The FCC sided with the consumer !

Modelworks

Lifer
Feb 22, 2007
16,240
7
76
wow, almost fell out of my chair. The FCC has actually done something in the consumers favor. Everyone thought it was going the other way, but the commissioner waited till about 12 hours before the vote to release what they were going to pass so they wouldn't have time to gather the lobbyist against it.

Here is what passed

First, consumers and innovators have a right to know the basic performance characteristics of their Internet access and how their network is being managed. The transparency rule we adopt today will give consumers and innovators the clear and simple information they need to make informed choices in choosing networks or designing the next killer app

Second, consumers and innovators have a right to send and receive lawful traffic -- to go where they want, say what they want, experiment with ideas--commercial and social, and use the devices of their choice. The rules thus prohibit the blocking of lawful content,apps, services, and the connection of devices to the network

Third, consumers and innovators have a right to a level playing field. No central authority, public or private, should have the power to pick winners and losers on the Internet; that’s the role of the commercial market and the marketplace of ideas. So we are adopting a ban on unreasonable discrimination. And we are making clear that we are not approving so-called “pay for priority” arrangements involving fast lanes for some companies but not others. The order states that as a general rule such arrangements won’t satisfy the no-unreasonable-discrimination standard -- because it simply isn’t consistent with an open Internet for broadband providers to skew the marketplace by favoring one idea or application or service over another by selectively prioritizing Internet traffic.

Fourth, the rules recognize that broadband providers need meaningful flexibility to manage their networks to deal with congestion, security, and other issues. And we also recognize the importance and value of business-model experimentation, such as tiered pricing. These are practical necessities, and will help promote investment in, and expansion of,high-speed broadband networks. So, for example, the order rules make clear that broadband providers can engage in “reasonable network management”

Fifth, the principle of Internet openness applies to mobile broadband. There is one Internet, and it must remain an open platform, however consumers and innovators access it. And so today we are adopting, for the first time, broadly applicable rules requiring transparency for mobile broadband providers, and prohibiting them from blocking websites or blocking certain competitive applications.


Sixth, and finally, today’s order recognizes the importance of vigilance—vigilance inpromptly enforcing the rules we are adopting and vigilance in monitoring developmentsin areas such as mobile and the market for specialized services, which may affect Internet openness. That’s why I’m pleased that we’ve committed to create an Open Internet AdvisoryCommittee that will assist the Commission in monitoring the state of Internet opennessand the effects of our rules. We’re also launching an Open Internet Apps Challenge on challenge.gov that will foster private-sector development of applications to empower consumers with informationabout their own broadband connections, which will also help protect Internet openness.
 

BoomerD

No Lifer
Feb 26, 2006
66,401
14,797
146
That won't last. ANYTHING that gets in the way of profit is Un-American and the USSC, (a wholly owned business subsidiary of Big Business, Inc.) will soon be overturned.
 

CurseTheSky

Diamond Member
Oct 21, 2006
5,401
2
0
This is a huge win for us, ESPECIALLY considering they included the clause about mobile broadband.

By the way, can you post a link to that?
 

edro

Lifer
Apr 5, 2002
24,326
68
91
I never cared about this until I moved out to BFE and have a horrible provider.
 

techs

Lifer
Sep 26, 2000
28,559
4
0
According to zdnet:

•Consumers will have a transparent view into how networks are being managed. This information will allow consumers to make a decision on whether to subscribe or use a particular broadband network.
(of course if you have only one broadband provider, you're screwed)

•Consumers and innovators “have a right to send and receive lawful Internet traffic — to go where they want and say what they want online, and to use the devices of their choice.” Blocking legal content, apps, devices and services is prohibited.
(Of course that doesn't prevent a provider from slowing down a particular app, see below)

•No central authority should be able to pick winners or losers by discriminating against “lawful network traffic.”
(notice they don't say internet provider, this is important. Why not? Why the choice of central authority? Do they mean the government can't but the internet providers can?)

•Meanwhile, broadband providers should have the “meaningful flexibility” to manage their networks. These providers should also have incentives—ie profit potential—to build out networks.
(Well, Comcast got what they wanted. The can "manage" their network. Hmm. Seems the only network management issue they had was with P2P sharing...)
 

mb

Lifer
Jun 27, 2004
10,233
2
71
So we are adopting a ban on unreasonable discrimination.


So, for example, the order rules make clear that broadband providers can engage in “reasonable network management”
What is considered reasonable and unreasonable though?? And who gets to decide? This is very important.
 
Last edited:

Modelworks

Lifer
Feb 22, 2007
16,240
7
76
What is considered reasonable and unreasonable though?? This is very important.

The important thing to remember about that is that if a provider does restrict bandwidth they would be required to make those details public. No more secretly throttling things and covering it up. Instead of the consumer wondering how the provider determines quality of service they would have to disclose that information.
 

MotF Bane

No Lifer
Dec 22, 2006
60,801
10
0
The important thing to remember about that is that if a provider does restrict bandwidth they would be required to make those details public. No more secretly throttling things and covering it up. Instead of the consumer wondering how the provider determines quality of service they would have to disclose that information.

Yeah, I'll believe that when I see it.
 

lupi

Lifer
Apr 8, 2001
32,539
260
126
It all sounds like chocolate and roses, and is in large part meaningless unless they start taking away the monopoly enabling regulations they have so the average consumer actually does have options for their braodband/entertainment provider.
 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
Lol! I still get to use reasonable network management to shape your bandwidth, applications and packets. WIN!

Hey! What are you doing to my traffic!

*reasonable network management*
 

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,650
201
101
There's a thread in "Polite" & "Nice" for this... it's not a "win" for the consumer at all. This means the ISP's will be able to charge more for faster access to certain sites, and other sites not paying big fees will be dog slow. Say goodbye to any sites that are not major business sponsored sites.
 

dullard

Elite Member
May 21, 2001
26,119
4,766
126
There's a thread in "Polite" & "Nice" for this... it's not a "win" for the consumer at all. This means the ISP's will be able to charge more for faster access to certain sites, and other sites not paying big fees will be dog slow. Say goodbye to any sites that are not major business sponsored sites.
I'm not certain what part of these rules you don't understand:
And we are making clear that we are not approving so-called “pay for priority” arrangements involving fast lanes for some companies but not others.
Of course, congress and courts can allow the faster access to certain sites that pay for it. Both of those can affect laws that override a simple FCC rule.
 
Last edited:

mb

Lifer
Jun 27, 2004
10,233
2
71
I'm not certain what part of these rules you don't understand:

Of course, congress and courts can allow the faster access to certain sites that pay for it. Both of those can affect laws that override a simple FCC rule.
The other side is that while they aren't approving it, they aren't saying they can or will stop it if it happens or that anyone needs approval in the first place.
 

BarkingGhostar

Diamond Member
Nov 20, 2009
8,410
1,617
136
According to zdnet:

•Consumers will have a transparent view into how networks are being managed. This information will allow consumers to make a decision on whether to subscribe or use a particular broadband network.
(of course if you have only one broadband provider, you're screwed)

•Consumers and innovators “have a right to send and receive lawful Internet traffic — to go where they want and say what they want online, and to use the devices of their choice.” Blocking legal content, apps, devices and services is prohibited.
(Of course that doesn't prevent a provider from slowing down a particular app, see below)

•No central authority should be able to pick winners or losers by discriminating against “lawful network traffic.”
(notice they don't say internet provider, this is important. Why not? Why the choice of central authority? Do they mean the government can't but the internet providers can?)

•Meanwhile, broadband providers should have the “meaningful flexibility” to manage their networks. These providers should also have incentives—ie profit potential—to build out networks.
(Well, Comcast got what they wanted. The can "manage" their network. Hmm. Seems the only network management issue they had was with P2P sharing...)
The only thing this will lead to in the best case scenario is to segregate their broadband data networks from their IPTV/VoIP networks and then consider consumer data services to be least deployed.