FCC Says It Will Rewrite Net Neutrality Rules

[cal04]

Source: Huffington Post

The Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler will once again seek to set rules that make sure broadband providers do not discriminate or block any content on the Internet, a senior FCC official said on Wednesday.

The FCC will not appeal a U.S. court decision last month that rejected a previous version of these rules because of the way the FCC had classified broadband providers, the official said.

But the court said the commission does have the authority to regulate broadband access under Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and the FCC will use that authority to review how it can bring back non-discrimination and no-blocking regulations while complying with the court order.

Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/19/fcc-net-neutrality_n_4815957.html

---

(snip)
During a press call Wednesday, a senior agency official said Wheeler will not be attempting to reclassify Internet providers, nor will the FCC appeal the court’s decision.

Instead, Wheeler will start a new process and seek public comment to create rules that keep providers from blocking and slowing access to websites, the official said.

Wheeler will look to the agency’s Data Roaming Order — a set of 2011 rules that requires wireless companies to offer data roaming arrangements to each other on “commercially reasonable terms and conditions” — which a federal court upheld after Verizon Wireless challenged the rules, according to the official.

The FCC will also enhance the net-neutrality rules’ transparency provision, which requires Internet providers to be transparent about how they manage network traffic and was upheld by the federal court earlier this year.

http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/198704-fcc-revives-net-neutrality



(snip)
Wheeler seems to have seized what he's called the court's "invitation" to act boldly under Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act, which gives the FCC authority to regulate broadband infrastructure deployment. Under the FCC's reading of that statute, the agency can make rules on Web traffic discrimination because of the relationship between the free flow of information and the expansion of new technologies and services.

As it considers rewriting the net neutrality rules to more explicitly rely on Section 706, the FCC will simultaneously keep open the possibility of "reclassifying" broadband providers. Such a step would allow the FCC to regulate ISPs just like it does phone companies, and policy watchers say reclassification would grant the FCC unambiguous authority to regulate broadband providers with a blanket ban on traffic discrimination. Keeping reclassification on the table effectively gives the FCC a nuclear option to use as a deterrent against companies that want to prioritize Internet traffic.

A senior FCC official also hinted Wednesday that the commission would be using its Section 706 authority to investigate state-level laws banning the rollout of city-built broadband networks. Many cities, such as Longmont, Colo., and Chattanooga, Tenn., have tried to construct their versions of Google Fiber and to run them like public utilities — much to the frustration of incumbent cable companies and other large Internet providers that view the upstarts as potential competitors.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/02/19/heres-the-fccs-new-plan-to-bring-back-network-neutrality/

[berni_mccoy]

1. Asking the PUBLIC to contribute to creating policy instead of LOBBYISTS?

Brilliant!

[shenmue]

2. Freedom of the press extends to shiny things with buttons

[durablend]

3. I don't like this though...

http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2014/02/19/fcc-proposes-open-internet-approach/5607129/

The process could be painful for the commission as not all members are on board. "I am deeply concerned by the announcement that the FCC will begin considering new ways to regulate the Internet," said FCC commissioner Mike O'Rielly in a statement.

O'Rielly has a different take on the court decision and the authority the FCC has regarding its ability to regulate the Net. "We should all fear that this provision ultimately may be used not just to regulate broadband providers, but eventually edge providers," that provide services across the Net, he says. "Instead of fostering investment and innovation through deregulation, the FCC will be devoting its resources to adopting new rules without any evidence that consumers are unable to access the content of their choice."

Translated: "I don't see anything happening! The cable companies said they wouldn't do anything bad and I believe them!"

Sounds like Mr. O'Rielly has been paid off.

[arcane1]

5. O'Rielly sounds like he's running for office. As a republican.

[cal04]

9. Surprise surprise.

NOT


Prior to joining the agency Commissioner O’Rielly served as a Policy Advisor in the Office of the Senate Republican Whip, led by U.S. Senator John Cornyn, since January 2013. He worked in the Republican Whip’s Office since 2010, as an Advisor from 2010 to 2012 and Deputy Chief of Staff and Policy Director from 2012 to 2013 for U.S. Senator Jon Kyl.

http://www.fcc.gov/leadership/michael-orielly

[2banon]

8. Yes, I translated in the same way. FCC historically divided by party

It may have seemed like a good idea, but I think we need a different approach to "balancing" commissions.

Naturally, there's going to be "opposition" given the political make up of the board. What will be interesting, is to hear from the other commissioners - to gauge their allegiances i.e. pro-corporate or pro-public interest?

[freshwest]

17. Sounds like a hangover from Michael (THE FREE MARKET IS MY GOD!) Powell as FCC head. We went to make

public commentary when Bush was in office and Powell was in charge, pushing to allow the billionaire media owners to take over even more outlets of information. But to no avail, as Powell just had to have his way and push his Libertarian bulshit.

It increased the consolitation into fewer hands which is precisely what FDR set up the FCC to stop from happening, to have diverse opinions expressed to prevent the monopoly we now see fully baring its fangs in M$M.

Obama's new appointee to the FCC may sway the vote to keep the internet's flow of information open to all, and not go the path of economic apartheid created by the private sector everywhere.

The public meetings may be held in person as they were under Powell in numerous cities or they may take public comments online, which may be more appropriate.

[BodieTown]

4. Are We Pleased?

Like all news stories related to "net neutrality" (wazzat?), they read like Ben Stein is lecturing us.

(Not faulting you, cal04, just the people who write these stories)

[2banon]

7. At the moment, I'm quite pleased and I'm a critic.

[2banon]

6. Well now. THIS is an interesting turn of events.

Devils in the details, but this does look promising. If these efforts actualize, we don't need Congressional Hearings (Dog and Pony shows) to support rule changes in advance. (whew)

However, in order for rule changes to be sustained, extending beyond current administrations, there will need to be some sort of legislation (I think) in place at some point, in order to prevent dismantling by Pro-Corp functionary appointees in future administrations.

I'm very pleased to see public hearings also mentioned.

Let's see how this actually plays out..

This a good sign, let it be sincere.

[JDPriestly]

10. I'm not encouraged. This process will take a long time, and unless the internet is reclassified

I think this is yet another attempt to kick the can of internet neutrality down the road until the public becomes tired of fighting over it. This is not good as far as I am concerned. We have seen this with the pipeline. While people are protesting, no definitive denial of the pipeline has been issued. The corporatsters are just trying to tire the public. They want to stall until the public gets too tired to protest.

That is what will happen with net neutrality under the strategy that Wheeler is suggesting. He needs to start the process of reclassifying the internet providers if he wants to protect internet neutrality. That is my take on the situation and Wheeler's announcement.

[cui bono]

18. Yes, why can't they just reclassify it? That's where the problem lies, in how the classified it

to begin with - classifying ISPs as information services instead of telecommunications services.

[Javaman]

11. did this come on the tails of Verizon charging for netflix or before?

the door has been kicked open and only now the FCC basically says, "I don't think anyone could have predicted this!"

[Lawlbringer]

12. Netflix is going to be the rallying point

because sometimes the simplest things can be used to set big precedents.

[BlueStreak]

13. Why does nobody ever talk about the obvious solution?

Which is to allow (or even require) internet providers to charge based on the bandwidth consumed. If a person wants to run Netflix, then they will pay that bandwidth and there would be no valid argument for a cable supplier to discriminate.

People should pay for what they use.

[cui bono]

19. I don't think I really agree with that.

We didn't get charged per usage for telephones. Except long distance I guess. But for TV we don't. Doesn't matter how much you use, you pay monthly. Or in the past we didn't pay at all, just stuck the antennas out there!

We're already charged for varying speeds. And as more and more shifts to the internet and streaming and cloud services I think most people will get priced out if they have to pay per usage.

[Recursion]

21. The TV signal gets sent whether you're tuned in or not; there's no marginal cost

There's a marginal cost for data.

We didn't get charged per usage for telephones.

Huh? I guess more plans are unlimited now, but that's a very recent thing, and nobody thought it was crazy back when we paid per minute.

[BlueStreak]

22. Right, and if the guy down the street is hurting my performance because he watches porn all day

he should be paying for that.

As a side benefit, this would quickly identify hundreds of thousands of zombie machines. There are loads of computers out there where the owners have no idea that their machines are sending out loads of data every day because they are part of a zombie bot network. If people paid for their bandwidth, that would be a real incentive to clean up these machines.

[djean111]

23. First, United States providers have, IMO, a shitload of bandwidth. They are just dribbling it out

on order to maximize profits.
Second, if ISPs start charging for bandwidth, they will initially get a lot more profit. And then people will start using less bandwidth. Which will cut into online companies' profits. And also - the corporations of today NEVER take a cut in profits because less of whatever is being used. They will just start charging more for other things in order to meet quarterly profit increases demanded by Wall Street.

If we all use less water, water gets more expensive. If we use less electricity, rates go up. Because profits must never go down, people just are expected to make do with less.

[BlueStreak]

24. In the aggregate, maybe. But not in my neighborhood

Cable is a shared resource and there are definitely times where my run us hammered hard. The evenings are the wordt, and that is probably because of people streaming Netflix onto their teevee sets. It sucks for me.

[cui bono]

25. Yeah, I don't think there's actual cost for them for broadband data.

The cost is in the infrastructure isn't it? And they are already denying us the best of that. We are so behind compared to other countries.

I'm not talking cell phones, I was actually talking about those old fashioned landlines, although I have unlimited data on my cell for a reasonable price, for now. If I want to upgrade to a subsidized phone I have to get a new contract which will force me to go on a tiered plan. But there are companies that offer that at a reasonable price although they might throttle your speed if you use it a lot.

[durablend]

14. And as usual, Republicans are OUTRAGED

http://www.pcworld.com/article/2099360/republicans-protest-fccs-net-neutrality-move-isps-less-concerned.html

Some Republican policymakers objected to a new U.S. Federal Communications Commission plan to reinstate its net neutrality rules after a court threw them out, but broadband providers appeared to be less concerned.

Wheeler’s announcement drew criticism from two senior Republicans on the U.S. House of Representatives Energy and Commerce Committee.

“No matter how many times the court says ‘no,’ the Obama administration refuses to abandon its furious pursuit of these harmful policies to put government in charge of the Web,” Representatives Fred Upton of Michigan and Greg Walden of Oregon said in a joint statement. “These regulations are a solution in search of a problem, and with the many issues on its plate ... it would be wise for the commission to focus on fostering economic growth, job creation, and competition.”

Yes, EVIL BAMA again using his DICTATORIAL powers to DENY broadband providers their GOD GIVEN RIGHT to rip consumers off and to limit the internet to only acceptable (GOP) content.

[alp227]

15. +NY Times:

F.C.C. to Try Again on ‘Net Neutrality’

WASHINGTON — The chairman of the Federal Communications Commission will propose new rules to encourage equal access to the web, by pushing Internet providers to keep their pipelines free and open.

The proposal on so-called net neutrality, to be introduced by Tom Wheeler, the chairman of the commission, will prohibit broadband companies from blocking any sites or services from consumers. It will also aim to prevent Internet service providers from charging content companies for access to a faster, express lane on the web.

The move by the commission comes as it begins considering Comcast’s bid to buy Time Warner Cable. The deal, which would unite two of the nation’s largest cable and broadband providers, has raised concerns that the merged company would have the heft to strong-arm Internet content players, like Netflix and Amazon, into paying for the right to reach broadband customers.

[alp227]

16. AP: FCC won't appeal ruling on Internet neutrality

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/fcc-wont-appeal-ruling-internet-neutrality

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Federal Communications Commission says it won't appeal a court decision that struck down rules it designed to ensure that the transmission of all Internet content be treated equally. The agency says it will fashion new rules.

The chairman of the FCC announced Wednesday that the agency will rewrite the anti-discrimination and anti-blocking rules following the ruling by a federal appeals court last month. The ruling said the FCC has the authority to regulate broadband providers' treatment of Internet traffic but the agency failed to establish that its regulations don't overreach.

The court's decision could affect the prices consumers pay to access entertainment, news and other online content.

FCC chairman Tom Wheeler said in a statement the agency will propose new rules to meet the court's requirements.

[L0oniX]

20. They will have a secret meeting with Comcast/Verizon/TimeWarner/ATT/Brighthouse/Cox/etc...

to work out a deal for the public good ...and Chris Christie has a bridge for sale too.

IMO OC1, OC2 and OC3 should all be owned or directly controlled by the FCC as a vital national security interest. Coin it like that and it will get action.