Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
The Internet

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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

FCC Explicitly Prohibits Fast Lanes, Closing Possible Net Neutrality Loophole

Comments Filter:
  • by deadaluspark ( 991914 ) on Wednesday May 08, 2024 @05:06PM (#64457959)
    Still Allows Data Caps:

    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.
    • by anoncoward69 ( 6496862 ) on Wednesday May 08, 2024 @05:25PM (#64458003)
      Data caps that deprioritize data after consuming x amount of data need to exist for things like cellular data. RF is a finite resource and needs to have some regulation. There's only so much bandwidth available per cell tower and this needs to be shared by hundreds of users per tower. Last thing people want is some fool who is torrenting 24/7/365 though their cellular connection ruining the experience for everyone else served by that tower.
      • 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?

      • by jonwil ( 467024 )

        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".

    • And while I haven't read newly as much as I used to I can tell you that is way the fuck more scathing than you realize. That is the bureaucratic equivalent of the FCC saying we ain't going to do nothing just yet but y'all better watch yourselves fuckers.
  • by fahrbot-bot ( 874524 ) on Wednesday May 08, 2024 @05:49PM (#64458043)

    FCC Explicitly Prohibits Fast Lanes

    They're not "fast lanes", all the other ones are "slow(er) lanes". :-)

    • 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.

  • 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

    • by jonwil ( 467024 )

      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.

    • 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.

  • 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.

  • Alternative headline written by a publication not captured by large corporate interests.

  • Elected officials should be the ones making laws.

    Ordinary US citizens didn't vote for these people.

    And certainly not to have it dictated to ISPs what they can sell to us.

FORTH IF HONK THEN

Working...