.

That's because for all the complexity and lawyering the new regulations would bring, no law has ever said carriers can't charge different prices for different services. If Google and Netflix want to push a lot of content over the Internet and ensure its smooth delivery to customers, they will need to pay more than the start-up sending the occasional packet of data.

Yet net-neutrality supporters have cast their campaign as a cause on behalf of start-ups. The fear is that big broadband companies will block access to small websites. Mr. Wheeler's FCC claims "there are no rules on the books to prevent broadband providers from limiting Internet openness by blocking content or discriminating against consumers and entrepreneurs online." But this is false. As former FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell has noted, the Federal Trade Commission already has ample authority to go after businesses that mistreat customers, online or off.

The one sure result if telecom regulation is applied to the Internet is that fewer new networks will be built, and fewer start-ups will even try. The FCC will now await public comment on its two regulatory alternatives before it writes a final rule. As wireless Internet entrepreneur Brett Glass tweeted after the FCC vote: "May need to try selling my business before anything like this can be enacted."

 

[newworldafro]

 

[newworldafro]

Where them bhots at??

 

[newworldafro]

It doesn't say it in this article ..... .. I wonder why?? ....but there is supposed to be like 120 day period for public input about this "proposal". ....Curious how Congress is going to respond to this if at all.


http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/16/t...to-net-neutrality.html?hpw&rref=business&_r=0

By EDWARD WYATTMAY 15, 2014

WASHINGTON — Federal regulators appear to share one view about so-called net neutrality: It is a good thing

Spoiler

Before the plan becomes final, though, the chairman of the commission, Tom Wheeler, will need to convince his colleagues and an array of powerful lobbying groups that the plan follows the principle of net neutrality, the idea that all content running through the Internet’s pipes is treated equally.

While the rules are meant to prevent Internet providers from knowingly slowing data, they would allow content providers to pay for a guaranteed fast lane of service. Some opponents of the plan, those considered net neutrality purists, argue that allowing some content to be sent along a fast lane would essentially discriminate against other content.

(You gotta love how they make people that see this "proposal" is going discriminate against website that can't pay money for a "fast lane" as "purists" as if they are behind the times)


“We are dedicated to protecting and preserving an open Internet,” Mr. Wheeler said immediately before the commission vote. “What we’re dealing with today is a proposal, not a final rule. We are asking for specific comment on different approaches to accomplish the same goal, an open Internet.”

(Last time I checked the internet is already open )

 

[gho3st]

Where them bhots at??

this some hoe ass shyt

 

[2Quik4UHoes]

The greed is astounding.

 

[Maddmike]

Man i used to rep so hard for that man....

 

[DEAD7]

I voted for him the first time, and would probably do it again knowing what I know now, but the second election

 

[ADK]

 

[Tommy Fits]

We're doing all we can do like complaining on the internet and complaining on the internet about how we're too lazy to fight back, what else are we supposed to do ?

 

[newworldafro]

this some hoe ass shyt

not sure if you saying this proposed rulling is some hoe as shyt or my pictorial disgust is some hoe ass shyt .... personally I agree with the bolded

 

[Calmye]

Vote 3-2 on something that will effect negatively for millions of Americans siding with a former telecommunications lobbyist and big business rather then the consumer.

FCC Votes For Plan To Kill Net Neutrality

U.S. telecommunications regulators on Thursday formally proposed new "net neutrality" rules that may let Internet service providers charge content companies for faster and more reliable delivery of their traffic to users.

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler has come under fire from consumer advocates and technology companies for proposing to allow some "commercially reasonable" deals in which content companies could pay broadband providers to prioritize traffic on their networks.

Wheeler's two fellow Democrats at the FCC concurred with him for a 3-2 vote to advance the proposal

 

[radio rahiem]

corporate shills reach across the aisles all the time

 

[Meta Reign]

Why are you surprised by democrats being corporate sell outs, OP?