4 ms·
Non-Discrimination Requirement : In providing broadband Internet access service, a provider would be prohibited from engaging in undue discrimination against a
by Ardit20 16y ago
Non-Discrimination Requirement
: In providing broadband Internet access service, a provider would be prohibited from engaging in undue discrimination against any lawful Internet content, application, or service in a manner that causes meaningful harm to competition or to users.Prioritization of Internet traffic would be presumed inconsistent with the non-discrimination standard, but the presumption could be rebutted.
Network Management
: Broadband Internet access service providers are permitted to engage in reasonable network management. Reasonable network management includes any technically sound practice: to reduce or mitigate the effects of congestion on its network; to ensure network security or integrity; to address traffic that is unwanted by or harmful to users, the provider’s network, or the Internet; to ensure service quality to a subscriber; to provide services or
capabilities consistent with a consumer’s choices; that is consistent with the technical requirements, standards, or best practices adopted by an independent, widely-recognized Internet community governance initiative or standard-setting organization; to prioritize general classes or
types of Internet traffic, based on latency; or otherwise to manage the daily operation of its network.
Additional Online Services
: A provider that offers a broadband Internet access service complying with the above principles could offer any other additional or differentiated services. Such other services would have to be distinguishable in scope and purpose from broadband Internet access service, but could make use of or access Internet content, applications or services and could include traffic prioritization. The FCC would publish an annual report on the effect of these additional services, and immediately report if it finds at any time that these services threaten the meaningful availability of broadband Internet access services or have been devised or promoted in a manner designed to evade these consumer protections.
Wireless Broadband:
Because of the unique technical and operational characteristics of wireless networks, and the competitive and still-developing nature of wireless broadband services, only the transparency principle would apply to wireless broadband at this time. The U.S. Government Accountability Office would report to Congress annually on the continued
development and robustness of wireless broadband Internet access services.
Case-By-Case Enforcement:
The FCC would enforce the consumer protection and
nondiscrimination requirements through case-by-case adjudication, but would have no rulemaking authority with respect to those provisions. Parties would be encouraged to use non-governmental dispute resolution processes established by independent, widely-recognized Internet community governance initiatives, and the FCC would be directed to give appropriate deference to decisions or advisory opinions of such groups. The FCC could grant injunctive relief for violations of the consumer protection and non-discrimination provisions. The FCC could impose a forfeiture of up to $2,000,000 for knowing violations of the consumer-protection or non-discrimination provisions. The proposed framework would not affect rights or
obligations under existing Federal or State laws that generally apply to businesses, and would not create any new private right of action.
All of the above is the most evil thing I have heard being said about the internet!
- tkahn6 16y agoAll of the above is the most evil thing I have heard being said about the internet! Uh, why?
- Ardit20 16y agoBecause it smacks of second class citizens all over it.
- moultano 16y agoHow so?
- inc 16y agoAs wireless becomes faster and cheaper, more people will use it instead of wireline. Only those who can afford wireline will have full access.
- Ardit20 16y agoWell to just provide one example, Verizon would only have to pay $2,000,000 if they knowingly violate the statue. No criminal sanctions. They can thereafter continue to violate it and just pay another two million. It is a bit of a business deal. If you can get in more money then out, then you are good. The FCC, or anyone else, has no other authority. Why such a low figure, we are dealing with massive corporations who would notice 2 millions as much as I would notice 2 dollars. The general public, that is people like me and you, would need to depend on the FCC, and have no rights, which is not quite understandable. Why should I not be able to sue them for discriminating against me? Because of course Verizon is a party to the "law proposal". Besides, there are exceptions clearly. The FCC would need to enlarge very much if they are to deal with all the complains and have the time to analyse them and follow them through and in the end only be able to impose a miniscule fine. Not to mention that the providers would have the authority to outright prioritise internet traffic provided they go through some hoops and any lawyer would know just how difficult that is.
- 16y ago