nsane.forums Posted December 21, 2010 Share Posted December 21, 2010 Approves regulations that require all ISPs to publicly disclose their network traffic management practices, restricts them from blocking legal content and applications, and bars them from "unreasonable discrimination" of lawful network traffic. Today the FCC voted, in the words of Chairman Julius Genachowski, to "preserve Internet freedom and openness," establishing for the first time regulations governing the Internet. "Now, for the first time, we'll have enforceable, high-level rules of the road to preserve Internet freedom and openness," he says in a press release. By a 3-2 votethe FCC enacted rules that require all ISPs to publicly disclose their network traffic management practices, restricts them from blocking legal content and applications, and bars them from "unreasonable discrimination" of lawful network traffic. Here are some key excerpts: Rule 1: Transparency A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service shall publicly disclose accurate information regarding the network management practices, performance, and commercial terms of its broadband Internet access services sufficient for consumers to make informed choices regarding use of such services and for content, application, service, and device providers to develop, market, and maintain Internet offerings. Rule 2: No Blocking A person engaged in the provision of fixed broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not block lawful content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices, subject to reasonable network management. A person engaged in the provision of mobile broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not block consumers from accessing lawful websites, subject to reasonable network management; nor shall such person block applications that compete with the provider's voice or video telephony services, subject to reasonable network needs. Rule 3: No Unreasonable Discrimination A person engaged in the provision of fixed broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not unreasonably discriminate in transmitting lawful network traffic over a consumer's broadband Internet access service. Reasonable network management shall not constitute unreasonable discrimination. Chairman Genachowski makes the excellent point that unless the FCC guarantees free and unfettered access to all legal content and services ISPs could take advantage of their position and prevent competitors from reaching their customers. He reminds us that "broadband providers have natural business incentives to leverage their positions as gatekeepers of the Internet in ways that would stifle innovation and limit the benefits of the Internet." "Given the importance of an open Internet to our economic future, given the potentially irreversible nature of some harmful practices, and given the competition issues among broadband providers, it is essential that the FCC fulfill its historic role as a cop on the beat to ensure the vitality of our communications networks and to empower and protect consumers of those networks," he adds. In an illustration of the partisan divide that currently plagues the nation's capitol, the FCC's vote fell along ideological lines. The two Democrat commissioners felt the new regulations didn't go far enough while the two Republican commissioners felt no new Internet regulations were needed at all. Commissioner Mignon Clyburn (D) said that she would have extended Net Neutrality regulations to mobile connections, would've banned usage-based billing outright, and wants to guarantee to that an open Internet is "available to all end users" no matter their classification. Commissioner Meredith Attwell Baker ® said it was "not a consumer-driven or engineering-focused decision," and that it foolishly attempts to fix that which isn't yet broken. The theme behind the two Republican commissioners dissent appears to be that they think the private sector is best suited to sorting out problems in the marketplace, and that in the absence of any identifiable problems the FCC ought not to interfere. The Democrats, on the other hand, counter, and rightly so, that ISPs in many cases lack real competition in the marketplace, and that Americans need to have regulations in place that protect the "openness" of their Internet connections. "Allowing gigantic corporations—in many cases, monopoly or duopoly broadband Internet access service providers—to exercise unfettered control over Americans' access to the Internet not only creates risks to technological innovation and economic growth, but it poses a real threat to freedom of speech and the future of our democracy," said Commissioner Michael Copps (D) after the vote. "Increasingly our national conversation, our source for news and information, our knowledge of one another, will depend upon the Internet. Our future town square will be paved with broadband bricks. It must be accessible to all—not handed over to a handful of gatekeepers who can control our access." Precisely. If consumers had a plethora of ISPs to choose from then the discussion about Net Neutrality would be much different. However, fixed line broadband remains clustered in regional monopolies where ISPs hold sway over a captive consumer base. The private sector is hardly suited to "sort itself out" if consumers can't force its hand by choosing a competing service. Moreover, the FCC decision hands President Obama an important legislative victory. During the 2008 campaign he affirmed his support for Net Neutrality to "protect the openness of the Internet." View: Original Article Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ambrocious Posted December 22, 2010 Share Posted December 22, 2010 What really happened.......How Liberty Dies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myidisbb Posted December 22, 2010 Share Posted December 22, 2010 ant yet the most importment wasnt done. no monthly band caps Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HX1 Posted December 22, 2010 Share Posted December 22, 2010 If this is all up front.. which I have seen things of this nature go on in the past... Concerning something and I don't remember what.. This could be VERY GOOD... I remember there was another Topic here on this and several more at the Change.org Website... There have been several views.. as I have read and it would seem.. Nobody at that point.. were even close to what it entailed... We have laws against Monopolization here.. that I know.. BUT a situation in which we face with Providers like now... is not covered.. There is no 'Code of Conduct'.. these guys can run amuck like a shade tree mechanic... and the thing about the Usage-Based Projected Billing.. I know from first hand experience that should be covered... This laws are not created to overturn these companies into government branches.. as some would have you believe, for nefarious means... Instead its keeping them from bending you over the fence and crippling advancement and progress.. I thought it was a good idea in the beginning.. and now that I see some off what is being included and means I think it is again.. Some of the other items in the government agenda.. of supposedly in the agenda I don't agree with... Like censorship.. and some other things that I have actually signed petitions about... Some of the inclusions.. that some connect with it.. It should be correctly focused.. and objective.. I hope they have done that well..EDIT: What I wish there was.. a centralized location of the Bills and Laws... in their entirety.. for Public Review... not a database of the real thing.. but something that can be reviewed and updated as this things come along.. Would really leave speculation out the door.. in many ways I see it as that most are left in the dark... completely about what it is and isn't.. it is left open to speculation and to the point that anyone can say anything about it.. I think it could be a good thing.. for several reasons.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myidisbb Posted December 22, 2010 Share Posted December 22, 2010 If this is all up front.. which I have seen things of this nature go on in the past... Concerning something and I don't remember what.. This could be VERY GOOD... I remember there was another Topic here on this and several more at the Change.org Website... There have been several views.. as I have read and it would seem.. Nobody at that point.. were even close to what it entailed... We have laws against Monopolization here.. that I know.. BUT a situation in which we face with Providers like now... is not covered.. There is no 'Code of Conduct'.. these guys can run amuck like a shade tree mechanic... and the thing about the Usage-Based Projected Billing.. I know from first hand experience that should be covered... This laws are not created to overturn these companies into government branches.. as some would have you believe, for nefarious means... Instead its keeping them from bending you over the fence and crippling advancement and progress.. I thought it was a good idea in the beginning.. and now that I see some off what is being included and means I think it is again.. Some of the other items in the government agenda.. of supposedly in the agenda I don't agree with... Like censorship.. and some other things that I have actually signed petitions about... Some of the inclusions.. that some connect with it.. It should be correctly focused.. and objective.. I hope they have done that well..EDIT: What I wish there was.. a centralized location of the Bills and Laws... in their entirety.. for Public Review... not a database of the real thing.. but something that can be reviewed and updated as this things come along.. Would really leave speculation out the door.. in many ways I see it as that most are left in the dark... completely about what it is and isn't.. it is left open to speculation and to the point that anyone can say anything about it.. I think it could be a good thing.. for several reasons..this isnt a bill or law. just regulations. the most importment part of net neutrality wasnt even consider or passed. that being no band caps. you should be paying for a monthly unlimited access rate. not 20, 40 or 250 gb only a month crap. what at&t did with ne users on IpHONES will kill them in the end. people want to use what they pay for not be caped and forced to use stuff the isp wants you to use.btw i think there is a public place for reviewing bills. i know there was a push for it by the GOP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.