FCC Passes Net Neutrality Rules
It's the beginning or the end of the Internet, depending on which side of the line you're standing on.
Tuesday the Federal Communications Commission approved new rules that prohibit phone and cable companies from discriminating against or favoring Internet content and services.
The news arrived by way of a presentation in Washington D.C. By FCC chairman Julius Genachowski. According to reports, the FCC's three Democrats voted to pass the new rules and the two Republicans voted against them, calling the rules "unnecessary regulation." Afterward the Republican party on Capitol Hill quickly responded to Genachowski's speech, vowing to block the new negotiations by introducing a "resolution of disapproval."
In the meantime, the new "net neutrality" rules are broken down into six primary components:
1. Consumers and innovators have a right to know the basic performance characteristics of their Internet access and how their network is being managed.
2. Consumers and innovators have a right to send and receive lawful traffic. Consumers can go where they want, say what they want, experiment with ideas-- commercial and social, and use the devices of their choice. The rules thus prohibits the block of lawful content, apps, services and the connection of devices to the network.
3. Consumers and innovators have a right to a level playing field. The FCC rules state that no central authority, public or private, should have the power to pick winners and losers on the Internet. This is essentially a ban on unreasonable discrimination.
4. Broadband providers need meaningful flexibility to manage their networks to deal with congestion, security and other issues. The section also honors the business practice of tiered pricing.
5. The principle of Internet openness applies to mobile broadband. This means that there is only one Internet, and it must remain an open platform despite the device used for access. Mobile broadband providers are thus required to remain transparent and are prohibited from blocking websites or blocking certain applications provided by competitors.
6. The FCC will remain vigilant in promptly enforcing the rules and vigilant in monitoring developments in areas such as mobile and the market for specialized services which may affect Internet openness.
To enforce the new rules, the FCC has launched an Open Internet Advisory Committee that will assist the Commission in monitoring the state of Internet openness and the effects of the rules. It has also launched an Open Internet Apps Challenge at challenge.gov to stimulate app developers into creating tools that will help consumers monitor their own broadband connections.
"Today, for the first time, we are adopting rules to preserve basic Internet values," Genachowski said. "For the first time, we'll have enforceable rules of the road to preserve Internet freedom and openness."
Genachowski's entire public address can be accessed here in PDF format.
- WikiLeaks App Mysteriously Pulled from iTunes
- PlayStation Phone May Launch April 2011
- Fossil's Watch Keeps Tabs on Your Smartphone
- ClearPlate: New Life for Handheld Scanners
- Google Sued For Exposing Woman's Underwear
- Google Continues the Gift of Free Phone Calls
- U.S. Soldier in Afghanistan Got $16,000 AT&T Bill
- UK Government Looking to Ban All Internet Porn
- Automato57: The Robotic Burger Flavor Enhancer
- The Keyboard You Keep Away from Pandas
- Electromagnetic Railgun Launches Space Shuttle
- Oriental Hornets Powered by Solar Energy
- Apple, Orange, BlackBerry Are All Fruits Too
- First Screens for Ghostbusters: Sanctum of Slime
- Early Access to Gears 3 With Bulletstorm Epic Ed.
- Mobile Carriers May Charge Per Page
- VIDEO: Motorola's Epic Tablet Teaser
- Microsoft Accepting Pre-orders for ExoPC Tablet
- Ben Heck Mods PS3 For Use in Afghanistan
With all that's going lately with Wikileaks and internet censorship, I'm pleasantly surprised to see the US government taking the side of the people on this one. Kudos.
A pleasant piece of news there
It's great to see such rule in place at a time when it was most needed.
US of A is always the champion of democracy and freedom. I hope it stays that way.
US of A is always the champion of democracy and freedom. I hope it stays that way.
ehh? you've overlooked the last 200 years of history me thinks ... obama's the only time in modern history where the country's been respectable and democracy still keeps being masacred in cali every day.
What, really? REALLY? I don't even have jokes, puns, or snide comments for this one. + 1 for the good guys!
Surprised by the comments here. "Big Tele," including AT&T lobbysists, are incredibly happy with what the FCC did. The net neutrality rules are horrible for the general public. For more information, check out http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jaso [...] 99844.html
5. The principle of Internet openness applies to mobile broadband. This means that there is only one Internet, and it must remain an open platform despite the device used for access. Mobile broadband providers are thus required to remain transparent and are prohibited from blocking websites or blocking certain applications provided by competitors.
So surely this means apple have to cave into flash?
What exactly is "lawful" content? The internet is global and laws are local -- something America seems to never have quite grasped.
From what I understand at least, these new rules are good for us. Kudos!
5. The principle of Internet openness applies to mobile broadband. This means that there is only one Internet, and it must remain an open platform despite the device used for access. Mobile broadband providers are thus required to remain transparent and are prohibited from blocking websites or blocking certain applications provided by competitors.So surely this means apple have to cave into flash?
No it just means that the service provider isn't allowed to block flash. The rotting Apple can however choose not to support flash.
ok tell me, what is bad about this?
it adds nothing that they didnt already have, and all i can see is good for consumers.
they say lawfull content, are you thinking that things like wiki leaks will be banned than? really i want to know because this is something that conspryacy people openly rant about, but their cases are all what if.
This is bad entirely because of point 4 which totally negates all the good done by enshrining the rest of the rights.
By allowing ISP's and telecomms companies to dictate Tiered usage and access will create a seperated web of haves and have nots, for example AT&T can say on "basic" tier you get 512k connection for $5 a month so no chance of reasonably viewing youtube and for the "premium tier 20mb connection at only $20 pcm!!
the end of the free internet is here mark the date on your calenders folks 21/12/2010
Great news, but as far as I can see it, rule 4 technically authorizes throttling. Hmmm...
Great news, but as far as I can see it, rule 4 technically authorizes throttling. Hmmm...
Ye but only with regards to network congestion. It probably just means they can do QoS to prioritise voip and other latency sensitive things.
This is a great step forward.
It's good to see rules that should be there.
WTF is rule 4 doing there!?!
And here i was wondering if i was the only one who saw the rule allowing telecom companies to regulate/throttle etc. I agree with RIP, with these FCC rules companies are going to go apeshit with their pricing and models and its going to make Australia's internet companies look lke gods.
This is the section you all seem to be missing...
4. Broadband providers need meaningful flexibility to manage their networks to deal with congestion, security and other issues. The section also honors the business practice of tiered pricing.
This gives ISP's the right to block, throttle or charge you more to access certain sites. It also allows them to charge websites for access to high speed connections, even when they are not on their service. this one little rule in the middle of all the others DESTROYS net neutrality and removes any restrictions on ISP's to manage, censor or manipulate their service. It is happening now in the USA, soon your net will be the same as China's. The UK is following suit as will all other so called free societies
Yeah, I smelled some bias on this story. First off, all politicians are corrupt no matter what side of the aisle. That said, no politician would declare war on a bill like described in this article for such a meaningless reason as "Unnecessary regulation" if the bill were as good as this article makes it seem. They'd appear stupid and their re-elections would be threatened. Tea party demands can only be taken so far at this point.
Secondly, the fact that the reason stated is so bland and vague it makes me think that there was something else at work here, and this is all from the first few paragraphs.
Also, a newsletter I receive advocating video game rights, typically a liberal domain given the gratuitous violence and occasional sexual themes in video game conflicting with traditional conservative values, cried foul at this ruling which puts people on both sides arguing against it. Which, consequently, is completely different from how this article portrayed it with Dems in favor and Repubs against, split right down the aisle.
Finally, we get to part four with the tiered pricing. This bites consumers in rather sensitive places: their wallets.
Honestly, net neutrality seems like a great idea but this does not accomplish what everyone said it was out to.
ok tell me, what is bad about this? it adds nothing that they didnt already have, and all i can see is good for consumers. they say lawfull content, are you thinking that things like wiki leaks will be banned than? really i want to know because this is something that conspryacy people openly rant about, but their cases are all what if.
It adds laws on the books regarding the internet, currently there were none.
ISPs have nothing to gain from censoring things like wikilinks, which is 100% legal despite what some blowheart politicians say on TV. This is more about preventing ISPs from blocking or slowing down content, such as slowing down your high definition video steams on youtube unless you subscribe to some stupid "HD access" plan.
Wait, maybe I'm still confused, lol...it appears #4 is exactly what I thought this bill prevented. Anybody care to explain?
These rules are a Trojan Horse. Looks nice at first but it's a trap.
As opposed to reading some BS announcement read the actual items the FCC is voting on. They are basically handing the government the right to control the internet. The whole "net neutrality" meme is simply a shiny facade on more intrusion.
Someone explain how it is the FCC is empowered to oversee the internet anyway.
So this means back bone providers can sale to the highest bidder? Small ISP's bidding on bandwidth are destroyed having to go against google and such. So as others have said we will be throttled or pay a higher price.
I am curious why everyone keeps saying the USA is a Democracy when it NEVER was supposed to be one. It was ALWAYS supposed to be a Constitutional republic. People need to learn their history.
Did anyone here ever think... WHO DEFINES THE TERM "LAWFUL" ? Yep, lets let some more political bureaucrats decide these things for you, instead of yourselves.
You people are sick, cheer and cheer as your freedoms go down the drain. Have fun
Not that it affects Indians, but a pleasant move by the world's most influential country [ yet
]
Does this institute tethering?
I'm curious if this will somehow change things for google tv. Right now many of the major broadcast companies are blocking google tv. Not sure if this would be in the same realm of discussion.
My main take away from this is maybe some day I can do wifi tethering legally on my Droid Incredible without having to pay verizon......
Ye but only with regards to network congestion. It probably just means they can do QoS to prioritise voip and other latency sensitive things.
It's possible that is the intention of item 4, but it's far more likely that the ISPs will use this as the loophole that it is, rather than behave as they are expected.
I'd argue that anytime a corporation is presented with the options A) Act in the intention of regulations and behave in a manner which is beneficial to the public, versus B) Act in such a way which, while still within the bounds of the regulation, increase the corporation's sphere of influence, profit, property, or control, corporations will almost always go with option B.