FCC Explicitly Prohibits Fast Lanes, Closing Possible Net Neutrality Loophole (arstechnica.com) 36
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: The Federal Communications Commission clarified its net neutrality rules to prohibit more kinds of fast lanes. While the FCC voted to restore net neutrality rules on April 25, it didn't release the final text of the order until yesterday. The final text (PDF) has some changes compared to the draft version released a few weeks before the vote.
Both the draft and final rules ban paid prioritization, or fast lanes that application providers have to pay Internet service providers for. But some net neutrality proponents raised concerns about the draft text because it would have let ISPs speed up certain types of applications as long as the application providers don't have to pay for special treatment. The advocates wanted the FCC to clarify its no-throttling rule to explicitly prohibit ISPs from speeding up applications instead of only forbidding the slowing of applications down. Without such a provision, they argued that ISPs could charge consumers more for plans that speed up specific types of content. [...]
"We clarify that a BIAS [Broadband Internet Access Service] provider's decision to speed up 'on the basis of Internet content, applications, or services' would 'impair or degrade' other content, applications, or services which are not given the same treatment," the FCC's final order said. The "impair or degrade" clarification means that speeding up is banned because the no-throttling rule says that ISPs "shall not impair or degrade lawful Internet traffic on the basis of Internet content, application, or service." The updated language in the final order "clearly prohibits ISPs from limiting fast lanes to apps or categories of apps they select," leaving no question as to whether the practice is prohibited, said Stanford Law professor Barbara van Schewick.
Under the original plan, "there was no way to predict which kinds of fast lanes the FCC might ultimately find to violate the no-throttling rule," she wrote. "This would have given ISPs cover to flood the market with various fast-lane offerings, arguing that their version does not violate the no-throttling rule and daring the FCC to enforce its rule. The final order prevents this from happening."
Both the draft and final rules ban paid prioritization, or fast lanes that application providers have to pay Internet service providers for. But some net neutrality proponents raised concerns about the draft text because it would have let ISPs speed up certain types of applications as long as the application providers don't have to pay for special treatment. The advocates wanted the FCC to clarify its no-throttling rule to explicitly prohibit ISPs from speeding up applications instead of only forbidding the slowing of applications down. Without such a provision, they argued that ISPs could charge consumers more for plans that speed up specific types of content. [...]
"We clarify that a BIAS [Broadband Internet Access Service] provider's decision to speed up 'on the basis of Internet content, applications, or services' would 'impair or degrade' other content, applications, or services which are not given the same treatment," the FCC's final order said. The "impair or degrade" clarification means that speeding up is banned because the no-throttling rule says that ISPs "shall not impair or degrade lawful Internet traffic on the basis of Internet content, application, or service." The updated language in the final order "clearly prohibits ISPs from limiting fast lanes to apps or categories of apps they select," leaving no question as to whether the practice is prohibited, said Stanford Law professor Barbara van Schewick.
Under the original plan, "there was no way to predict which kinds of fast lanes the FCC might ultimately find to violate the no-throttling rule," she wrote. "This would have given ISPs cover to flood the market with various fast-lane offerings, arguing that their version does not violate the no-throttling rule and daring the FCC to enforce its rule. The final order prevents this from happening."
Still Allows Data Caps (Score:3)
542. We agree with Professor Jordan that the Commission can evaluate data caps under the general conduct standard. We do not at this time, however, make any blanket determinations regarding the use of data caps based on the record before us. The record demonstrates that while BIAS providers can implement data caps in ways that harm consumers or the open Internet, particularly when not deployed primarily as a means to manage congestion, data caps can also be deployed as a means to manage congestion or to offer lower-cost broadband services to consumers who use less bandwidth. As such, we conclude that it is appropriate to proceed incrementally with respect to data caps, and we will evaluate individual data cap practices under the general conduct standard based on the facts of each individual case, and take action as necessary.
Re:Still Allows Data Caps (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Let's say I am in a city with a busy cell network, and there is insufficient bandwidth for everyone.
Should I be penalized if I exceeded my monthly allowance in a different city, where the network is not so busy, in the days leading up to this day?
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Re:Still Allows Data Caps (Score:4, Insightful)
How do you spell entitlement?
p-a-i-d t-h-e-i-r b-i-l-l
Re: (Score:2)
As long as the data cap doesn't discriminate on what sort of data is being transfered its fine. Its OK to say "after you use x amount of data, your data connection is slowed for the rest of the month" or "any data you use above x amount is charged at $x/GB".
So you haven't read a lot of bureaucrats speak (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
All of your post is pure conjecture and has little basis in research or fact. You didn't read the order, state the background, only foisted your own reaction, which has no basis in fact.
The ISPs and telcos in the US have wide monopolies, and a history of both lying to the FCC, the general public, and their customers about their programs, plans, actual implementations, and user access. Perhaps reading the actual order might help you understand the rationale for why it was a net-neutral internet until it beca
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: This was always the plan (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That is quite the overreaction to market regulation which states what can and cannot be called "broadband internet".
Maybe enjoy an afternoon tea outside instead of the ragescrolling social media. It's rotting your brain.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe enjoy an afternoon tea outside instead of the ragescrolling social media. It's rotting your brain.
Hi Pot. Meet Kettle.
Re: (Score:2)
False dichotomy fallacy. One could easily be both.
Re: (Score:3)
They want everyone in the U.S. to be on as shitty an internet as possible to reduce the ability to communicate with each other and wuh wuhhhhh. Wuh-wuh wuhh wuuh! Wuuuuuuuh wuhh wuh wuhh wuuuh, wuuuh wuhhl wuh wuhh.
k, thanks for the contribution.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
They want everyone in the U.S. to be on as shitty an internet as possible
Or they want everyone brought up to a good speed.
Anecdote: Back when I worked for an outfit with a motor pool, I noted that our mechanics kept all the vehicles in pretty good shape. When I complemented one of them on this ha said it was because the commander always made a point of checking out the worst car.
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, how about... some semantics. (Score:5, Insightful)
FCC Explicitly Prohibits Fast Lanes
They're not "fast lanes", all the other ones are "slow(er) lanes". :-)
Re: (Score:2)
That's a pretty apt description. Thats' why they were so keen to get us onto data rationing before streaming TV hit big. Those annoying overage fees are why AOL hit it really big. Unfortunately it isn't well remembered by the PHBs out there that it's also why everyone fled AOL the moment they could.
Not Sure I Understand (Score:1)
A fast internet is going to cost $X. A faster internet is going to cost $(X + Y). So, to improve internet speed, where will Y come from? If ISP's can't charge folks for using more bandwidth or faster in order to get $Y, or does the ISP forgo $Y, make $X larger, and the internet simply is less fast than $(X+Y) because they can't charge everyone equally and bring along the average Joe that can't afford either $Y or an increased $X? It appears we're going to get a less capable internet for lack of $ to
Re: (Score:2)
Its perfectly fine to say "you can pay $x and get a 50Mbps connection or you can pay $y and get a faster 100Mbps connection" as long as all traffic is treated equally.
What the rules say is that you can't allow specific types of data (say, streaming video, VoIP, video chat/calls/conferencing, or whatever) to go faster than other types of data.
Re: (Score:2)
As it turns out, $Y came from the US Taxpayer in the form of excise taxes that went to ISPs to build a better internet, which we never got. They pocketed hundreds of billions in payments for it already.
I'd like what we paid for.
Will this stop Verizon FiOS traffic shaping? (Score:2)
I wonder if this will get Verizon to stop traffic shaping FiOS inbound? They started throttling port 443 inbound a few years ago, and since then it's spread to basically everything, including VPN. It seems to kick in after some threshold of data transfer, which will be full speed, before being throttled down to around 20 mbps going forward. Every now and then it won't engage on IPv6, and you'll stay at full speed, but within a day or so it's back to the 20 mbps throttle.
FCC Prohibits Discrimination Against Minority Apps (Score:2)
Alternative headline written by a publication not captured by large corporate interests.
explicitly prohibit laws from unelected people (Score:2)
Ordinary US citizens didn't vote for these people.
And certainly not to have it dictated to ISPs what they can sell to us.