10 ms·

The title and post are both quite misleading. The commissioners didn't approve Tom Wheeler's plan (to regulate the Internet under Section 706), but voted to go

by sinak 12y ago

The title and post are both quite misleading. The commissioners didn't approve Tom Wheeler's plan (to regulate the Internet under Section 706), but voted to go ahead with the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and commenting period. Tom Wheeler stated multiple times that Title II classification is still on the table. There'll now be a 120 day commenting period; 60 days of comments from companies and the public, and then 60 days of replies to those comments from the same. After that, the final rulemaking will happen. It's likely that the docket number for comments will continue to be 14-28, so if you want to ask the FCC to apply common carrier rules to the Internet under Title II, you can do so here: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/upload/display?z=r8e2h http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/upload/display?z=r8e2h and you can view previous comments here: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment_search/execute?proceeding=14-28 http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment_search/execute?proceeding=1... It's probably best to wait until the actual text of the NPRM is made public though, which'll likely happen very soon. Edit: WaPo have now updated the title of the article to make it more accurate: "FCC approves plan to consider paid priority on Internet." Old title was "FCC approves plan to allow for paid priority on Internet."

worace 12y ago
Adding to the confusion, the NYT has an article up right now which seems to report the opposite. To quote from the NYT article lede: "WASHINGTON — The Federal Communications Commission voted 3-2 on Thursday to invite public comment on a set of proposed rules aimed at guaranteeing an open Internet, prohibiting high-speed Internet service providers from blocking or discriminating against legal content flowing through their pipes. " Am I reading this wrong or does that seem to say the opposite of what WaPo is saying?
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  You are reading it correctly. And the NYT seems to be reporting it correctly. While the text is not published yet anywhere I can see, the FCC fact sheet states that the proposal (direct quotes with only formatting/presentation changes) [1]: - Proposes to retain the definitions and scope of the 2010 rules, which governed broadband Internet access service providers, but not services like enterprise services, Internet traffic exchange and specialized services. - Proposes to enhance the existing transparency rule, which was upheld by the D.C. Circuit. The proposed enhancements would provide consumers, edge providers, and the Commission with tailored disclosures, including information on the nature of congestion that impacts consumers’ use of online services and timely notice of new practices. - As part of the revived "no-blocking" rule, proposes ensuring that all who use the Internet can enjoy robust, fast and dynamic Internet access. - Tentatively concludes that priority service offered exclusively by a broadband provider to an affiliate should be considered illegal until proven otherwise. - Asks how to devise a rigorous, multi-factor "screen" to analyze whether any conduct hurts consumers, competition, free expression and civic engagement, and other criteria under a legal standard termed "commercial reasonableness." - Asks a series of detailed questions about what legal authority provides the most effective means of keeping the Internet open: Section 706 or Title II. - Proposes a multi-faceted process to promptly resolve and head off disputes, including an ombudsperson to act as a watchdog on behalf of consumers and start-ups and small businesses. http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2014/db0515/DOC-327104A1.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2014...
  - worace 12y ago
    awesome, thanks for the thorough clarification; will have to take some time to peruse that doc
  - sinak 12y ago
    It's important to note that the FCC is avoiding dealing with the peering issue (so, for example, Netflix's issue) with their current proposal. Wheeler specifically said that they want to delay that part of the net neutrality debate until later. In my view that's a mistake.
    - ep103 12y ago
      Nah, not a mistake, Wheeler's leadership has been rock solid!
    - dragonwriter 12y ago
      I think that the concerns that the stated goals of this effort cannot be met without addressing peering is a concern that should certainly be raised in the comment period (I'm not sure I agree with it, but I'm sure that some of the people raising it have thought about it more than I have and can present an argument that lays out why that is the case so it can be evaluated.)
  - bcohen5055 12y ago
    Can someone please clarify this line: "- Tentatively concludes that priority service offered exclusively by a broadband provider to an affiliate should be considered illegal until proven otherwise." the offered exclusively line is what gets me, if they offer a "fast lane" at a higher price to everyone it isn't an "exclusive" offer and therefore would be allowed?
    - dragonwriter 12y ago
      > if they offer a "fast lane" at a higher price to everyone it isn't an "exclusive" offer and therefore would be allowed? No, if it isn't an exclusive offer, then it would be tested under the test for which they seek input from the public under the next bullet point (which directly addresses the limits on the FCC's authority established in the D.C. Circuit opinion striking down the last Open Internet order.) The clear intent is to find a way to limit paid prioritization to the extent that is consistent with the limits on the FCC's authority established by the courts (because, if they exceed that authority, then the whole thing gets thrown out, which is why we are back at rulemaking on this issue again right now.)
- nashequilibrium 12y ago
  This is a bit concerning as a number of non tech people but people that just use facebook, instagram, gmail ect that i have spoken to are confused. It would be nice to see a simplification so that the avg guy in the street can understand the effects of this.
dragonwriter 12y ago
> WaPo have now updated the title of the article to make it more accurate: "FCC approves plan to consider paid priority on Internet" That makes it only marginally less of a misrepresentation. The only universe in which this is a change toward allowing/considering paid prioritization is one in which the D.C. Circuit did not strike down the old Open Internet order. Its plain and simply a plan, on the question of paid prioritization, to restrict it, not "allow" or "consider" it, given that it is currently allowed without restrictions. Any policy change can only be accurately be described in relation to the status quo to which it is a change.
arunabha 12y ago
Thanks for the link to comments. Its important to let the FCC know what the people think, however I really feel that would take an organized effort to stop this now and I don't mean just tech companies. Turning internet users into a captive audience to be sold can't be good for tech workers in the long run. I there any grassroots organization which can/is opposing this ? I'd love join and contribute against this effort in an organized fashion.
Shivetya 12y ago
What gets me is this was a party line vote. So is it good the three voted for this or was it good the other two voted against? Whose on whose side here?
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  As has always been the case for quite some time, the 3 Democratic commissioners are in favor of adopting regulations enforcing net neutrality principles (though they often differ with each other and some members of the pro-neutrality community over details of the best way to do so within the constraints of existing law, which the FCC can't change), and the two Republican commissioners think that the FCC should not regulate at all to enforce those principles. There's more confusion because much of the media coverage is ignoring the fact that the FCC's old order was struck down by the courts as exceeding the FCC's authority, so that the current status quo is that there is no regulation in this area (except the transparency rule from the old order, which the court let stand), so even if the attempt to work within the court order makes the non-discrimination provision of a new order weaker than the old order, it's not a weakening of existing non-discrimination rules, because there are no existing non-discrimination or non-blocking rules. > Whose on whose side here? The pro-neutrality side on the FCC is the side that is proposing rules aimed at acheiving neutrality as far as possible under the court-imposed limits and seeking input from the public about how to make those rules most effective. The anti-neutrality side is the side that is opposed to the idea of any kind of rules on this issue.
- LeafyGreenbriar 12y ago
  Well, the Republicans voted against it because they believe that ANY regulation of broadband is unnecessary and beyond the FCC's power anyway. The Democrats believe that the federal government, acting through the FCC, should regulate broadband. Both sides seem to accept the idea of an "internet fast-lane," they just disagree about how to get there. None of them are on our side.
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    >Both sides seem to accept the idea of an "internet fast-lane" I don't see how you get that from the actual facts here, where the FCC (on a 3-2 party-line vote) first adopted regulations with non-discrimination provisions that were struck down by the D.C. Circuit, and then put together (on the same 3-2 vote) a proposal designed to revive those same provisions to the extent consistent with the limits on the FCCs authority laid out in the decision striking the old order down, and specifically calling for public comment on how best to structure the rules within the limits imposed by the Court to prevent discrimination. Its clear that one side has no problem with the idea of a "fast lane", but I don't see where you get that for the other side.
relampago 12y ago
Is anyone here opposed to net neutrality? Haven't heard a good argument for this action yet.
- sounds 12y ago
  I think there is a semantic problem with just throwing out the words "net neutrality," because I see two different sides pulling in two different directions. I think no one is opposed to ISPs operating in their customer's best interest, specifically delivering internet at advertised speed. I think there's a real need for more ISP competition and less collusion/vertical integration (NBC-Universal-Comcast-Time Warner). If the ISPs start shoving non-paying sites into a slow lane a class action lawsuit makes sense, not congressional oversight – because congressional oversight generally makes things worse. If the FCC classifies ISPs as Title II common carriers, that lawsuit might have legs. Also, Comcast is threatening to divest themselves of the ISP business and just be a media company (if ISPs become Title II) – sounds good to me, that way the ISP can compete just on its merits and not on how much money it brings NBC-Universal. I'd like to avoid getting congress involved, that's all.
  - msprague 12y ago
    People want a fair playing field, but is title II the best way to achieve that? Does anyone know of a more effective solution?
  - sliverstorm 12y ago
    Comcast is threatening to divest themselves of the ISP business and just be a media company No kidding? I hadn't heard about that. I wonder if that means they'll be selling off the pipes cheap...
mortenjorck 12y ago
Ok. That's 120 days to make Title II a household word. Broadband's current classification as an information service, as if it's some sort of MovieFone for the 21st century, is so far removed from reality that the public should be in an uproar about it. Verizon itself has sought to classify its fiber buildouts under Title II so it can get fixed-rate access to existing right-of-way infrastructure, [1] on the technicality that its VOIP service running across those lines is regulated under Title II. Yet the main reason for building it is, of course, broadband, which dodged Title II on the even flimsier grounds of those ISP email and start pages you never use. People should be holding signs outside the FCC building with "Title II" on them. The chair of the National Cable and Telecommunications Association, Michael Powell, has ominously said attempts to reclassify broadband as Title II would be "World War III"[2] – but if he wants a fight, the FCC really should oblige him, and consumers should be beating the drums. [1] http://www.theverge.com/2014/5/14/5716802/game-of-phones-how-verizon-is-playing-the-fcc-and-its-customers http://www.theverge.com/2014/5/14/5716802/game-of-phones-how... [2] http://www.theverge.com/2014/1/15/5311948/net-neutrality-and-the-death-of-the-internet http://www.theverge.com/2014/1/15/5311948/net-neutrality-and...
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > People should be holding signs outside the FCC building with "Title II" on them. Or, you know, submitting comments to the FCC answering the question explicitly raised in the call for comments as to whether Title II or Section 706 is the most appropriate authority for Open Internet regulations with clear, specific, and coherent reasons why Title II is the right answer and how it should be applied. The battle over getting Title II into consideration has already been won. The front has moved on to the details.
  - dllthomas 12y ago
    Or both and more!
- cookiecaper 12y ago
  Michael Powell was himself the chairperson of the FCC not so long ago. I don't think there'd be much success waging a war against him.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
anigbrowl 12y ago
I wonder if this is anything to do with the fact that the Washington post is now owned by Jeff Bezos, who would be at a disadvantage if two-tier broadband increased the cost of things like Amazon Prime video.
throwawayFCC 12y ago
This comment is misleading. Actual Administrative Law practitioner here. The commissioners basically approved Tom Wheeler's plan, and there's no meaningful recourse for the path ahead. Saying that something is "on the table" ignores the realities of promulgating new regulations. Are they going to rewrite the regulations? No way. It's not how the process works. There's no incentive for changing the rules -- because they'd need to have ANOTHER rulemaking after this one for the specific language. That would take YEARS AND YEARS. The only illusorily democratic process left for THIS NPRM is for the FCC to read your comments and respond to them in a detailed, written method. If they fail to implement that process (i.e., to read stuff, write down that they read the stuff, and write sophistry in response), the courts can tell them to go back and read them again and address the comments. But the FCC has the authority to move forward on that, and you can't vote them out of office.
sinak 12y ago
The full text of the FCC's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking was just put online here: http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-14-61A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-14-61A... This was just released - I imagine there'll be a surge in articles once journalists have had time to digest the full document.

by sinak 12y ago

worace 12y ago

Adding to the confusion, the NYT has an article up right now which seems to report the opposite. To quote from the NYT article lede: "WASHINGTON — The Federal Communications Commission voted 3-2 on Thursday to invite public comment on a set of proposed rules aimed at guaranteeing an open Internet, prohibiting high-speed Internet service providers from blocking or discriminating against legal content flowing through their pipes. " Am I reading this wrong or does that seem to say the opposite of what WaPo is saying?

dragonwriter 12y ago
You are reading it correctly. And the NYT seems to be reporting it correctly. While the text is not published yet anywhere I can see, the FCC fact sheet states that the proposal (direct quotes with only formatting/presentation changes) [1]: - Proposes to retain the definitions and scope of the 2010 rules, which governed broadband Internet access service providers, but not services like enterprise services, Internet traffic exchange and specialized services. - Proposes to enhance the existing transparency rule, which was upheld by the D.C. Circuit. The proposed enhancements would provide consumers, edge providers, and the Commission with tailored disclosures, including information on the nature of congestion that impacts consumers’ use of online services and timely notice of new practices. - As part of the revived "no-blocking" rule, proposes ensuring that all who use the Internet can enjoy robust, fast and dynamic Internet access. - Tentatively concludes that priority service offered exclusively by a broadband provider to an affiliate should be considered illegal until proven otherwise. - Asks how to devise a rigorous, multi-factor "screen" to analyze whether any conduct hurts consumers, competition, free expression and civic engagement, and other criteria under a legal standard termed "commercial reasonableness." - Asks a series of detailed questions about what legal authority provides the most effective means of keeping the Internet open: Section 706 or Title II. - Proposes a multi-faceted process to promptly resolve and head off disputes, including an ombudsperson to act as a watchdog on behalf of consumers and start-ups and small businesses. http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2014/db0515/DOC-327104A1.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2014...
- worace 12y ago
  awesome, thanks for the thorough clarification; will have to take some time to peruse that doc
- sinak 12y ago
  It's important to note that the FCC is avoiding dealing with the peering issue (so, for example, Netflix's issue) with their current proposal. Wheeler specifically said that they want to delay that part of the net neutrality debate until later. In my view that's a mistake.
  - ep103 12y ago
    Nah, not a mistake, Wheeler's leadership has been rock solid!
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    I think that the concerns that the stated goals of this effort cannot be met without addressing peering is a concern that should certainly be raised in the comment period (I'm not sure I agree with it, but I'm sure that some of the people raising it have thought about it more than I have and can present an argument that lays out why that is the case so it can be evaluated.)
- bcohen5055 12y ago
  Can someone please clarify this line: "- Tentatively concludes that priority service offered exclusively by a broadband provider to an affiliate should be considered illegal until proven otherwise." the offered exclusively line is what gets me, if they offer a "fast lane" at a higher price to everyone it isn't an "exclusive" offer and therefore would be allowed?
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    > if they offer a "fast lane" at a higher price to everyone it isn't an "exclusive" offer and therefore would be allowed? No, if it isn't an exclusive offer, then it would be tested under the test for which they seek input from the public under the next bullet point (which directly addresses the limits on the FCC's authority established in the D.C. Circuit opinion striking down the last Open Internet order.) The clear intent is to find a way to limit paid prioritization to the extent that is consistent with the limits on the FCC's authority established by the courts (because, if they exceed that authority, then the whole thing gets thrown out, which is why we are back at rulemaking on this issue again right now.)
nashequilibrium 12y ago
This is a bit concerning as a number of non tech people but people that just use facebook, instagram, gmail ect that i have spoken to are confused. It would be nice to see a simplification so that the avg guy in the street can understand the effects of this.

dragonwriter 12y ago

> WaPo have now updated the title of the article to make it more accurate: "FCC approves plan to consider paid priority on Internet" That makes it only marginally less of a misrepresentation. The only universe in which this is a change toward allowing/considering paid prioritization is one in which the D.C. Circuit did not strike down the old Open Internet order. Its plain and simply a plan, on the question of paid prioritization, to restrict it, not "allow" or "consider" it, given that it is currently allowed without restrictions. Any policy change can only be accurately be described in relation to the status quo to which it is a change.

arunabha 12y ago

Thanks for the link to comments. Its important to let the FCC know what the people think, however I really feel that would take an organized effort to stop this now and I don't mean just tech companies. Turning internet users into a captive audience to be sold can't be good for tech workers in the long run. I there any grassroots organization which can/is opposing this ? I'd love join and contribute against this effort in an organized fashion.

Shivetya 12y ago

What gets me is this was a party line vote. So is it good the three voted for this or was it good the other two voted against? Whose on whose side here?

dragonwriter 12y ago
As has always been the case for quite some time, the 3 Democratic commissioners are in favor of adopting regulations enforcing net neutrality principles (though they often differ with each other and some members of the pro-neutrality community over details of the best way to do so within the constraints of existing law, which the FCC can't change), and the two Republican commissioners think that the FCC should not regulate at all to enforce those principles. There's more confusion because much of the media coverage is ignoring the fact that the FCC's old order was struck down by the courts as exceeding the FCC's authority, so that the current status quo is that there is no regulation in this area (except the transparency rule from the old order, which the court let stand), so even if the attempt to work within the court order makes the non-discrimination provision of a new order weaker than the old order, it's not a weakening of existing non-discrimination rules, because there are no existing non-discrimination or non-blocking rules. > Whose on whose side here? The pro-neutrality side on the FCC is the side that is proposing rules aimed at acheiving neutrality as far as possible under the court-imposed limits and seeking input from the public about how to make those rules most effective. The anti-neutrality side is the side that is opposed to the idea of any kind of rules on this issue.
LeafyGreenbriar 12y ago
Well, the Republicans voted against it because they believe that ANY regulation of broadband is unnecessary and beyond the FCC's power anyway. The Democrats believe that the federal government, acting through the FCC, should regulate broadband. Both sides seem to accept the idea of an "internet fast-lane," they just disagree about how to get there. None of them are on our side.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  >Both sides seem to accept the idea of an "internet fast-lane" I don't see how you get that from the actual facts here, where the FCC (on a 3-2 party-line vote) first adopted regulations with non-discrimination provisions that were struck down by the D.C. Circuit, and then put together (on the same 3-2 vote) a proposal designed to revive those same provisions to the extent consistent with the limits on the FCCs authority laid out in the decision striking the old order down, and specifically calling for public comment on how best to structure the rules within the limits imposed by the Court to prevent discrimination. Its clear that one side has no problem with the idea of a "fast lane", but I don't see where you get that for the other side.

relampago 12y ago

Is anyone here opposed to net neutrality? Haven't heard a good argument for this action yet.

sounds 12y ago
I think there is a semantic problem with just throwing out the words "net neutrality," because I see two different sides pulling in two different directions. I think no one is opposed to ISPs operating in their customer's best interest, specifically delivering internet at advertised speed. I think there's a real need for more ISP competition and less collusion/vertical integration (NBC-Universal-Comcast-Time Warner). If the ISPs start shoving non-paying sites into a slow lane a class action lawsuit makes sense, not congressional oversight – because congressional oversight generally makes things worse. If the FCC classifies ISPs as Title II common carriers, that lawsuit might have legs. Also, Comcast is threatening to divest themselves of the ISP business and just be a media company (if ISPs become Title II) – sounds good to me, that way the ISP can compete just on its merits and not on how much money it brings NBC-Universal. I'd like to avoid getting congress involved, that's all.
- msprague 12y ago
  People want a fair playing field, but is title II the best way to achieve that? Does anyone know of a more effective solution?
- sliverstorm 12y ago
  Comcast is threatening to divest themselves of the ISP business and just be a media company No kidding? I hadn't heard about that. I wonder if that means they'll be selling off the pipes cheap...

mortenjorck 12y ago

Ok. That's 120 days to make Title II a household word. Broadband's current classification as an information service, as if it's some sort of MovieFone for the 21st century, is so far removed from reality that the public should be in an uproar about it. Verizon itself has sought to classify its fiber buildouts under Title II so it can get fixed-rate access to existing right-of-way infrastructure, [1] on the technicality that its VOIP service running across those lines is regulated under Title II. Yet the main reason for building it is, of course, broadband, which dodged Title II on the even flimsier grounds of those ISP email and start pages you never use. People should be holding signs outside the FCC building with "Title II" on them. The chair of the National Cable and Telecommunications Association, Michael Powell, has ominously said attempts to reclassify broadband as Title II would be "World War III"[2] – but if he wants a fight, the FCC really should oblige him, and consumers should be beating the drums. [1] http://www.theverge.com/2014/5/14/5716802/game-of-phones-how-verizon-is-playing-the-fcc-and-its-customers http://www.theverge.com/2014/5/14/5716802/game-of-phones-how... [2] http://www.theverge.com/2014/1/15/5311948/net-neutrality-and-the-death-of-the-internet http://www.theverge.com/2014/1/15/5311948/net-neutrality-and...

dragonwriter 12y ago
> People should be holding signs outside the FCC building with "Title II" on them. Or, you know, submitting comments to the FCC answering the question explicitly raised in the call for comments as to whether Title II or Section 706 is the most appropriate authority for Open Internet regulations with clear, specific, and coherent reasons why Title II is the right answer and how it should be applied. The battle over getting Title II into consideration has already been won. The front has moved on to the details.
- dllthomas 12y ago
  Or both and more!
cookiecaper 12y ago
Michael Powell was himself the chairperson of the FCC not so long ago. I don't think there'd be much success waging a war against him.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

anigbrowl 12y ago

I wonder if this is anything to do with the fact that the Washington post is now owned by Jeff Bezos, who would be at a disadvantage if two-tier broadband increased the cost of things like Amazon Prime video.

throwawayFCC 12y ago

This comment is misleading. Actual Administrative Law practitioner here. The commissioners basically approved Tom Wheeler's plan, and there's no meaningful recourse for the path ahead. Saying that something is "on the table" ignores the realities of promulgating new regulations. Are they going to rewrite the regulations? No way. It's not how the process works. There's no incentive for changing the rules -- because they'd need to have ANOTHER rulemaking after this one for the specific language. That would take YEARS AND YEARS. The only illusorily democratic process left for THIS NPRM is for the FCC to read your comments and respond to them in a detailed, written method. If they fail to implement that process (i.e., to read stuff, write down that they read the stuff, and write sophistry in response), the courts can tell them to go back and read them again and address the comments. But the FCC has the authority to move forward on that, and you can't vote them out of office.

sinak 12y ago

The full text of the FCC's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking was just put online here: http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-14-61A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-14-61A... This was just released - I imagine there'll be a surge in articles once journalists have had time to digest the full document.